Part 4 - Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing?

Please read Parts 1- 3 of "Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing" before reading Part 4.



Research indicates that instigators of mobbing are likely to have narcissistic, psychopathic (aka sociopathic) or Machiavellian characteristics, and charities are not exempt from having such personalities on their Boards. In fact psychopaths frequently target empathic individuals, thereby caring individuals such as founders and charity staff are at risk of being targeted by such people.

See: "Empathic people are natural targets for sociopaths - Protect yourself" - http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2013/10/empathy-trap-sociopath-triangle.html

The narcissistic, psychopathic and Machiavellian personalities, known as the Dark Triad, will manipulate others to achieve their objectives, which is when the mobbing process accelerates. Whereas the instigators may have the characteristics of personality disorders, Harper points out that even good people can turn bad in a mobbing situation:

"Mobbing may commence as interpersonal "bullying" behaviour, but through pressure, perks, rumours, and mounting fear, bullying rapidly escalates to collective bloodlust if management wants to eliminate a worker. Regardless of prior positive relationships with the target, the workforce comes to view the target's problems as a threat to their own job security, and often as an opportunity to align with management."

"Mobbing in the Workplace: Even the Good Go Bad": Article: http://huff.to/s8NZPk

In her book "Mobbed - A Survival Guide", Janice Harper PhD states: "Humans are one of the few species which will organize its members into groups to attack another of its members ... When people behave in groups, their animal nature will almost always prevail over their personal nature ... When mobbing gets underway, the people involved will not respond from a rational standpoint. Logic won't work in responding to them because their animal nature will prevail - which doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions."

"Being involved with a sociopath is like being brainwashed. The sociopath’s superficial charm is usually the means by which s/he conditions people. ... People with a highly empathic disposition are often targeted. Those with lower levels of empathy are often passed over, though they can be drawn in and used by sociopaths as part of their cruel entertainment.  Sociopaths make up 25% of the prison population, ... But not all sociopaths are found in prison.

There is the less-visible burden of sociopath-induced emotional trauma which, if left unchecked, can lead to anxiety disorders, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Chronically traumatised people often exhibit hypervigilant, anxious and agitated behaviour, symptoms such as tension headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, abdominal pain, back pain, tremors and nausea."

On the matter of branding Harper contends that: "Group behaviour revises people's [the target's] social identities and rewrites their histories, creating ever-more-spectacular accusations as it gains momentum." ...

In her article "Rediagnosing "Founder's Syndrome": Moving Beyond Stereotypes to Improve Nonprofit Performance", Elizabeth Schmidt, Director for George Mason University's Enterprise in Service to Society Initiative, states:

"Once again, the founder's syndrome diagnosis is so overly broad as to reach the level of stereotype.  The simplification, exaggeration, and blame that result from thinking in stereotypes can be harmful to the individuals and institutions involved.  The Founder's reputation is sullied, even if he or she has none of the symptoms.

If any of those symptoms are present, none of the other stakeholders is asked to share in the blame.  And virtually no one questions whether one or more of these symptoms could actually be strengths.

The institutions suffer as well, because stereotypes allow them to avoid addressing real problems by placing blame on the founders. And this distrust of founders discourages the founders, and sometimes prevents them from implementing ideas that could solve society's most intractable problems."

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/management/22547-rediagnosing-founder-s-syndrome-moving-beyond-stereotypes-to-improve-nonprofit-performance.html

Part 3 - Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing?

Following my numerous objections to the treatment I received, the Board of Trustees attempted to sweep my family's identity as principal founders of the charity under the carpet, removing our name and the history of the charity from its website. 

They gave no acknowledgement of my 15 years of dedication in leading the charity in the annual report submitted to the Charity Commission in the year that I left, no leaving presentation event, acknowledging my and my family's work, and no opportunities to say goodbye to numerous people we had worked with for years. 

The Board do not invite us to occasions such as annual meetings. Readers may question whether there had been ongoing friction with the Board leading up to such inhumane and unethical treatment but there hadn't. It came out of the blue - again typical in the mobbing process.

Is there any way this behaviour can be justified? I think not. Mobbing behaviours would not be necessary if the founder was truly failing at his or her job.  I had always had positive work appraisals. Had there been a problem, this should have been apparent in supervision sessions and appraisals. In any situation where mobbing behaviours are apparent, the need to spread untruthful rumours and brand the target with negative attributes must demonstrate the target's performance is not inadequate as there would be no need to spread malicious lies. Even if a founder was failing, the Board of Trustees would still have a duty of care, irrespective of any failings or wrongdoings and should work with the founder leader to address the issues.

What sort of characters would behave in such a cold and heartless manner? 

Research on mobbing suggests the primary instigators of workplace mobbing are likely to have Machiavellian, psychopathic or narcissistic personalities:

A Machiavellian personality would justify such inhumane behaviour by thinking - 'the end justifies the means', the 'end' of which would be self-serving.

A psychopathic personality does not have the ability to empathise, and does not care what harm they cause - their only focus being to achieve their own personal objectives.

The narcissist who has an over-inflated sense of self (dysfunctional coping mechanism to counteract their low self-esteem) whose jealousy leads them to cut others down, in order to make them feel better about themselves.

Whilst I know that most Charity Trustees are motivated to give of their time to 'make a difference', a few will be primarily driven by a personal need for power and control. As quoted in a previous blog, Janice Harper, a cultural anthropologist who studies group behaviour states:

"...One of the reasons a dominant animal openly abuses a subordinate is to display its power, the exodus (or death) of a harassed animal sends a message to all animals that the same fate awaits them if they irritate the alphas."

How can Boards of Trustees identify and avoid such dangerous and destructive personalities from causing great harm to individuals, to the Board and to the charity as a whole?  I don't know the answer to this question - but here is some food for thought ...

http://youtu.be/UGrFAn3wU7c

Part 2 - Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing?

In my own case, after 15 years of dedication by me and my family, the Board of Trustees responded to a malicious, untruthful allegation, by not instigating any disciplinary investigation, by ostracising me completely, denying me any information or fair right of reply, which in turn caused me huge distress and led to me experiencing for the first time in my life panic attacks and an anoxic seizure.

The Board then went on to end my secondment without any discussion with me. Shockingly I later discovered that my supervising trustee had told several serious lies - to me, to the Board and to my seconding employers. Unbeknown to me for almost four months, one of these lies was that I had admitted guilt, when I most definitely had not. In addition, the person making the complaint had stated he was fearful I would take a certain course of action, which potentially could have been very serious. In fact his 'fear' was, in all likelihood, due to paranoid ideation, as a result of his 'personal difficulties'. My supervising trustee however reported that the complainant HAD ACCUSED ME of taking this action; not that he was fearful I would.

Effects of the mobbing process on the charity

The charity provides a very specialist service, and by ending my involvement in the organisation, they lost not only my extensive specialist experience, but that of my husband as well; a combined total of over 30 years expertise. I had in fact gained a Masters of Arts in Advanced Social Work Practice and Planning, concentrating my studies in the specialist area covered by the charity, in order to ensure its work was of the highest professional standard, underpinned by solid knowledge and research.  In the year prior to my departure, the charity had an independent external evaluation of the service carried out, by a researcher with expertise in its specialist area. The evaluation concluded the charity was 'excellent'.

My deputy, who lead the charity until a new CEO was appointed, whilst being a highly skilled worker, had only two years experience in this specialist area. To the best of my knowledge, the person appointed as CEO six months later had no specialist experience in the area at all. His strength was in gaining funding from the community and business sector. A commendable and important skill set, but in gaining these, the charity lost its depth of extensive specialist knowledge. Surely a well functioning board should be able to ensure the strengthening of funding streams, without losing the specialist expertise required to address the need for which the charity was founded?

Part 1 - Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing?

Founder's Syndrome or Workplace Mobbing?  

Would you take an allegation of Founder Syndrome at face value? ... Or would you question about the motivations of the people denigrating the founder in this way?

Such labelling may speak volumes about the denigrators, and little about the founder.  Founder Syndrome sounds like a medical condition with mental health implications, and such an allegation against a founder is hard to defend. Whatever the founder's response is, in all likelihood it could be presented as verifying the allegation.

With a key feature of workplace mobbing being the negative branding of the target, should we not question whether the labelling of an individual as having Founder's Syndrome is an indication of the Board of Trustees instigating the mobbing process (organisational bullying), a process referred to by researchers as "psychological terrorism', 'soft genocide' and 'bullying on steroids'?

Mobbing, shockingly, is not illegal in the UK, whereas in several other European countries, including Sweden and France it is an offence. In France, an article under the French Employment Code defines moral harassment (mobbing) as a situation where an employee is subjected to repeated acts which may result in degradation of his working conditions, that might undermine his rights and dignity, affect his physical or mental health or jeopardise his professional future, without the need for any discrimination component. The penalty imposed may be two years imprisonment and 30,000 euro fine, demonstrating the severity of the crime.  Similar legislation should be introduced in the UK.

In her book "A Nasty Piece of Work: Translating a Decade of Research on Non-Sexual Harassment, Psychological Terror, Mobbing and Emotional Abuse on the job", researcher Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik Ph.D, ORCM Academic Press 2013 gives a nonprofit case example of workplace mobbing:

"Typically, abusers also negatively brand the target in some way. In the following example, the CEO of a nonprofit describes his branding experience from the Vice President on the board that directly supervised him.

"The rumour had been spread that I had had several small strokes and was in the beginning of Alzheimer's disease and was no longer competent and able to lead the organisation".

The audience of the board members' message included other board members and key staff. Potentially, the Vice President used this tactic to gain support for the CEO's eventual removal."


Lutgen-Sandvik identifies six stages in the mobbing process:

Stage 1: Initial Incident - the target comes to the negative attention of the manager

Stage 2: Progressive Discipline - the aggressor uses organisational policies and procedures to create a "paper trail" that supports firing or otherwise punishing the target.

Stage 3: Turning Point - the abuse becomes increasingly negative, personal and overbearing. Escalated repetition, reframing, branding, and support seeking marked hostile communication

Stage 4 - Organisational Ambivalence - other managers including upper-management join with the abuser to redefine the abusive situation in ways that diminish or disregard targets' experiences.

Stage 5 - Isolation-Silencing

During the final stages, fear and intimidation effectively silence both target and witnessing bystanders. The abuser continues to manipulate the target's reputation through rumour, slander, and ridicule.

Stage 6 - Target Expulsion - the target is driven out

... and after a gap, the cycle may regenerate with a new target being identified.

From my own experience, I can verify these stages.

Whilst I suggest the label of Founder's Syndrome is a potential sign of mobbing and should not be used, I am not claiming founders are fault free; on the contrary, like everyone else, founders have their own issues and developmental needs. The key is whether the governance of any given charity is adequate to address the issues and developmental needs as they arise. If the charity has reached a stage where a new set of skills is required to move the charity forward, open, honest discussion which includes the founder should take place to decide how best these skills can be obtained, whether it is through additional training, bringing in new staff to support him or her in the identified areas of need or whether it is time to instigate a succession plan for leadership of the organisation.

When a founder leader moves on, it should be remembered that this will be experienced as a deep felt loss for the individual. Any person who founds a successful charity should be respected, admired and celebrated because they have achieved what the majority can't. They are entrepreneurs who are not driven by personal financial gain, but by a wish to address an unmet social need in society. Typically he or she would have dedicated enormous energy, time, money and tears to establishing the charity over years, driven by an intense passion to provide support to vulnerable individuals.  Frequently motivated by personal experience, their dedication and love of the charity is heartfelt. With their mission accomplished, a celebration of their work and legacy should be organised, as this will be a major life change for the individual and will assist them in moving on to accomplish other great achievements in their life.

Poor management by a Board of Trustees will result in a very different ending. If a Board concludes, without discussion with the founder that it is time for a change of leader, I believe there is an increased likelihood that mobbing will occur.  For a Board of Trustees to resort to victimization and mobbing of the founder indicates poor governance, and a highly questionable ethical position.

Such unethical behaviour should ring alarm bells and lead others, including the Charity Commission, to question the motivation and morality underpinning the Board's decisionmaking.