Case Study 2 - Andrew Spells

I was really surprised last year when I noticed that Andrew Spells was the Head of Well-Being for the British Council.  To be honest, I was flabbergasted, not only because of the ridiculousness of the post itself but because I had had several personal dealings with him myself a few years before.  And, frankly, the well-being of his employees seemed absolutely the last thing he was concerned with, or at least certainly with regard to me.  I think a better job title for him would be Hypocrite-in-Chief for the British Council. I will explain below.

A few years back I was working in the Bahrain Teaching Centre and was having a really tough time, and was under huge stress. Unfortunately, it was the managers at that time who were the ones piling most of the pressure on me. So I thought I should try appealing to someone higher within the organisation, someone outside the immediate circle I was caught in, hoping they would at least provide an objective assessment.  So I chose Andrew Spells, as he was the regional head of the MENA region. I was sure he would be concerned about my predicament and would uphold the British Council values of integrity, fair play and non-discrimination.  However, to my huge disappointment, at every stage he simply took the side of the local managers. He was clearly not an honest broker, but had his own agenda of backing management whatever. My "well-being" was certainly not something on his list of priorities.

I'll just give a quick background of how the situation in Bahrain had developed. It all started when a student complained about one of my classes.  Apparently some of the Shia students had said something insulting in Arabic to some of the Sunni students.  Not being a Muslim myself, I had absolutely no idea this was going on in my class behind my back.  However, in the volatile atmosphere of 2012 the Country Director, Malcolm Jardine, decided to suspend me on gross misconduct charges for bringing the British Council into disrepute. Wow, that was quite a hit! I wasn't even called in for a chat before he made that momentous decision. What made the situation doubly difficult for me was that my mother had died just the week before.  In fact, I was still suspended when I went to her funeral. During the process, which lasted about a month, I wasn't allowed on BC premises or to communicate with anyone in the BC. Needless to say, I was finally cleared of all "charges", as they were utterly absurd, but it was hugely demoralising for me to be put through something like that.  Importantly, no one tried to rehabilitate me after the event either. However, probably to save face for himself, the Country Director decided to put me on a Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) relative to classroom management, even though no one had actually observed the class in question. And to make matters worse my line manager, Sam Stevenson, who was a real hardliner, had taken a personal dislike to me and saw the PIP as an opportunity to discipline me, despite my being 25 years his senior. I was still being treated like a guilty man. 

I must say, I had never felt so demoralised in my whole life.  I remember my feelings at the time. I felt like a trapped animal. Completely cornered. No one I could turn to. Even the centre director, Ian Shears, was totally indifferent towards me and seemed to be fully behind Sam Stevenson. There was a certain inevitability that things were going to end badly. And indeed I duly got a damning end of year report (EOYROP) from Sam Stevenson, which resulted in me having my contract revoked.

So this was context in which I appealed to Andrew Spells. What made it particularly poignant was that Sam Stevenson had never given me my annual observation, which is supposed to be stipulatory. This was significant because it gives the teacher a proper chance to show his true worth.  In fact, it was a clear breach on the management's part.  Instead I just had a series of casual observations where the focus was only to find faults. Of course, the EOYROP should be based on your overall performance for the year, which clearly the PIP did not assess.  Yet when I presented this to Andrew Spells, he brushed me off with banal statement like, "It's good to listen to feedback" or that my report was "normal".  More incredibly, he wrote that I shouldn't look at the past but at the future, even though my future with the BC was clearly damned and that looking at the past would incriminate managers.  He even tried to claim he didn't know enough about the background, even though he'd been copied into everything from the time of the suspension and I had explained everything to him fully. He also avoided answering any specific question question, but always fudged every issue, since clear answers would obviously have been incriminating.  Basically, he was supporting the management and molly-coddling me into my BC coffin.

In the end, I gave up pursuing my claim, as clearly there was a complete absence of moral or ethical standards within the British Council management. In fact, I personally consider Andrew Spell's handling of the situation an absolute disgrace, as he completely failed to uphold any of the BC's cherished values. This, however, is not unusual and I have mentioned this in some of my previous posts. The feeling with senior BC managers is that they're more interested in getting home for a cup of tea than dealing with a problem that is having a major impact on someone's life.  "How do I get this off my desk?" is how most managers think, and Andrew Spells was certainly an outstanding example of this.

Hence my amazement at his new role.  Let's briefly look at what this role is. Firstly, I'd guess it's one of those cosmetic positions the BC creates for senior managers they're moving sideways.  I don't believe anyone takes it seriously.  Nevertheless, Mr Spells will be on a fat salary (tax payers' money) and will make plenty from the lecture circuit.   It consists mainly of coming up with ideas and plans for creating a better workplace environment.  Superficially, that's fine. However, in reality, it means a lot of waffle and little real action. And be sure, Andrew Spells won't implement anything himself, that'll be delegated to others.  If you were to go direct to this "guru" of well-being he would almost certainly pass you on to someone else or get tough and hard-line you, as he did me.

Of course, you may argue that this kind of thing is no different from what happens in any other company, but I think what makes it different with the British Council is that they are a Registered Charity and have a list of core values and ethical standards, which they rant about continuously.  Therefore, there's a much greater need that they be held accountable.  Who would do that job of holding them accountable, though?

Contracts and Legal Issues

Most teachers when they sign a contract probably don't even notice many of the legal features of their contracts.  Understandably, they're usually more concerned about their salaries and benefits, etc., and assume that there won't be any glitches in their employment.  And usually they're right.  Nevertheless, it's always unwise as a point of principle not to read any contract fully and properly before signing it. 

One of the most interesting features of British Council contracts for teachers is that they almost all are subject to the law of the country the teaching centre is in rather than UK law.  What this means is that if you do have a dispute with the British Council for any reason, it will have to be done in the local courts of the country you are or were employed in.  In my opinion, this is a clever device the BC use to avoid taking responsibility.  I'll explain below.

Firstly, there's simply the awkwardness and complexity of contesting in a foreign court or tribunal system.  Initially, there's the obvious problem of language, not to mention possibly completely different cultural values, as in Muslim states for example.  But, even more importantly, what if you have already left the country, as was my case?   Yet another point is what if your case spans two different centres, again exactly as it was in my case (Bahrain and Malaysia)?  Which court do you go to?  The sheer impracticality of bringing a sustained case against the BC leaves most potential complainants completely frustrated.

I feel this is particularly hypocritical of the BC, because anyone who works for them knows that there is almost complete uniformity across all centres with regard to values, standards, procedures and practices.  To all intents and purposes one teaching centre is pretty much like another, with exactly the same forms, procedures, structures and positions.  Even the contracts are worded the same.  Often even the same people.  The BC is clearly one organisation spanning several countries with the basic blueprint ultimately coming from London.  You can argue legal technicalities till you're blue in the face, but it won't change that basic truth at ground level. 

In my opinion, this truth should be reflected in any contract's jurisdiction, which should include London as well as the local courts.  This would enable anyone who felt they had a genuine grievance to choose and continue at their leisure, knowing they have the support of the home legal system to fall back on.  Ironically, it would also make it easier for the BC in the unlikely event that they themselves wanted to bring a case.

While on the subject of the BC as a global organisation, the BC now only recruits through their regional HQ.  For example, if you wanted to work in Thailand you would have to apply through Singapore.  They've been doing this for several years now.  To me this is more confirmation that the BC is one organisation and is becoming increasingly centralised, which again should be reflected in the contract's jurisdiction.  It's an incredibly grey area, and to me a contradictory one, in that the BC say they want local centres to be more autonomous, yet are shackling them with further centralisation.

Anyway, I certainly hope none of you readers will ever have occasion to be involved in a dispute, but if you are, do be warned how complex it will be.

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.