Just add media: From workplace mobbing to cancelation (Video)

Highlights and full video from our panel at the Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing.

Our panel discussion from the Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing is available on YouTube (and a little bit down in this post), along with all of the other presentations. Here are some highlights from each of our panelists to hold you over until you have 45 minutes to watch the whole thing.

Jonah Arnold: “It’s a setup right from the beginning.”

“Most workplace harassment systems are built around a very simple structure. A complainant reports harm, an employer investigates, and the person accused is treated as a respondent. It’s a setup right from the beginning. As a lawyer, I would argue that the structure is necessary because employers have to identify genuine harassment and have to do so in an environment without retaliation. But the system has, by nature, some serious blind spots.

“One of those is that the person who files a complaint may not be a victim. The complaint itself may be an instrument of harassment. And this is what I deal with very commonly.

“This is a very important point. The complainant should not be presumed to be legally truthful. The descriptor of ‘complainant’ and ‘respondent’ should be a procedural description, but oftentimes what comes with that description are biases and prejudgment. That’s more than unfortunate… By the time the investigation has started, there are grumblings behind the scenes. Rumors start and and there is a casting of judgment outside of the official process.

“What I would call a procedural mobbing ensues. So while it’s workplace or employment mobbing, I would call it procedural mobbing as well.”

Dave Scott-Thomas: “You’re there one day, then you’re gone.”

“The institutional clampdown in my case started with a no contact directive. I was working one afternoon and then I was sent home. I was told that I couldn’t talk to anybody, anywhere, anytime. They couldn’t talk to me. If I ran into them to the grocery store, I was supposed to head the other direction.

“That just got the rumor mill going. You’re there one day, then you’re gone. So rumors start.

“Then there’s the escape velocity that happens when it gets out in public. A rumor goes out on social, and then it just goes like that, like wildfire. The institution loses jurisdiction. Whatever they had, is gone.

“In my case and many others, mainstream media grabbed it and distorted it. One outlet for me just added an ‘S.’ Things became multiples and it was like a whack a mole. I had a lawyer and I said, they can’t do that. They could publish a retraction, but that would cost a few thousand dollars in legal work and it would get buried in the news media. People don’t remember any of that stuff. So it goes on and on and on.”

Dr. Christine Marie: “Forward facing for the rest of your life.”

“You’re powerless in a workplace mobbing setting. It seems as if there are opportunities for you to go to an influential person and stop the process in some situations.

“But when it jumps from a contained environment into the entire world [via the media], you are left without any way to change the narrative. It could impact your entire life—not just your reputation, but your ability to have relationships in the future. Your friends, your sense of safety.

“Sometimes people in the public are psychologically unwell and they dox you, they post your private information online, and the false story about you continues.

“Then you have the narrative identity. The stories that you’ve told yourself your whole life about who you are are now being sabotaged by a new narrative that is not who you are. It’s very difficult for that kind of trauma to not leak through to your sense of self. You’re being told that you intentionally ran over a dog with puppies. You know you never did that! But when you’re hearing it 20,000 times repeated online and that’s what people think about you, you start saying, ‘what is wrong with me?’”

Michael Capiraso: “They just disappear.”

“When a workplace mobbing starts, an organization just tends to abandon the targeted people. When someone is brought up, what you need most is the organization: support from the organization that has trusted you, the organization that has hired you, that has celebrated you. They just disappear. The mobbing then seems to get more impetus when that happens because everyone sees that happening and it erodes any kind of trust that you have.

“Whether it’s your board, your coworkers, your colleagues... all of a sudden you feel like they’re on with the mob and then it just seems to, again, explode.

“One of the things I heard earlier is the real importance for organizations to understand the severity of this and the lack of humanity that sometimes is shown to someone from their organization.

“When the mob comes, they tend to take the organization down, too. That is destructive across the board. Whereas the organization should rightfully pause and look at things differently… The organization should take on the mob, stop the mob, and try to cause some redirection. That’s one of the things that we really need to bring to organizations, as well.”

George Perry: “When is a workplace mobbing newsworthy?”

“A profession that hasn’t come up as much so far is the media now. Michael was the CEO of a major sports and entertainment company. Dave was a very successful head coach. When they get relieved or fired from their jobs, that could be newsworthy. But when we report on it, we make it something different.

“When is a workplace mobbing newsworthy? It is an event that may be affecting a university, or a major non-profit. But it’s kind of like Schrodinger’s Cat. The workplace mobbing is there. But once we notice that it’s there, those of us in the media who have a public platform, well, now it’s no longer a workplace mobbing. It’s a cancellation.

“There is that element of recognizing when is it newsworthy. But by making it news, we make it something different. And then we create the scenarios that we’re talking about right now.”

Dave Scott-Thomas: “The truth doesn’t matter.”

“I had a very good defamation lawyer during my stuff, and at one point I said, ‘Let’s just tell the truth. I’m not afraid of that. I can be accountable for the truth.’ And he said, ‘I want you to listen very carefully. I’m here to protect you. The truth doesn’t matter.’

“You want to talk about an existential crisis!

“My lawyer was a good guy, and he did what a good lawyer does, too. He was psychologically protective. He said to me, ‘If you want me to file a defamation suit, I will, and we will win. But here’s why you shouldn’t do it. One, you’re just not tough enough.’

“He was right. He said it would be a slugfest for a couple of years. What are you going to get out of it? Great, real world advice.”

Jonah Arnold: “Treat those that are innocent as innocent.”

“The difficulty is when multiple complainants link up their stories, and whether they do that purposely or they do that inadvertently. It is incumbent on whoever is investigating to recognize that just because you have multiple complainants that may have similar stories does not mean that there is actually evidence that can be relied upon. Ultimately it’s about conducting an investigation that understands, frankly, the rules of evidence.

“When institutions conduct investigations, they should be getting legal assistance. They should be treating those that are innocent as innocent, and the parties should be on equal footing. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t happen in my experience.”