With all due respect to Kevin Morrisey's family and friends.

Apparently it took no less than 168 posts in an internet blog to get UVa's attention at the trough. But please do not raise your hopes to high for a comprehensive investigation.

Institutional sloth, corruption and dishonesty will make every effort to cover up the dead elephant draped over the coffee table, defend the indefensible and THEN issue a sanitized yet sweet-smellling press release that the matter is all "behind us now" and THEN they'll whip out the Homecoming pompoms and the tailgating photo-ops will get underway.

NOTHING but the most agressive legal action to keep this investigation on track will force this inquiry and sadly none of this will bring this person back.

Seen it all before in Madison, WI (the capitol of the most egregious cover-ups of abuse, nepotism and corruption)

Maybe the university's HR department was unresponsive to Morrissey and other VQR staffers because HR was already assisting Genoways with his efforts to displace Morrissey. Commenters on earlier coverage of this story speculate that HR may have helped Genoways to draft his hectoring emails in an attempt to create documentation of Morrissey's "failure" to perform his duties--documentation that could then be used to justify disciplinary action and ultimately Morrissey's dismissal. This seems like a plausible thesis to me, and if Genoways was being coached by someone in HR or by a person outside of the university--a peer or professional advisor of some kind--then the role of that third party should also be examined. Genoways is responsible for acting on whatever advice he may have received, but those who encouraged or abetted his bullying should also be held accountable.

The media is starting to investigate this tragedy, esp. Dave McNair's in-depth investigative article in The Hook and Ray Sanchez's extensive piece on ABCNews.com. Links and commentary here:
http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/media-tracks-workplace-bullying-angle-in-suicide-of-virginia-journal-editor/.

David Yamada
Suffolk University Law School

How should a university consider accusations? Bullying accusations, for example? Or the bullies' accusations? After all, how do we know which is which or whose accusations merit administrative action, if any? Look at the facts, evidence, and documentation? Talk to witnesses? Get to the bottom of the accusations: "undertake a thorough review"? Learn the truth? Of course. What is the reality, though? What is the reality of university "investigation" and "intervention"? At the University of Southern Mississippi (USM), administrators took the side of the bullies, and they chose a toady ombudsman to conduct an "investigation". Administrators and ombudsman were guided by USM's attorneys, two outside law firms, and Mississippi's Institutions of Higher Learning attorneys. After several years, well over two million dollars in expenditures, and untold hours of faculty time, the "investigation" and "intervention" were a sham, and proven a sham in sworn depositions. The "investigation" and "intervention" were a disaster for the school and the target is still a tenured full professor drawing full salary and benefits. The shame of the process is that if the administrators were the least bit concerned with what was actually happening, were the least bit concerned with facts, evidence, and documentation, were the least bit concerned with assessing the accusations, the "investigation" and "intervention" would have been less costly, but more importantly, USM would have acted the promises of integrity they so proudly proclaim but do not practice. And the sad part: USM administrators have not yet learned to practice their promises of truth and integrity. For an overview of just how bad an "investigation" and "intervention" can go, see www.usmnews.net, "What does Martha D. Saunders, president of USM, think?" and "Gordon C. Cannon, Ombudsman." Also see "University and AACSB Diversity," published in the proceedings of the American Accounting Association Annual 2010 Meeting, http://commons.aaahq.org/post/3d4bfd4201.

Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA
Professor
School of Accountancy
College of Business
University of Southern Mississippi
m.depree@usm.edu

Where there is smoke there is fire. Perhaps the president should undertake a similar review of all departments and schools in the University. I know she would find that the VQR story is occurring in other units of the University. Speak with faculty and staff and get the real story and use this as an opportunity to clean house. That outcome would honor the life of the victim here.

End work place bullying at UVA. Make UVA governance and administration more democratic so the bullies can't get away with it. Jefferson's democracy was not meant solely for the voting booth but for the workplace as well. How refreshing it would be if the University actually lived up to the principles it espouses when it waives Jefferson's name around.

A new President can bring the change that many hope will prevent this type of outcome in the future.

If the information reported in the last paragraph here is correct, that is a further indictment of Mr. Genoways' failure as manager. That kind of behavior reflects a huge gap in communication between editor and staff, entirely apart from whatevery "bullying" behavior Mr. Genoways may be guilty of.---Sandy Thatcher

If my personal experience is any indication, workplace harassment and mobbing are an integral part of academic culture. I've been at three different universities in two countries and each one had its own horror stories. Anyone that stands up against institutional injustice, political pandering or the status quo is a potential target. That's why so many faculty are becoming little more than politically compliant sycophants. It's a pathetic state of affairs for institutions charged with protecting intellectual freedom and democratic dialogue. Welcome to the age of the university (read as corporate) managerial class. For those interested in the subject I would suggest Kenneth Westhues' website at the University of Waterloo.

Emery Hyslop-Margison

These issues can be more complex than some who post on this blog will admit. It might be true that HR was coaching the manager on how to build a case to dismiss or discipline an employee. That is not improper or unusual -- how else to deal with a non performing or uncooperative employee? Just let it go? Is supervisory intervention intended to correct issues of performance wrong? Or, is that the responsibility of supervisors and managers?

It seems that several posters here want to paint UV with stain from other institutions -- which clearly is pushing some agenda that may have nothing to do with the specifics of this case.

A problem with the claim of bullying is -- how can people who are charged with managing people and resources taken any steps to correct performance issues without being accused of bullying, mobbing and just being mean?

#9: People charged with managing people and resources have to remember that the people they supervise are people, that is, that they are ends in themselves, not merely means to an end. Perhaps because it's what I do, but it seems to me most clear in the book biz. There are quite a few people with good language skills who think they would make good editors, but who can't exercise the self-discipline the job requires; the short version is that there are more qualified meddlers than editors. Given that a person is clear about that distinction, it doesn't follow that a good editor is a good manager. I think the next hurdle comes down to the ability to turn the editorial critical facility on and off as needed. One of the best editors I know can't do this; unfortunately, this person tends to forget that, while mss, layouts, page proofs, etc. don't have feelings, people do. To focus on the needs and objectives of the project, the department, and the organization as a whole requires balancing sometimes-conflicting needs. It would be nice to have a magic formula for this, but "First, do no harm" gets you only so far. I've found it useful to bear in mind that we're essentially trash-collectors: we try to keep what's good, get rid of what's bad, get the good stuff spruced up for introduction to the public, and having done what we could, present it to the world. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. After a lot of years at it, I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it, but I've still got a lot to learn.

Dear "resource" (Short for human resource? A rather appalling objectification of human beings)

The notion of faculty being "managed" is itself misplaced for the context of a democratic university. That's why we have collegial faculty governance committees that oversee promotion and tenure decisions, program directions and so on. As the managerial class grows in university environments, a ballooning Leviathan, the working conditions for faculty progressively deteriorate and, ironically, financial losses for our universities escalate.

Most of the harassment I've witnessed in my decade of academic experience came from administrators or, by extension, their most willing human instruments. Some of it targeted marginal faculty, but most was a direct attack against free speech and alternative perspectives, both protected by academic freedom.

Historically, universities are not simply glorified WalMarts where faculty are fired for speaking truth to power - although they're rapidly becoming precisely that. A good housecleaning of adminstrative clutter is definitely in order and UVA is as good a place to start as any.

A short story about bullying, objectifying human beings in the work place and trying to introduce kindness and humanity into the mix.

I was new manager of a campus-wide student service division at the alleged parthenon of "liberal" and "progressive" thought. Everywhere, campus was replete with parking lots full of bumper stickers touting "social justice" when we weren't entertained by groups marching on campus to "take back the night" and provide "safe places" for nipple-ringed, tattoo'd, purple-haired freshmen.

One friday afternoon, one of my female staff came to me to let me know she would be resigning at the end of the semester (2 months away). When I asked her why, she responded that her 3 year long adoption proceedings would be coming to an end soon and she would finally have the baby she and her husband had been wanting for almost 10 years. She further explained that since her job was a F/T position, she couldn't continue after the baby arrived.

I felt really bad that the division would be losing this highly efficient, very professional and respected colleague. I went to the HR office to discuss the possibility of converting her F/T position into TWO half-times in a "job share" configuration whereby she could stay on at half time and I could hire someone else in a half-time that would complement her schedule.

HR looked at me as if I was speaking in tongues. Not one to be discouraged easily, I went to MY division head to further explore this possibility and her response was to "FIRE HER NOW" because that way I could start the search for her position right away. She refused to entertain any discussion of the 2 half-times.

I returned to HR and asked if there was anything illegal or against U. policy if I did convert the 1 F/T to 2 half-times and they replied..."that's your decision".

I filled out the necessary paperwork, gave the good news to my valued staff person, posted the new half-time, interviewed several highly motivated and qualified applicants and hired one who could not have been more perfect for the job because he was a house husband with responsibilities for 3 school-age children and his schedule and the current staffperson's schedules were perfectly yin/yang.

A few years went by, the arrangement was working out beautifully and the rest of the staff was very happy to see that they didn't have to lose their valued colleague and got another colleague with whom to share administrative chores.

My division supervisor finally retired during one Summer and I got a call from HR asking me to come in to discuss a "very serious personnel matter". I went to their office the next day to discuss the matter that I had no clue of.

Imagine my shock when HR presented me with a yellowed, 4 year old letter written by my previous dean in which she railed hysterically about what an "insubordinate", "incorrigible hire" and "non-team-player" I was. Stunned, I told HR that I had never seen this letter and that I wanted it removed immediately before I consulted an attorney re. harrassment, intimidation and not providing a safe workplace.

The attorney stunned that this had been allowed by HR, the college and was clearly in violation of U-System HR policy, wrote a letter demanding that the letter be removed immediately before I took legal action and held a press conference.

The letter was removed, I was marked as a pariah and the 2 part-timers are still in their jobs enjoying their rewarding work and never forgetting to give me updates on their families when we run into each other at the local farmers' market or art fairs.

Bullying?
Objectifying "human resources"?
Humanity?
Kindness?

The first 2 were/are in abundance on this campus.
The latter 2 occur occasionally as if by accident and are surely squelched or smashed like ants on a hot summer sidewalk.

I sleep well at night.

My previous "supervisor" just gets to look at her pile of divorce decrees, negative medical prognoses and the pile of "return to sender" letters from the 3 children who have not visited her in over a decade.

in reply to resource, who says above "It might be true that HR was coaching the manager on how to build a case to dismiss or discipline an employee. That is not improper or unusual -- how else to deal with a non performing or uncooperative employee?"

I have seen no evidence in the news accounts of this case to suggest that Mr. Morrissey was either "non performing" or "uncooperative". On the contrary, the consensus seems to be that he was a very skilled and capable managing editor. Surely Ted Genoways didn't win all those prestigious awards in spite of Mr. Morrissey. And the fact that several other VQR staff members also sought assistance from the university's HR department indicates very strongly that it was not Mr. Morrissey's performance that was the problem.

There is no substitute for the hard work of assessing accusations. University principles are often clearly written in faculty handbooks but that does not mean that they are followed. As for many of us, the observers of events from a distance, UVa may reveal important events. For the events at UVa or the University of Southern Mississippi (See #5 above) or the many instances of mobbing studied and rendered in the important research of Ken Westhues, there is no substitute for a careful and thorough reading, study, or investigation of the details and evidence. Hard work. As casual readers of a news story of UVa, we have as yet a limited perspective. I for one provide details and how you can learn more if you choose about the misconduct of administrators and some faculty at USM. But prepare for the hard work of learning details and not just from my perspective at USM, for example. Contact others who may have a different opinion. In my study of USM, I've provided many names of participants for you to question. If you wish to learn more, your responsibility is to earn it.

Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA
Professor
School of Southern Mississippi
College of Business
University of Southern Mississippi
m.depree@usm.edu
www.usmnews.net

From my perspective regarding the University of Louisville over the years,
I 'second' honore's anticipation of a sanitized press release in the wake of UVA's
investigation, in all seriousness, putting it "behind us now."

An important, and overlooked weapon in the bully's arsenal: the element of surprise,
couldn't have found a more apt portrait than honore's "short story about bullying" (#12).
Imagine the shock and confusion when, after superior ratings and assisting in implementing
positive 'upgrades' that contribute to the success of the department, everything literally
means its opposite. In the bully's world there is only one standard by which you are appraised:
the muddling undervaluing bully's herself. With no system of checks and balances, i.e. oversight
and accountability, the bully has free rein to run roughshod over the employee, and gleefully
"rub it in."

"Get back to work!" she snarled in front of patrons and fellow staffers, after refusing to
honor a doctor's note (the first in eight years). Though brought to the university's attention,
and I'm guessing, probably illegal, U of L stood their ground.

As to 'resource' #9, due to the similarities between what happened to me and what appears in other
instances of workplace bullying, I'm inclined to believe that managers are often under the direction of someone either within or outside the university. I refer to their methods as the 'playbook,' seemingly working from the same page at times. One certainly does not need to be a non-performing or uncooperative employee to garner intense, constant, negative and distracting
attention. On the contrary, the better the work, the more suspect one becomes.

And being a "teamplayer" is not about cooperating with fellow employees to get the work done
or the efforts toward a congenial work environment. Being a teamplayer means you will
play along, do the politically expedient thing, whatever the moral and human cost.

A direct line of management to the President's office will be found to be improper, and VQR will be redireced to another reporting line -- English Department, maybe?

Mr. Genoways will be given a title of creative something that will amazingly have no direct contact with the VQR staff, and in about a year will receive an opportunity outside of UVA and quietly leave. With him and the former President out of the picture, the bad guys will be gone.


It will be found that everyone in the administration did what they could -- Mr. Morrissey was too scared to file a complaint, so their hands were tied. The former President's office applied undue influence. Someone will retire.


HR will be found to have been the protector of the employees but sadly hampered by the employee's inability to help himself, and the President's favoritism. Statements of support will be made. Quietly, someone may retire, but not so you'd notice.

HR will vow to focus on the future and the need to protect the staff from anything like this ever happening again. They will create task forces to develop policies and training against workforce bullying. Slogans will be devised.

And everyone will breathe a sigh of relief, except for the employees. Who know the real culprits are still there, and the bullying will only get worse.

My sympathies are with #16 and others above because I've witnessed first hand exactly what s/he's portraying, but we must be firm in our scientific approach to bullying. There is no substitute for the open process of identification and collection of hard evidence of misconduct and insistence that our science of mobbing be heard. The environment in which mobbing occurs must be improved--where better to start than universities. In other words, mobbing is related to many problems that visit us in higher education. See my comments #s 5 and 14 above.

Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA
Professor
School of Accountancy
College of Business
University of Southern Mississippi
www.usmnews.net
m.depree@usm.edu
601-297-3404

@#16
As provost at the University of Michigan the new UVa president Theresa Sullivan instituted policies to ensure opacity in internal investigations and protect the university's bottom line, regardless of the effect on individual employees. Expect more of the same.

Workplace bullying is one example of of a long term conflict that has escalated into a behavioral risk which in turn is a liability to any institution that tolerates it. The antidote is a swift, impartial review complete with definable action items to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a work team that promotes and allows harassment and bullying to occur. The tragedy of bullying and other similar events is the information that proceeded it--in my work in higher education, I find that the complaint is usually well known and has been reported many times to management and HR. The behavior is tolerated by management because the perpetrator can be a high producer for the institution and therefore is protected. HR, by targeting the bully, unwittingly "teaches" them how to do it better and with stealth. My job is to advise leadership about the very real costs of these types of risks. Prolonged conflict in any form translates into liabilities that go far beyond day to day productivity--morale, health, turnover and reputation all suffer--and in University of Virginia's case, there was allegedly, a much more tragic outcome.

Anne McSorley
www.workbestconsulting.com

@6 "Where there's smoke there's fire." That's about as sweeping a generalization as can be made--so much for waiting until an investigation reveals what may very well be complexities. Your statement is the kind of anti-intellectual "trial without jury" that leads to rush-to-judgment conclusions and frankly marks a form of argument I wouldn't accept from a freshman.

ehyslopm -- note this story is not about faculty management, it is about staff management. So claims for academic freedom are bogus in this situation.

But because you brought it up (even though it has no relevance to this case), I point out that academic freedom is a chimera - to the extent that the courts recognize this concept, it is a priveledge of institutions, not individuals. There is no right of academic freedom that is above free speech rights, and courts have held again and again that employers have a right to abridge speech in the workplace through reprimand and even dismissal. Where some special priveledge of individual academic freedom exists, it is an artifact of specific contractual agreement between employer and employee.

And no, I am not a Human Resources person.

When it comes to workplace bullying, it seems the only thing you can do is take care of yourself. I agree that something much more is needed -- but also understand that nothing will happen. I agree with Anne in post #18 above: there's a problem, everyone knows there's a problem, and for whatever reason the problem will not be resolved. If you are being bullied, the best thing to do is look for another job while reading up on the subject. Start with www.kickbully.com.

As my favorite boss always said, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you." This article was pretty well done, but I am interested in seeing what the university finds out about the relationship between Genoways and his staff. People usually put up with a great deal before they register official complaints. Thus, it is hard to believe that all of these complaints, which came from more than one source, will turn out to be groundless.