At the outset I would like to apologize for reluctantly having to publish my views in case readers would prefer not to be party to the ongoing Surrey debacle. However I need to take a principled stance here.
I chose to maintain a low profile in this Surrey Affair, but unfortunately, I, like others, feel that I have been misrepresented by Management in their attempt to clarify things from their perspective.
In this process, the terms 'transparency' and 'equitability' have been used by Management in order to ensure that staff within the department feel that the process has been open, fair and appropriate throughout. As someone who had a conversation / meeting with a senior Management official 'behind closed doors' in which relevant matters were discussed, I was initially given the unambiguous statement from this person - following my direct and unequivocal question - that he did not want me to apply for the enhanced voluntary severance scheme (EVS). Following that meeting therefore I believed I was not one of those anonymous people that this person had privately stated he hoped would apply for EVS.
Unsurprisingly I was stunned that within a period of a mere 48 hours prior to the immutable EVS deadline to learn that I - and at least two other colleagues - received an email from senior Management recommending us to re-consider our EVS options retrospectively to that which we had been told to our faces. In response to my request for clarification, Management's stated, seeming reasoning for this was that the job descriptions released five days earlier ultimately increased the potential levels of perceived competition for posts within the department. Regrettably the senior Management person with whom I had been in contact chose not to advise me of this earlier - particularly when he was the "architect" of the new structure.
It had been made clear to me that I was a wanted and valued member of staff. In the light of subsequent events it's difficult to see that there can be any interpretation other than at best there was wishful thinking from Management and at worst downright disingenuity. Accordingly, is there any wonder that I, and maybe others, could have confidence in Surrey Management and their due regard to employees? The Internationally renowned Forensic team within the department is no longer seen as the future in the new structure. It was suggested we 're-brand' ourselves as being 'social', 'individual differences' or 'research methods' psychologists having spent our careers to date at Surrey pursuing Forensic Psychology - jobs for which we were specifically appointed.
I would argue I had little choice in my decision to apply for EVS, despite Management choosing to construe otherwise.
I would have hoped that the senior manager with whom I spoke would have been 'transparent' in his clarifications, in order to fully enable an honest debate. Conversations with myself and other colleagues 'behind closed doors' do not sit well with the impression given by Management to the wider academic community of openness in process. To find some resolution and closure to this damaging saga maybe what is needed is an open Enquiry as to what has gone on.
Clearly - for all concerned - it is necessary to have a complete and honest chronology of events vis-a-vis Management's role in this.
Anon1
No comments:
Post a Comment