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