Bullying Managers/Employers and The Diversionary Dismissal:
In order to justify an employer's action (for example dismissal) against an individual where there are few, inadequate or no grounds for that action, prodigious and sometimes bizarre efforts are expended to support and vindicate the decision. This usually takes the form of finding a mistake, or series of mistakes, invariably trivial and insignificant, that the person has made at sometime during their career in the company (or in their private life or even before they joined the company) and using this as a basis of substantiation.
This is a diversionary tactic, distracting attention away from the real cause of this situation, which is the bully's behaviour and possibly the fact that management had closed ranks behind the bully. It also has the added advantage of spreading confusion. The victim is put on the spot and feels obliged to justify, explain, excuse or apologise for the indiscretion. The genisis of the urge to explain is guilt. You have a right not to feel guilty, or you have a right not to be made to feel guilty. This is an opportunity to assert that right.
There are other benefits to using this tactic. In a hearing, especially a tribunal, the panel members will become bored with the long, rambling, confusing and largely irrelevant dialogue which degenerates into claim, counter-claim, justification, counter-justification, etc ad naseum. Panel members quickly tire, confusion stimulates irritation and boredom, and the focus is lost. By default, the panel's decision will go to the employer.
Also, the more explanation, justification, excuse and apology that can be elicited, the more ammunition the aggressor obtains with which to crucify their victim. When the dialogue is exhausted (it may last several hours or several days), the aggressor is able to summarise by painting a most uncomplimentary picture of the victim using their own words.
Suggested response: first, if a mistake was made, admit the error succintly, without justification, elaboration, excuse or apology. Make the admission only once.
"You are correct, a mistake did occur. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention."
In so doing, you pull the rug from under the aggressor's feet, denying them the opportunity for in-depth analysis. If the incident was a long time ago, add (replace the words in square brackets as appropriate);
"As you know, this took place [xx months/years] ago and in choosing to focus on an incident from so long ago, you reveal a desperation which itself is a tacit admission of the inappropriateness of your action."
Then, without pausing, draw attention to the obsessive and singular focus that the other side have chosen to adopt, its purpose as a diversionary and confusion-generating tactic, its irrelevance both to the performance of the individual in question and to the circumstances surrounding the action. If appropriate you can also take this opportunity to go on the offensive - many bullies have careers littered with mistakes and failings for example:
"In highlighting this trivial and unimportant incident, you are choosing to draw attention to the number of mistakes, errors, omissions, oversights [etc - you can go to town on this] which [the bully] has made over the last [number of] years. These include [a long prepared list - be as specific as possible] which call into question [the bully's] competence to carry out the duties and responsibilities of [position] and further cause everyone present to askhow such performance contributes to achieving the aims and objectives of [the organisation]."
Each time you are attacked, remind everyone publicly that:
We are here to examine the behaviour of the [bully] and your repeated attempts to divert us from that objective by focusing on a trivial or irrelevant [fact or allegation] only serves to highlight your lack of evidence in support of the course of action you have chosen to take."
If the other side persists in pressing this angle of attack, repeat the defence again and again - as often as necessary. After each third or fourth time, draw attention to the persistence:
"I have drawn attention [number] times to the fact that you are choosing to focus on an incident which is of no relevance [and who's existance is not in question]. I regret that you choose repeatedly to waste [the tribunal's] time pursuing this line of scrutiny. In so doing, however, you are admitting that you have no real evidence to present, otherwise you would be presenting it. Our reason for being here today is to examine the behaviour of the [bully] and I ask you to remain focused on that objective."
Alternatively, or addisionally, the following statement could provide a suitable defence:
As justification for [action] on the grounds of "[alleged reasons]", the [management] have chosen to focus singularly and obsessively on [mistake] of [how long ago], the relevnce of which today cannot be ascertained by any sane intelligent individual and for which a full explanation was provided on [date], accepted by you, [and kept on record]. In bringing [the employer] into disrepute in such a public manner; you have raised serious doubts about the fitness, integrity and competence of [senior management and personnel] of a [status e.g. prestigious] [company] which is a major player in [market].
The relentless persecution of a hard-working [and by your own assessment - quote here from employee personnel record] employee who has sought throughout solely to perform their duties in support of the company's objectives warrants investigation at the highest level in the interests of shareholders, taxpayers, [other stakeholders] and ultimately justice."
Vary the wording according to the circumstances. You are advised to have representation, either legal, union, professional or other independent person. If you feel your statements could be considered libellous (written) or slanderous (verbal), you must seek legal advise first.
It is important that in all conflicts you focus solely on the behaviours of the person or persons involved (e.g. "You have behaved foolishly"), and not on their person ("You are foolish"). The chances of being accused of libel or slander are reduced, and this approach gives the other side little or nothing to turn against you. The style is more assertive and you are likely to be regarded as a person with a high or higher degree of maturity.
- otherwise RM will instantly smell a weakness and it'll be a lamb to the slaughter .
- he or she will come back with the " correct " RM answer which is somebody was turning a blind eye and it's the staff that are at fault of course ! - not RM . 