British Council bottles it

In a rare show of solidarity we recently commended the British Council for the radical approach adopted by Venu Dhupa, who had demonstrated a degree of transparency rarely encountered within the Spring Gardens tribe. But she evidently made too many enemies in the camp, and the knives came out. And now it looks as though she's had the rug pulled from under her.

According to Moviescope, the British Council have suspended their restructuring, and have issued a statement which says:

"The restructuring process has been suspended until further notice. It has been agreed that this will not commence again until completion of the internal consultation period....the Arts group...will continue to work in its current structure."

The British Council is not only an environment where reform and transparency are alien concepts and treated with hostility, it's also an environment where the management haven't a clue what they are doing. Managing to upset the entire arts Establishment and all your employees while achieving precisely nothing takes quite a bit of doing. Expensive too.   

Comments

[Chris]

Oh, David. How could you possibly object to a little harmless consultation?

I remember when Carol Cockcroft tried to introduce some transparency into human resource management from the private sector, she didn't last long either. She was replaced by an insider.

Obfuscation obviously suits the vested interests of management. Any attempt at effective consultation is met with hostility.

In 2004, when teachers petitioned management to establish a European Works Council, the notice informing staff appeared in the bottom corner of the intranet. It was diplayed for the statutory minimum two weeks, timed to coincide with the Easter holiday period.

So, if there was a problem with staff relations, management clearly didn't want to hear.

[neil robertson]

So that's what happened to Carol Cockcroft? Interesting ..... she
was I understand recruited from
Shell as BC's Director of Human Resources in March 2000.

I firstcame across her name on a newish British Council web-site launched in March 2002 - and I wrote to her immediately about my case (on 12 March 2002 - Subject: British Council DATS
Irregularities in Palestine).

I asked amongst other things for 'an explanation for British Council's attempt to dismiss members of a UK DfID-approved public administration team by unsigned letter - 'pp'd' by a DATS PA' and pointed out to her
that 'this followed a challenge to the New Zealand Project Director [Dr J] by a junior British Council official (Emma Sky)in Ramallah within 48 hours of his arrival; and his resignation on Day 5 of a 3 year contract after intervention by Professor Mike Hardy.'

This letter from me continued:
'My own 'removal' was then sought on the grounds that I had refused to authorise a switch of project emphasis away from the PNA Ministry of Finance in the face of DATS bullying. I was publicly 'dismissed' - again by Emma Sky - in front of senior Palestinian officials in a Ministry (XXXX) which is known to have featured in a number of audit investigations. A recommendation that I be 'replaced' was then transmitted - before I was allowed to report. I know this from the outcome of a Data Protection Act Request made to a Mr A. Fogden.'

'I was also shocked to discover that DATS characterised me as: 'he's bonkers - it's official'. This is unacceptable; but what is puzzling are the lengths to which Professor Hardy and his sidekick Emma Sky have gone to falsify the record and cover-up their misconduct. How is this possible in an organisation claiming to be 'an equal opportunities employer'?

To her credit, the internal e-mail record suggests that Carol Cockcroft wrote to someone on 13 March 2002 : 'Dear XXXX, Do you have any knowledge of the background to this? Please could you suggest a draft response.' - only to receive back a reply marked 'Importance: Low' (a mere half hour later - suggesting only cursory research into the matter):

'It appears that this is a continuation of a grievance held by Mr Robertson involving XXXXX. I believe XXXXX [probably BC's Legal Department?] has been involved previously. XXXXX has been working in XXXX for around a year now so there may have been some problems identifying who should deal with Mr Robertson's letter. I will investigate with managers in XXXXXX.'

On 21 March 2002 I see however that BC's new Director of Human Resources was herself being told by someone in the British Council she was not maybe so in charge of human resources as might have been assumed from her job title:

'From: XXXX Sent: 21 March 2002 07:11 To: XXXXXX
Subject: FW: British Council DATS Irregularities in Palestine XXXXX
This seems to imply some correspondence to Mr Robertson from XXXXX [Carol Cockroft]. Sanctioned by you?"

I didn't hear from her again!

No wonder she left: perhaps she was asking too many questions?
........ a bit like Dr J from
New Zealand: or myself perhaps?

Vedu Dhupha may be facing similar resistance from those with much to lose at the hands of any new
brooms brought in from outside?