The Role of Cognitive Dissonnance in Workplace Mobbing

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

"Cognitive dissonance is just one of many biases that work in our everyday lives. We don’t like to believe that we may be wrong, so we may limit our intake of new information or thinking about things in ways that don’t fit within our pre-existing beliefs. Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.” ...

Crucially, as I believe happened in my situation:

 "Studies of cognitive dissonance show, that as soon as we take sides, the brain sees to it

 that we will justify and solidify our position by seeking only the information that 

confirms it, and deny, ignore or minimize evidence that we could be wrong."

(http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/19/fighting-cognitive-dissonance-the-lies-we-tell-ourselves/)

What I believe, in all likelihood, happened is that irrespective of whatever evidence my husband or I provided to the Board of Trustees, the Board accepted Rick's version of events as truthful. With the rumour of me supposedly being mentally unwell, anything that didn't tally with Rick's version would have been evidence of my mental ill health. (Please read my previous blog about my mental health, if you have not already done so.)

In addition, the fact that I developed panic attacks, had a seizure and suffered severe anxiety difficulties would again have reinforced that I was mentally ill, using cognitive dissonance.  The reality was that I had developed these difficulties as a reactive stress response to the "psychological terrorism" I was being subjected to. 

Cognitive Dissonance in Workplace Mobbing: From Janice Harper PhD, psychologytoday.com, March 2013:

" ... having been encouraged to avoid and resent the worker, to gossip about them and make adverse reports against them, otherwise kind and compassionate workers can quickly become nasty, bullying aggressors. And when they do so, they do not view themselves as aggressive, but as defending against the “irrational” acts and allegations of the targeted worker. ...

"Through cognitive dissonance, mobbing participants come to view their own bad behavior as justified and necessary, because to consider themselves as “bullying” a coworker is usually contrary to their own values and sense of self identity."

......

Excerpt from an email I sent to a charity trustee "Ben", identifying cognitive dissonance, without putting a name to it:

Dear "Ben" [charity trustee],

I see [current CEO] has now removed [my family's] name completely from the [charity] website, trying to eliminate any acknowledgement of the blood, sweat and tears my family gave for over 15 years to establishing a wonderful, highly professional charity, founded on strong moral and ethical principles. I thought [the charity]'s morality could get no lower; it seems I was wrong.   

[My daughters'] childhood and the death of their mother was intrinsically linked to [the charity]. To eliminate our work from the history is nothing short of cruel. ... I am not an ego driven person and never have been, but I am also not a person to crawl away defeated when kicked in the gutter for no good reason. A huge injustice has taken place, and I have every intention of putting it right. 

I repeat yet again - I have been completely truthful since our traumas began in April 2011, and therefore I will continue to speak the truth. If it has been said I lied, then it is probably the person speaking those words who is the liar. It may be much more comfortable to believe the person looking in your face than the person who has been banished, but the real truth remains the truth. [Here, without putting a name to it, I identify Cognitive Dissonance]. 

Irrespective of whether the lies that were told were believed (and it is clear these are numerous), I and my family have not at all deserved the treatment we have received.

It sickens me to the core that the trustee who told numerous lies, acted in a passive aggressive manner ... who was totally unprofessional and manipulative remains on the board of trustees. 

Regards 

No reply was received in response, as was frequently the case with our communications. This was one of many communications I and my husband sent to the trustees, but they repeatedly refused to respond or acknowledge the truth of what had happened, not only to me, but I suspect also to themselves.   

"One of the things that be confusing and frustrating for targets of bullying is that 
even when they use logic and evidence to defend themselves against attacks, they 
are unable budge the bullies from their stance. The bullies may seem reasonable
 in other circumstances and with other people. 

Why then, do they distort facts and substitute misinterpretations?" 

- www.respectfulworkplace.wordpress.com

I believe the answer to this question is indeed "Cognitive Dissonance".

I suspect even today, many, if not all of the trustees are unable to face what they did and 

for those of them who are capable of empathy and feelings of guilt, Cognitive Dissonance may be their only means of self-protection against those feelings of guilt. 

Mobbing - from good mental health to post traumatic stress - and back again to a positive future

It is hard to define when the mobbing began - certainly the seeds were set by Nancy, prior to the complaint being received in April 2011.  It is even possible that the complainant and Nancy had been working together on my downfall prior to the complaint being made.  However, as stated previously, I believe it was Rick who was the ringleader of the mobbing, and I believe it wasn't until the second half of April, after the complaint was received, that the situation evolved into full blown mobbing.  As I was ostracised by being kept without support, communication or information at home, it would have been easy for Rick and his accomplices to re-brand me as having becoming mentally ill and over-controlling.  With Rick appearing to be an intelligent, reasonable, caring, gentle and honest man, there would have been no reason for trustees to doubt his honesty.  I understand this; I would have fallen for his manipulation myself.  However when I repeatedly complained, procedures should have been followed and my complaints checked out.  In this post, I explore the reasons for his and Nancy's success in rebranding me as mentally unwell.  In addition, the post on Cognitive Dissonance should also be read to fully understand why this situation evolved in the way it did.

From  www.bullyingonline.org:

• "Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies and to avoid facing up to the same.
• The vehicle for Projection is blame, criticism and allegation. 
• Allegations of financial or sexual impropriety may indicate that the bully has committed these acts. Bullies who steal will accuse others of stealing ...  
• When a target admits to being stressed and becomes unable to remain exposed to the source of the stress, bullies (and their supporters) will very often claim that their target is "mentally ill" or "mentally unstable" or has a "mental health problem". 

Bullying Online also suggests: 

• Every time a target is "blamed, criticised or subject to another specious allegation by the bully, the bully is implicitly admitting or revealing something about themselves. A target's awareness of Projection can help them translate whatever they are being accused of into an awareness of the bully's own misdemeanours."  

Despite the availability of overwhelming evidence that I was not mentally ill from my GP, External Consultant (highly qualified in the mental health field), a Consultant Occupation Physician, and my husband who himself has significant experience of working with mentally ill people, the Board of Trustees chose to ignore this.  

Excerpts from a letter to my GP from my External Consultant, a highly qualified mental health worker who was both a Director of a well established counselling service and a University lecturer. (July 2011):

“...[Me] last came to me for supervision in February this year.  At that time she was successfully   managing a number of work projects and reflecting on management issues reflectively and with considerable insight” ...

My external consultant went on to explain my experience and mental and emotional wellbeing following the complaint being received:

“She was feeling increasingly desperate, and then as you know, she had a seizure.  This was of course very traumatic.  In a normal course of events she would have support from her colleagues at work, but because she was unable to communicate with them and vice versa, she was cut off from this and was very isolated ... she was particularly badly affected because of the continuing lack of information or support from her workplace ... She was finding it hard to understand that her feelings of disempowerment and isolation had not been appreciated by the trustees ...”

 

I believe [me] is in perfectly sound mental and emotional health and her response to this situation is a normal one.  She has found it very stressful and this has caused a whirlpool of emotions, which in my view she has managed as well as anyone could in this situation.  She is aware that past experiences impact on her, but this does not mean she is unable to work; rather it informs the work she does with ...... children.”

An Occupational Health Assessment letter to my employers unsurprisingly did not conclude I was mentally ill but had psychological symptoms due to work related issues. July 2011:  

"You have referred her for a consultation to assess her fitness to return to work as she has been off work since 18th April 2011 attributed to psychological symptoms, which she says were triggered by work related issues.  She describes a work relationship issue that built up over the preceding four years. ... There is currently no indication (interpreting the relevant UK disability legislation) that she would be seen as disabled under the Equality Act."  - Consultant Occupation Physician.  July 2011 

As mentioned in previous posts, the long term effects of workplace mobbing are significant, frequently causing both physical and mental health difficulties.  Research has also indicated workplace bullying increases the risk of life threatening physical conditions in the future. In addition, it is not unusual for targets of mobbing to experience post-traumatic stress reactions as a result of the psychological injury they received from work colleagues. 


The need for trauma therapy is not unusual for people who have been subjected to workplace mobbing.  The prolonged 'psychological terrorism' inflicted on the target, combined with the denial of information, the lack of a fair right to be reply and the total injustice, prevents the target from being able to process what has happened, making it almost impossible to store the experience as a past memory in the brain. 

Instead of being a memory from the past, the trauma continues as the target continues to re-live their experiences through flashbacks, repetitive thinking, and triggers. This results in the amygdala remaining on high alert, in effect constantly in fight or flight mode.  (The amygdala is part of the limbic system and is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe which plays a key role in the processing of emotions.)

Unfortunately this has been the case for me. Three years after my workplace abuse started, I am now undergoing trauma therapy for the psychological injury I received as a result of the behaviour of the Board of Trustees, a member of staff and the complainant.

Writing this blog, understanding what happened and ensuring my story is told, is part of my healing process.  At last the fog of trauma is beginning to clear.  My anger is subsiding; my determination to raise awareness of workplace mobbing is increasing.  If the Board of Trustees had hoped their actions will be forgotten, they are mistaken.

For me, this experience is indeed becoming part of my past, as I move on to a new, positive and exciting future, without guilt or self-doubt, stronger and wiser. 

Groupthink on the Board of Trustees?

In my previous blog I made mention of "Groupthink" and believe it is worthwhile exploring this in relation to the workplace mobbing that I experienced.  Wikipedia describes groupthink as follows:

"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup"."

The website for "Psychologists for Social Responsibility" (www.psysr.org) states:

"Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups."

Irving Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink, several of which I feel was likely to have occurred on the Board of Trustees during the time I was the target of workplace mobbing. These are:

 1.  Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2.  Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3.  Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4.  Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5.  Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6.  Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7.  Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8.  Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

In particular, it is my belief that collective rationalisation, along with belief in their inherent morality and stereotyped views of out-groups, played a major part in the board of trustees' flawed decisionmaking.

At least one trustee told several major lies to the Board, to my seconding employer, and to me and my husband, which significantly influenced the course of events. These included lies about the nature of the allegations against me and, very significantly, that I had admitted guilt to the allegations when I had not.  It appears the Board chose to believe the lies told by that trustees with little, or no questioning.

Was it because of their belief in the inherent morality of its members, that the Board did not check the available written evidence to clarify the real truth of what had occurred?

Did they avoid looking objectively at the opposing positions in the situation because I and my husband had become the 'out group', or 'the enemy' once the mobbing was in full flow?

Did self-censorship take place, where those who had doubts about the honesty of their fellow trustees, felt unable to express these concerns to the group, thereby ensuring the ongoing illusion of unanimity of the group?

Did collective rationalisation occur, where Board Members refused to reconsider their assumptions, despite my and my husband's repeated evidence and expressions of distress and concern at the way I was being treated?

As the Board adopted a policy of silence on the matter since the beginning, it is unlikely the full truth of what happened will ever be revealed. Six of the eight board members involved during this time remain on the Board. It is almost three years since the mobbing first started and the numerous lies which were told. Over recent months, two trustees have stood down, including the trustee who had told such serious lies. He stood down shortly after a solicitor was instructed by the charity with regards to taking action against me. Whilst the charity will not admit it, I believe in all likelihood the solicitor had uncovered the written evidence of the lies that he had told. The charity board of trustees has refused to carry out an investigation, as requested by me.

Board Bullying

David Yamada, University law professor and New Workplace Institute director in the USA, has stated that "Board bullying,” as he calls it, is one of the largely unexplored aspects of workplace bullying, there being minimal, if any, research carried out on the subject. However Yamada suspects board bullying is more prevalent in the non-profit sector than in the business sector, although acknowledges his view may be influenced by much of his career and volunteer service having been in non-profit organizations.

Yamada suggests there are different types of board bullying. He emphasises the importance of distinguishing instances of incivility and disrespect from targeted, malicious bullying, and suggests unintentional bullying type behaviour is often due to lack of training or instruction for board members, "when combined with the same imperfections in interpersonal skills that we see in the everyday workplace".

The first of the different types of board bullying he identifies is internal board interactions, where for example an individual member bullies and intimidates fellow board members, or "extreme variations of groupthink and peer pressure used by board members to bludgeon or ostracize other board members who take unpopular positions."

In a mobbing situation, I suggest this is likely to include deliberate lies being told by one or two trustees to mislead the board and manipulate the decision-making in favour of the perpetrator's desired outcome. Evidence I have suggests this was the case in my situation. (Mobbing is unethical and highly damaging organisational bullying, which involves overt or covert management participation.)

The second type of board bullying involves board to staff interactions — e.g. board members use excessive pressure and intimidation with staff members. Yamada suggests that "In cases of very dysfunctional and ethically marginal organizations, board bullies may be among those who retaliate against staff who report illegalities or ethical transgressions."

Again this can be seen in a mobbing situation, where staff find themselves with a choice of (1) conforming to expectations of  'the group' or (2) challenging those with power and influence, thereby knowing the likely consequences will be that they will no longer be treated as part of 'the group' and will be at risk of becoming the next mobbed target, i.e. defamed, rebranded, rejected and removed from their position.  Inevitably when people are dependent on their income to feed and keep a roof over their family's heads, few will challenge.

The third form of board bullying identified by Yamada is board self-dealing, which can include board members exerting pressure on fellow board members and staff to deliver inappropriate favours and benefits. In a mobbing situation, staff may be encouraged to participate and not rock the boat, by promises of incentives such as promotion and pay rises.

The final form of board bullying identified is sexual harassment.  The power imbalance between male and female in the charity sector is likely to increase the likelihood of sexual harassment, there being a higher percentage of males to females in senior managerial positions, and a significantly higher number of females to males being employed in non-managerial positions. In my own case, I was a female founder/CEO of the charity, and both the Board Chair and Treasurer were male. The person who initiated the malicious unfounded complaint was male and the person appointed to the role of CEO after my removal was male.

Recognising the difference between instances of incivility and disrespect on the one hand, and the deliberate malicious psychological terrorism referred to as mobbing, on the other, is essential if the charity sector is to address this issue, and reduce the likelihood of legal claims against the charity, damage to the charity's reputation and damage to the many individuals caught up in a mobbing situation.

It is time for the abuse of staff within the voluntary sector to be recognised and action to be taken to end such unethical practice. It is time for others to speak out, because by not doing so, you ensure others will be subjected to such cruelty. It is time for the Charity Commission to have a requirement of Charity Boards of Trustees to work to the highest ethical standards and ensure such standards are enforced.

With the current lack of accountability, unethical charity boards of trustees are free to continue campaigns of psychological terrorism against those they wish to remove without concern. - Next time, could it be you?

Reference: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com

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?