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.
