comprod

It should be said right away that an efficient manager should never have to run a complaints procedure, since there should be no complaints in the first place. You should make every effort to ensure this blissful state:

(1) Insist on nothing but 'constructive' comment and discussion. You decide what is constructive of course, and you can point out to any troublemakers that making negative comments can be a disciplinary offence (bullying a superior or bringing the university into disrepute should do it)

(2) Make sure that any suggestion boxes have their lids screwed firmly shut, and that there are no posting slots in them.

(3) You must have a complaints procedure on paper, of course, but it is up to you to make sure it contains effective filters to prevent any actual complaint from progressing very far. Even if they do not present insuperable obstacles, they should provide valuable intelligence about the case of the complainant and highlight any weaknesses. A number of possibilities arise here:

(a) Insist that any complaints are discussed informally first with the managers concerned. Get them to listen as defendants or colleagues, and then they can switch to being managers again and rule that there is no case to answer, or that procedures have not been followed. If procedures are ambiguous enough, of course, they will not have been followed ipso facto, according to the only group qualified to judge.

(b) Insist that any complaint must be routed through the in-house trade union trusty, and make sure that that trusty is also a member of some relevant management committees. S/he can be relied upon, of course, to listen carefully to the complaint as a trade union representative, and then to relate the details to his or her fellow managers as a manager. These roles are fully separable in theory but rarely need to be separated in practice.

(c) Establish a filtering group of 'independents' with the right to listen to complaints to try to establish the case prima facie. Former managers in need of a few days on consultancy rates are ideal. The same people should not sit both on this preliminary group and on the main group, but there is nothing to stop them talking to each other and relating the details if the case proceeds.

(4) If these structural obstacles do not work, and all additional personal appeals or threats have failed, it is fair to assume that the complainant must be some kind of unusually stubborn and foolhardy troublemaker. There must be some personal or political reason for such persistence. As a result, the bastard deserves everything they are going to get. Make sure that any actual formal hearing is an occasion for you to impose your agenda and get your own back. You are now in charge, not them. Seek vengeance and inflict maximum humiliation, pour encourager les autres. You can do this in several ways:

(a) You have obviously taken the precaution of briefing members of the panel that they are to join with you in punishing the complainant. Swapping gossip and rumour about the complainant at the initial private meeting will help to establish the right sort of mood, the more lurid the better. (It doesn't have to be true of course. You can refuse to go into any details like supporting evidence since it is all about to become sub judice). Experienced members may wish to play the 'good cop, bad cop' game to lure the sucker into a sense of false security. Colleagues may require an agreed (Masonic?) signal to prompt hostile questions or other forms of aggression (see below).

(b) Warn the members of the panel to dress warmly and then turn down the air-conditioning so that the complainant feels cold and uncomfortable. It might be possible to induce them to shiver, which can then be taken as a sign of anxiety or guilt. This is useful when combined with remarks about revealing body language as below.

(c) Brief a member to make aggressive or disturbing remarks while the complainant is speaking, or on any occasion when they look confident. Examples might be: 'What extraordinarily revealing body language!', 'And that is what you think?', 'Try not to sound so bitter', 'So are you saying you are right and everyone else is wrong?'. With academics, remarks such as 'We are not here for a lecture', or 'You are not in the classroom now!', can be usefully demoralising. Demand the complainant speaks more clearly/quietly/slowly (especially if they are effective speakers). Jeer at claimed expertise or specialist words and repeat them scornfully (especially if you do not understand them).

(d) Utter your own managerial words in stage whispers: 'Section 4 applies I think', 'Job description template here!',' HEFCE's suggestions...', 'APT surely?' Lend managerial significance to ordinary words as in 'But we did not and could not "know" this', or ' We did not "receive" this complaint''. Lawyers' Latin still has a use with younger complainants -- declare their complaint ultra vires, or rebuke them for arguing ad hominem (particularly useful if there are masons present) or that post hoc ergo propter hoc. Get all the other panel members to nod wisely.

(e) Write furiously at random, show your notes to your colleagues and smirk conspicuously.

(f) Impose the tightest possible definitions of procedural regularity on the complainant. Change the procedure ad hoc if necessary (e.g. try to move straight from opening statements to considering verdict, refuse to admit witnesses at the last minute if they have failed to register their addresses or given their works number, allow defence witnesses to be present throughout in their role as managers). Accuse complainants of making personal attacks, of using hearsay evidence, of taking advice from an unhelpful outside source, of wasting management time, of merely speculating about motives, of drawing excessive inferences, of displaying a serious breakdown in trust and communication, of getting emotional or of staying suspiciously calm. Any of these can also be used for subsequent helpful suggestions for humiliating training in the unlikely possibility that the complaint has to be upheld in some small way.

(g) Treat defendants with the utmost leniency. Ask if they have recovered from the ordeal so far and apologise for any strain. Offer them a seat or a glass of water. Listen with respect and attention. Rule out as many cross-questions as possible : they are irrelevant, emotional, unwanted, slanderous or whatever. Allow any unpreventable cross-questioning with obvious annoyance, rephrase awkward questions in simpler or more personal terms, remind the panel frequently that the defendants are not on trial here (especially if they are).

(h) Remember the essential principles: (i) if all else fails, managers may have exhibited an understandable occasional lapse from their own impeccable standards, but they are incapable of any actual culpable mismanagement; (ii) no incompetent or corrupt manager could possibly have been appointed in the first place to what is agreed (by yourself and your friends) to be a thoroughly well-run organisation.

(i) Refuse any attempt at reasonable argument, because this will only deliver an advantage to the complainant. Make outrageous statements indicating your resolve to deny the complaint -- 'No evidence was or can ever be found for this!' is a good stand by. Sneer at any attempt to outline a case (this can be accompanied by one of the aggressive or disturbing remarks as in (c) above). Insist on a brief summary and then complain of being patronised. Look at your watch and sigh during any speech longer than a minute or at a crucial stage (if you identify one).

(j) Demand the complainant considers management's point of view at all times and then insist s/he cannot know what this is because s/he is not a manager. Demand that complainants be reasonable and balanced. Many academics will cheerfully see something in the opposing point of view or admit problems with their own. Then respond by saying, triumphantly, 'Oh! Not so sure now then?', 'Having doubts?', 'Not as easy as you thought then!', 'The real world is always much more complex than it seems', 'It must all have looked so simple from the armchair', 'So what exactly is your complaint in the end?'.

(k) If you are using a 'good cop', get them to look particularly reproachful at the end of hearing the evidence and shake their head sadly. They can even suggest over coffee that the case is lost and that the best thing to do is withdraw and/or resign.

(5) Conclude the proceedings and retire for a gin and tonic and a good meal. Take your time. Let the bastards sweat. Call them back in and point out that not only have they lost their case, they have wasted a great deal of valuable management time. They have clearly exhibited a breakdown in trust. They may be guilty of having brought a vexatious complaint. At the least they need to meet a variety of humiliating conditions before they can resume their work (unless they can be told they are to be charged with disciplinary offences right away). They are very lucky not to be dismissed on the spot and they have definitely now ruined their careers.