Workplace Mobsters Attack with Deception

Mobsters deceive their target in a way that absolutely convinces them they are being harassed. It is repetitive. It thinks, sounds, and feels like an attack. Yet once it comes time to investigate their perceived abuse, they lack substantial evidence. The only way their targets know what is real and what is perceived is to ask the people they perceive are mobbing them, “are you saying this because of my sexual harassment report?” or “are you talking about my conflict with so and so here?” Such inquiries would be a violation of the perpetrator's privacy and could also be interpreted as a “false accusation” that makes their colleagues uncomfortable. As a result, the supervisors could demote or transfer the survivor away from the person who now feels attacked professionally, which ironically would achieve their goal of removing the target. If the target recognizes they do not have any evidence, however, the target is stuck in a repetitive pattern of abuse. Eventually the stress wears them down and they lose control mentally or emotionally. No matter what they choose, they lose. There is no escape except to flee.  

Here is one example from my narrative that illustrates this deceptive aspect of workplace mobbing:  

Years before I recognized my perceived downward mobbing, I asked my perpetrator to stay out of my classroom during my free period as I was unable to concentrate. I created this boundary after I got the impression he was recording our conversations while I worked. This is because he would talk to me about something and then ask me what I thought about it. He talked about Native American religion and ghosts, for example, and then said, “what do you think?” He knew I was a religious person, and I felt like his conversations were trying to goad me towards some sort of intolerant remark that he could use against me. When he would talk to me, he sat across from me with his computer open and towards me. It got to the point where I was wondering if he was recording me so my comments could not later come down to a he-said-she-said sort of conflict. While I never said anything intolerant, I wanted him out of the room. I was uncomfortable and was not getting any work done. Consequently, I told him to go somewhere else. He said he would, and he did. 

At the following month’s staff meeting, my principal put me in what I perceived was a humiliating situation. Within a year, I was going to pilot a new, esteemed program that taught a gifted social studies class in close collaboration with a gifted English class. I was all ears when my principal and the 6th grade honors teachers discussed the 8th grade program during a staff meeting as he had yet to tell me anything about what the curriculum looked like. To my shock, my ELA teacher (who later mobbed me) was asked during the meeting to confirm the 8th grade curriculum theme. This shocked me as the point of the honors program was to offer gifted students more in-depth, collaborative social studies and ELA units that focused on the same themes and skills. Yet now I realized my supervisor(s) had not included me, the social studies teacher and anticipated team leader, in the very meeting that determined the scope of our entire curriculum. I nodded along while she sat next to me yet was totally hurt. I still trusted him though, and knew he needed me to be selfless as he tried to keep the staff united amid my newly esteemed position. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone else wanted the job? Maybe someone thought I should not have gotten the job? Maybe he just forgot? Maybe he just did not think I needed to be there? I did not know. I just trusted him and knew he wanted me to selfless and serve the unlovable. I tried to relax knowing he had to have a good reason.  (Looking back, I now also wonder: did he wanted me to think someone else wanted the job?) 

A month later, my rear car windshield broke while parked on campus.  When I looked at it, I was stunned and did not believe it  shattered on its own. I recalled everything that had happened in the last three months. I perceived my perpetrator was trying to record me so he could ruin my reputation. My principal excluded me from a meeting, which I interpreted as him keeping the peace among the staff as I transitioned to an esteemed position. I was quick to conclude maybe my perpetrator or one of his allies broke my windshield. In a way, I felt relieved as now there was no way he could deny people did not like me. At least now I had proof it was probable. 

At the same time, though, I knew my principal would be quick to not believe me if I claimed my perpetrator and his allies did not like me. Four months earlier, I asked my principal if I could organize a collection of Student of the month decorations. After he ignored multiple emails I sent, I went down to his office and told him he could tell me no as I knew “people did not like me in the building.” He angrily replied I was wrong, and that people did like me. I then later emailed him and apologized for assuming people would not want me to lead this event. He asked for no information from me on why I thought people did not like me. He never checked in to ensure I was safe and was not being bullied. He simply dismissed me and said, “people do like you.”  And now he wanted me to believe the window broke on its own. It did not make any sense to me.

My trust continued to crumble a month after my windshield broke when he blamed me for a curriculum mistake that involved my perpetrator and another teacher. All three of us approved the curriculum yet, to my knowledge, I was the only one that got called to his office to discuss its error. I got the impression he was suddenly and unexpectedly being unfair to me. And this was all before I was supposed to start the honors program the following school year. I was entirely confused. I absolutely no longer accepted he was selfless as he failed to protect me when I came forward with a complaint and later had my property damaged on campus. I knew I felt bullied by my workplace mob. At the same time, though, I knew I did not have direct evidence that connected my perpetrator or his allies to the crime scene. Consequently, I could not determine what was a real threat and what was a perceived threat. I felt helpless and completely unable to protect myself from it happening again.  

This is the perceived deception of workplace mobbing. A survivor cannot tell what is a real danger and what is just a perceived danger. Emotions cloud their judgement as they are thrown into a state of fear, anxiety, and anger. They risk losing their temper, ignoring work obligations, and breaking their contract, especially clauses that require them to keep matters confidential and to not falsely accuse.

Workplace mobbing involves a group of employees who attempt to push out their target with intimidation and manipulation. The group can create “random” coincidences” to terrorize their target. These “mere” accidents connect one of their workplace mobbing colleague(s) with another workplace mobbing employees. In other words, the target suddenly becomes aware that one colleague knows about something that happened privately between themselves and another employee(s). Their mob makes this connection discrete so no one is aware of it except them and their target. 

I noted these manipulated coincidences most clearly following my 2011 and 2018 sexual harassment investigations. In 2011, I came forward with a sexual harassment allegation. Shortly thereafter, my principal stood up at a staff meeting and announced he would investigate all student sexual harassment allegations. I thought he was saying he would investigate staff sexual harassment allegations then too. That seemed reasonable. I was being gas light through by “random” coincidences.  Based on my 2018 report, I am led to believe he never did anything with my sexual harassment report. 

In the school year immediately after my 2018 investigation, I perceived administration using “random” coincidences to victim shame me. During the 2017-2018 school year, my team fell apart as two members regularly mobbed and gas lit me. At the following 2018 summer leadership training, our administration focused on resolving conflict with team norms. They even assigned us a book to read on the topic. The start of that school year, I made certain everyone on our team, including my two mobsters, agreed to these norms. When my mobsters violated these norms, I held them accountable, privately emailing them and reminding them of our team norms. For example, that November, I emailed one perceived mobster and asked her to stop complaining at team about kids’ poor choices. I reminded her that Wednesday was our student concern day and we needed to set aside the other days for student tasks. She did not respond to this email. The following month, in December, I emailed a second perceived mobster to ask her to keep the counselors’ day gossip free. This concerned arose from a comment she made about another staff member who she perceived talked disrespectful to students because she was with rash and abrupt with her. 

My perceived mobster did not respond well to what I perceived was accountability. She demanded a team meeting where she could discuss our gossip norm with everyone. At this meeting, she expressed her frustration with me. She said she felt like a subordinate around me as I set time limits for her report at our meetings. I then reminded her that I was team leader and that I set the team agenda. I also told her this strategy was suggested at the district’s team training session in August and by a book we were assigned to read by the district. She then asked that I not email her anymore if I had a concern but come and talk to her in person. I said that I am a thinker and need more time to process what I wanted to say and how I wanted to proceed. She rejected this need, stating that I could only talk with her in person. She also emphasized that she did not care about our team minutes and that she was not going to read them anymore. As for the gossip, she said that she did not gossip but was merely venting about a conversation she had with another staff member. My second perceived mobster, meanwhile, chimed in and said she did not think my email to her was appropriate either. She said I seemed closed to discussing student behaviors and needed to listen to her more, even if it was at every team meeting.

The “ironic” coincident about this situation is the following summer leadership training (2019-2020) my administration spent time telling us venting was permissible by the district. She even acknowledged that her subordinate regularly came to her to vent about teachers she observed and met with. I was shocked. Neither I nor my principal talked about the events that unfolded the previous school year regarding gossip. Yet here they were telling me and the entire leadership group that we should permit venting during team time. I found the timing of this “instruction” odd, especially since it favored my perceived mobster’s perspective over mine. I was doubly shocked when my trainer failed to address the difference between gossiping and venting. Without any clarification, the staff was bound to be confused, misbehave, and break the district’s policies. I asked the district to clarify this difference in my 2020 mobbing complaint. They refused.

Another example of a “coincidence” in my story involves a new school policy that rolled out the school year immediately following my 2018 formal sexual harassment complaint. At the start of the 2018-2019 school year, my principal stated during an all staff meeting that two years previously (sometime during 2016?), a student sexual harassment case went before the Civil Rights Board because the student did not understand how to file a proper sexual harassment complaint. Consequently, the district was now requiring all middle school staff to show students a presentation that clearly defined what sexual harassment was and where to locate the district’s sexual harassment complaint form. He did not name this case. I found it interesting though that only four months after my sexual harassment complaint, the district was now requiring all middle school staff and students to understand where the district’ complaint form was located on their website. I remembered that within my interview I stated I was never told where this paperwork was should I have wanted to file a formal charge in 2011. Yet now I was forced not only to find it but to go over it with my students.

I was most definitely triggered by these “random” circumstances. Fortunately, my biblical wisdom and support system taught me to restrain my emotions outwardly. Inwardly, however, I spiraled out of control. There seemed no way to end my mobbing. Whatever my district asked me to do to keep myself safe, failed. I only encountered more attacks when I advocated for myself. To make matters worse, four months prior I became aware from my therapist that I was not the only sexual harassment survivor gas lit by my district.  I was traumatized knowing they had done this before and felt no shame when they drove her to therapy.  They willingly did it again to me and would continue their discrimination.  Severe hopelessness entered into my story, a despair so deep that I formed a plan to end my life.  

I was deceived alright. No doubt about that. I was deceived into thinking no one would believe me. It was “just a coincidence after all.” That is the nature of gas lighting. It is intentionally meant to wound you psychologically.  Mobsters mean to trick your mind and warp your judgement so you feel absolutely ruined, discredited, and disempowered. And then sadly, you do just what your mob wanted: you leave.