Bullying in the British Council

Hi Bloggers,

I used to be involved with BC for some of their examinations.  As part of it, I remember once doing an online Child Protection Awareness course, which was very commendable.  As it happened, it wasn't particularly relevant to me personally, as I no longer taught children, nor were there any Kids classes where I was working. 

However, what interested me about the course was that there were several threads that almost exactly corresponded with bullying in the workplace, which was something I myself experienced during my time with the British Council.  It's a pity the British Council don't do a similar course for that.  I suppose it's not as high profile and is also purely internal.  Nevertheless, they do need to have some kind of program in place.

At present, they try to deal with it informally first, and then you have the option to make a grievance if all this fails.  What they don't have is an independent person or body to look at the situation.  What this means is that one has to complain first to one's immediate supervisors.  But what if they are they very ones you feel you are being bullied by?

Generally, managers within the BC close ranks if one of their own is criticized.  They're extremely hypocritical in this respect.  Trying to get anyone to take you seriously is almost impossible. Basically, they will fob you off with banal generalisations, like it's good to listen to feedback and criticism, or I don't know enough about the background or simply pass the buck to someone else.  In fact, this is exactly what the regional head, Andrew Spells, did to me.  No one will take up your cause.  They will do everything they can to block you.  Your only hope may be the Teachers' Rep, but, in reality, he has almost no power, as he is basically just another teacher.

Another thing is that bullying is often vague and ill-defined, and usually difficult to prove.  Often it's just a sustained attitude of treating someone as being of no value.  It can often be an accumulation of small incidents. It's also difficult to report because you may feel fazed by the bully and fear further reprisal.   I remember I tried to bring it up with the deputy centre manager where I was working (Ian Shears) because I felt I was getting unfair treatment from my line manager, but incredibly he just ignored me, not even calling me in for a chat.  Instead, in the end he wrote me this amazing email, in which he had come to the conclusion that no bullying was taking place, since he had observed my interaction with the alleged bully, my line manager.  But obviously a bully is going to behave correctly when he knows he's being observed.  What happens behind closed doors may be completely different.  Another thing the manager did was to copy the bully in on my original email, which he did out of "courtesy" to the latter, with absolutely no regard for my right to confidentiality.  There was certainly no courtesy towards me.  Needless to say, my relationship with the bully worsened significantly, the final result being a career damning end of year report.

So my suggestion is that they have an unbiased independent officer or body, similar to that prescribed for Child Protection, to look at any grievance of this nature.  This is important because it will remove the possibility of managers closing ranks and put them under some pressure to live up to British Council standards.  They need to be accountable just like anyone else.

The Rise of Cliquism

Hi Bloggers,

The British Council has a fairly bizarre method of recruitment, in that all contracts are only for fixed periods.  There are no permanent jobs.  Also, most centres insist that teachers move on every four years.  So when a teacher or manager's time comes, it is hardly surprising that a certain amount of insecurity occurs.  One of the ways some managers resolve this situation is through developing a clique system.  Effectively, they can rotate jobs or create new posts so that friends can stay on.  In many ways this is an unfortunate scenario, yet at the same time is an intelligent solution to a problem that the British Council creates for itself.  A great example of this is seen in Bangkok.  You can be sure that many of the managers there will still be there ten years from now.  They will control everything in the foreseeable future.  Non-clique members, on the other hand, will have difficulty establishing themselves.  Bahrain also provided an excellent example when they had the ex-Sri Lanka clique, which was then replaced by a group more defined by age than anything else.  Ageism, incidentally, is rampant within the BC.

One way this is maintained is through the job interview system, since all interviews and positions are based on a competency test rather than a holistic assessment of the candidate.  As a result the system can easily be manipulated.  For example, it's very easy to massage the results of an interview and claim that on a particular day a candidate performed better than  another one.  A holistic interview, which might include age, character, commitment, years of service, contributions to date, etc, would be more difficult to twist.  I experienced this myself when I was in Bahrain.  The dominant clique at the time basically saw me as too old and as not fitting in with their particular vision.  Basically, it was ageism.   Despite having been with the BC for seven years and having had my Diploma for over two years, a younger teacher who hadn't even completed her first two year contract was given the coordinator position on offer over me.  Needless to say she was a clique member.

Thus generally making progress within the BC is a very precarious business and depends largely on who likes  you and who doesn't.  In some ways that's human nature, but one would have hoped that an organisation like the BC would have a better system, in which a teacher could develop his career in a much more progressive kind of way rather than depend on the hit or miss system currently in place. 

Valuing people

Hi Bloggers,

During my time at the British Council, "valuing people" was one of the main features of the British Council's overall vision and ethos.  We often had in house developmental sessions on this and other related virtues, such as creativity or mutuality.  I remember once even having a whole day devoted to it.  But the reality within the BC is that absolutely none of the managers actually care about it.  They only pay lip service to it.   It is only the teachers themselves who might practice it.  And I must say that the BC does have some excellent teachers.

It's a pity the same can't be said about the managers.  In my experience, most of them were completely indifferent.  If ever you had a problem or issue, it always felt like their attitude was "how can I get rid of you?" rather than "how can I help you?"  Their favourite line was "see your line manager", which effectively mounted to "don't bother me".  The real tell tale sign, though, was the complete lack of any follow-up.  There was never a "how are things now?" or "did you get that sorted?" etc.  Just the inevitable silence.  Once you'd been got rid of, that was it.  I always used to joke that if we could develop life-like androids, this is probably what they'd be like.

During almost all my time with the BC and particularly during my saga with the management in Bahrain in 2012 (see background), I remember I was at no stage treated like someone of value or worth. In fact, rather the opposite.  My line manager at the time, with the highly appropriate initials SS, seemed just hell bent on doing me down.  It was like he was out to "get" me.  I sometimes felt like I was in the police interrogation room having a confession beaten out of me.  He'd never accept my answers, usually implying that I was a liar.  And there were very few sessions with him in which I did not receive some sort of reprimand.  It was as if he felt it was a point of honour to do so.  God knows what kind of management training he had had.  Old school to say the least.  More suited to the military than a "caring" organisation.

So what I would suggest to the management is that they try genuinely to practice what they preach.  What they need to do is try to imagine how they would run a place if they actually owned as a private enterprise.  Their indifference to individual's circumstances and development would quickly become apparent.  As surely one of the golden rules of successful management is that a workforce that feels it is being recognised will perform better than one that doesn't.  Unfortunately, the penny doesn't yet seem to have dropped within the British Council.

As mentioned in one of my other posts. Managers need to know their teachers properly.  They need full dossiers on their achievements, strengths, what makes them tick.  Most importantly, though, they need to take an active interest, and towards this end I would suggest a bi-annual one to one meeting with teachers.  This is what would make teachers feel they are being noticed and recognised, and ultimately valued.  Teachers need to feel connected with the senior management, which is unfortunately something sadly missing now. 

Let's hope they see the light

Management Culture

My theme of the day is the management culture within the British Council.  There are two main features I've noticed - firstly, avoidance and denial, and, secondly, that procedures are more important than people.  Regarding the first, if there is any kind of problem, most BC managers will initially try and see if they can simply ignore it and hope it goes away.  Just stodge it out, so to speak. Failing that, they will either try and pass it on to someone else or simply deny it.  I experienced this first hand when I was unfairly treated last year, through both their failing to follow their own procedures and also some pretty blatant bullying by my line manager.  No matter which manager I approached, they either said it was somebody else's problem or just blanked me out with generalities.  No manager would actually consider the possibility that I had a case worth considering or look at the specifics.  Basically, they closed ranks on me and shut me out completely.  This was my own particular experience, but I know there are countless other examples from speaking with my former colleagues. 

Clearly, they need a system and a managerial mindset that allows complaints to be made without the risk of the complainant becoming a pariah.  The teacher's rep system is not enough.  They need to appoint an unbiased officer who deals specifically with any kind of complaint or grievance. At present, it often the very people who dish out the punishment who also are expected to deal with it justly and objectively.  That's obviously not going to work, particularly within their cosy culture.

As for procedures being more important than people, a great example is when I myself was suspended on a clearly absurd charge of pushing politics in the classroom.  There was a complaint because some strong political remarks had been made in Arabic.  The manager obviously simply looked up his procedures manual and immediately suspended me for bringing the BC into disrepute.  He did not think of the obvious course of action of first having a private chat with me. If he had it would immediately become clear that this was a problem of Arabic in the classroom, rather than a teacher deliberately trying to stir  up trouble.  A problem that incidentally affected many other teachers too.  In addition my mother had died three days before.  Surely, anyone with people skills would have spoken to me and bent over backwards to avoid suspending at such a sensitive time?  But no, in the British Council procedures are more important than people.  The fact that I had worked at the BC for seven years and contributed in a variety of areas counted for nothing.  I was no longer a name, but was instantly transformed into an object or number to be treated as impersonally as possible according to the procedures manual.  No manager I complained to would hear anything of it.  As usual they all completely closed ranks.

So what's the solution to that kind of thing?  Well, firstly, one thing I noticed was that most managers know very little about their teachers.  If you asked any manager what a particular teacher's strengths were and what he had contributed, he or she would almost certainly come up with a blank.  Recently, it has almost a mantra to say "see your line manager", but from a teacher's point of view that's paramount to saying "don't bother me".  Not exactly a line that's going to make you feel valued.  Employees need to feel connected with senior management.  That's what makes you feel you belong, are valued and have a future within the organisation.  Without that, morale is bound to be low, particularly if the line manager is relatively junior.  So what I suggest is that there is a policy of "know your teachers" amongst managers.  Every manager should have a full dossier on what is good about every teacher and what their contributions have been.  This should also involve a bi-annual one to one meeting, where there's a real opportunity for two way communication.  This way teachers will feel valued.  Candour and engagement is what is needed, both ways.