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?