![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 19:13:44
This isn't actually for me, but this is a great source of info, so I thought I'd ask here on another's behalf.
My girlfriend works for a small non-profit. As long as she has been there, there has been another individual who, to put it mildly, fomented unrest among the employees whenever possible, and made her life quite difficult as soon as she assumed a position of authority in the company. Her feeling was that he deeply resented being overlooked for a promotion, saw her as an upstart, and did anything he could to erode her reputation among his peers in the organization. What was especially troubling was his tendancy to simply lie to people when it suited him. He fabricated or distorted numerous stories about real or perceived slights by her, her supposed incompetance, etc. Of course, she only found out about these things long after the fact, and after considerable damage had been done.
At any rate, things steadily declined until, after being denied by the senior manager a promotion and a substantial raise, he resigned. He later contacted numerous members of the board of trustees who oversee the non-profit, attempting to portray his resignation as something he was more-or-less compelled to do, and in general, was just a major pain in the ass. He even began to backpedal, as this tactic appeared to be failing, claiming he would be willing to renegotiate his raise under certain conditions. This is after handing in the signed letter saying he wanted to quit.
Quite some time ago, my girlfriend told me of an extremely uncomfortable night she spent driving him home from a meeting. This person is convinced he is a faith healer and has profound involvement in a small church, I assume something like (or actually) a Pentacostal sect, since charismatic worship is a big part of the ceremony. Anyway, during this drive he revealed how much the Lord helped him with his emotional troubles, how difficult his childhood in a totally dysfunctional family was, and how, at times, he cut himself because of the pain.
I thought immediately: Borderline personality disorder. I had seriously considered before that the guy might just be psychotic or in some other way pathologically antisocial, but this just seemed too much like stuff I read in books, in light of the cutting revelation, to not consider b.p.d.
So, days before the resignation is a fait accompli, he calls to say he is in the hospital. Literally last night, before we knew of the news, I reiterated to her that I thought he was borderline, and that there would probably be trouble of some sort before he left. It would be his pattern anyway, regardless of diagnosis. Now he's hospitalized, and no one knows quite why. He's got a wife (yes, I'm amazed too) who is unemployed and sick herself with something. She's about to go over the deep end. He, I'm guessing, probably attempted suicide, quite likely in a way designed to fail. I am wondering (and I feel a bit horrible for wondering, but I can't help it) if this isn't a very sick ploy of his to manipulate everyone around him so that he can reverse whatever it is that he's done to himself. He quit on his own. He's thus not eligible for unemployment. His wife's unemployed and obviously deeply troubled. He's in deep shit, I'm thinking. He's desperate. His gamesmanship, only remotely successful up to now because he works in a place that has so little corporate structure, finally blew up in his face.
I'll make no secret of this: I am rather inclined to hate this guy's guts because of the grief he has caused my girlfriend. And yet...
The thing is, I also have read that people who suffer in this manner are tormented to the extreme. I have sampled a bit of that torment myself, and am not a stranger to the inside of a psyche ward (where I'm assuming he is) though I am not, myself, a borderline patient by any means. Her boss has, well let's not mince words, little or no spine. I told her, as the final day of departure approached, to speak to her boss in confidence about the cutting revelations, dress up my suspicions as advice from "a friend in the know", to hold the guy inexorably to the resignation and change the locks after he left. Wash their hands and be done with him.
Now he's hospitalized, with tomorrow his last official day. My g.f.'s boss is distraught. He can't handle these things (oh, the joys of non-profit organizations). My instinct says, to her, take charge. Put the poor ex-employees stuff in a box and send it to his house with your condolences. Change the locks. Don't invite him back. Don't do anything else. Walk away as clean as possible. If he shows up on their doorstep, call the damn police. I want to explode. I'm deathly afraid her boss is going to buckle under the pressure of thinking he's ruined an infirm man's life and ask him back, and the troubles will just continue forever. I personally think she should just run screaming from the place and never go back anyway, but that's beside the point. She's second in command, with, if it can be called that, a lot of influence. I have no stake in this organization except her wellbeing. I want very badly to pressure her to pressure her boss to make sure the ejector seat, which the trouble'd ex-employee triggered himself, works like a charm and plants him somewhere far away. And yet...
I feel like a heartless bastard at times. This man's a human being with, like as not, serious, serious problems. God only knows what he might do to himself, or what will become of him and his wife once his income is cut off. What's the really right thing to do? What's the best for all concerned. Again my instincts tell me, whatever unfortunate circumstances have propelled this man to where he is now, he won't be helped this time by a another second chance. He's got bigger issues than his boss can deal with, and it's best he just move on, and we can all just hope he gets the help he needs. But of course, how convenient that position is, since I half the time wish he'd take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm sorry for this longwinded monologue. But, as weird as this sounds (and seems to myself), I, not being someone with anywhere near professional credentials as a mental-health professional, might, through my influence on and desire to protect one of his superiors, have a bit to do with what happens to this man in the near future. I could just butt out entirely, but I rather feel this explosive need to say "For GAWDSAKES whatever you do, don't hire this guy back." The problem: My girlfriend is about as kindhearted as they come. She's a stronger person by far than her boss, but she's got a few soft spots herself. I don't want her to do something that might jeopardize her safety or mental wellbeing. Or, perhaps more likely, I don't want her to do nothing and miss an opportuinity to take a stand and prevent the above.
Quite literally yesterday we both returned, incommunicado up to that point, from a very enjoyable little trip to New York City. What a drag to come home to this seeming disaster. You know, I guess this is for me after all. So, what do you think?
Adam
Posted by Noa on November 21, 2000, at 19:32:09
In reply to Need Some Advice, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 19:13:44
If this man's hospitalization is a "ploy" (I tend to doubt it, because it sounds like he has had a long history of serious problems), it is a short-sighted ploy, I think. I would think that whatever concerns the company had about him wouldn't exactly be reversed by his loss of stability, but then there is the question--just how weak is the boss?
If they are sympathetic to his plight, perhaps they might consider offering to pay his COBRA coverage for a while, so he can get the treatment he needs, or hook him up with disability. But if they had concerns about his ability to function as a team member, that is a legitimate reason to let him go--as long as they warned him and documented it.
Basic advice to your girlfreind:
1. Document everything.
2. Think about the decision logically.
3. Consider sympathetic gestures separately from business decisions.
4. State her opinion clearly to the boss. Use her influence to try to persuade, but:
5. Let the boss make the decision.
and finally--
6. If the guy comes back and the same old same old starts up again, consider finding a work environment that is healthier.Oh, and btw--who knows about a diagnosis of BPD or something else, but you may be interested in some of the "cutting" threads from the past month or two. Cutting isn't always a sign of BPD, or attention getting gestures. It can be but isn't always.
Posted by coral on November 21, 2000, at 20:07:54
In reply to Re: Need Some Advice, posted by Noa on November 21, 2000, at 19:32:09
Dear Adam,
Advise your girlfriend to ask to speak with the organization's attorney, with or without the boss present. THIS is crucial in terms of client priviledge. She is in an extremely dangerous situation. I cannot emphasize that enough. Workplace violence is one of my professional specialties and you've hit several key profile points. There is already the question of ADA protection for this individual. How the organization moves forward should be directed by competent counsel. You're beyond the point of venting and consoling and are now in potentially very dangerous waters, and I do mean that literally. Your girlfriend is legally entitled to protection, based on Federal OSHA guidelines and should immediately take advantage of that protection by voicing her concerns. One option that may make sense, if he wishes to recant his resignation and the company takes him back is to place him in a job-jeopardy situation, contingent upon therapy and the on-going evaluations of the therapist. In the meantime, your girlfriend should take all reasonable precautions regarding her own safety. If this frightens you, it should.
Please let me know if I may be of assistance.
Coral
Posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 21:29:56
In reply to Need Some Advice, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 19:13:44
Adam,
I would like to respond to the parts of your post in which you felt bad that you didn't have buckets of sympathy for the ways in which this person behaved. I agree that not every seeming "cry for help" is genuine, one symptom (for lack of a better word) of some illnesses is that the ill person jerks other people around, and lies, and tries to make self look good or better than others, or cries wolf about being in pain, or otherwise uses people around him or her.While I think it is appropriate to have sympathy that he is in pain, he needs help, he probably had a traumatic time in his early years, and so forth...I don't believe it's helpful or appropriate to believe everything he says (to be lied to again and again) or ignore what may obviously have all the signs of another ploy designed to get attention (and probably have a negative impact on others in the process).
Alcoholics, of course, are famous for this.
In these types of situations, I believe it is important to try to be respectful, but it is most likely unhelpful and gullible to believe everything you hear, especially when it flies in the face of logic and is reminiscent of past manipulations.
My opinion--
Shar
Posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 21:51:29
In reply to Need Some Advice, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 19:13:44
Noa,
I'm aware that cutting is by no means always an attention-getting ploy, nor a clear diagnostic. I think it's the package that makes me suspect b.p.d. or worse. I do appreciate your measured response though, and also want to apologize, in advance, to any and all who might think I am inclined to view any with such severe difficulties in a dim light. My feelings are, to be sure, colored considerably by my udeniable dislike of this person, who, strangely enough, on the couple occasions that we met, seemed quite personable and not in any way in distress. I guess the latter especially shouldn't suprise me, given my own troubles. However, the impression one gets of this guy at first, contrasted with what I have learned about his behavior, leaves me freaked out, for lack of a better term. I've got a VERY bad feeling about this guy. I know the "darkness in men's souls" if you will. I'm not myself guiltless of desperate behavior due to severe emotional distress, though nothing like what I can imagine a person could be capable of. This guy seems like all the human contradictions that have ever kept me up at night in horrible introspection magnified 100 times, and that ain't good, in my estimation.
coral, I think you may be right, even if we are both wrong in our assessment of this particular person: This is no time to not use vigilance and to preempt any possible legal challenges. I think she is largely if not completely shielded from responsibility for his losing his job, since A) She's not his boss, and B) he himself resigned. Do you know, though, if a person can be said to have been "not of sound mind" when having made such a move, and thus able to reverse it regardless of the employer's intent? How can one stop such a ploy, if it could be attempted? How do they finesse his self-initiated termination without seeming like callous opportunists looking to jettison a troubled but righteous individual denied his due? As sick as it sounds, this (oh I am tempted to use some unpleasant epithets here) _person_ has some people in the organization convinced that The Management are a bunch of self-serving buffoons. His "gamesmanship", though not very adept, is to not have ever done anthing criminally wrong (as far as anyone can tell) up to this point, though he certainly has behaved in a deplorably unethical manner, as far as I'm concerned.
Shite. One can really imagine some serious doomsday scenerios here, and it seems like the really tough job is to react in the proper measure, discretely and decisively, so that those in the organization, who shouldn't be concerned with these sticky details, know little or nothing about any possible legal actions taken, and that nothing that could come back and bite you in the arse later isn't overlooked.
And last, but not least, as thoroughly unsympathetic as I feel toward this person, how do you make sure he doesn't end up in some irredeemable predicament? I think Noa had it right with sympathetic gestures made in a non-work-related capacity, but what?
Posted by Racer on November 22, 2000, at 0:45:06
In reply to Re: Noa, coral, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 21:51:29
I think you missed Coral's main point: workplace VIOLENCE.
To your girlfriend: Get thee to a Lawyer, lickety split.
This isn't about being sympathetic, it's about physical safety. The lawyer is also probably the best thing you can do for the soon-to-be-ex-employee, as well. If there is a chance at ADA assistance for him, the lawyer can find a way to work it out for the safety of all concerned -- without danger to other employees.
Don't delay, since your girlfriend could be in danger whether she made the decision or not.
Quoting you:
This is no
time to not use vigilance and to preempt any possible legal challenges. I think she is largely if not completely
shielded from responsibility for his losing his job, since A) She's not his boss, and B) he himself resigned. Do you
know, though, if a person can be said to have been "not of sound mind" when having made such a move, and thus
able to reverse it regardless of the employer's intent? How can one stop such a ploy, if it could be attempted?I can think of at least one case in which someone quit, then tried to get his job back this way: Dan White, a supervisor in San Francisco some time back. Some of you may remember the name, since he went on to kill both Mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk.
Let's try this again, Adam, for your girlfriend's sake: Dan White KILLED the other two, shot them multiple times, reloaded to keep shooting, committed an act of workplace VIOLENCE.
Sorry if I sound strident, this sort of thing worries me.
Posted by coral on November 22, 2000, at 4:47:32
In reply to Re: Noa, coral, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 21:51:29
Dear Adam,
>
> coral, I think you may be right, even if we are both wrong in our assessment of this particular person: This is no time to not use vigilance and to preempt any possible legal challenges. I think she is largely if not completely shielded from responsibility for his losing his job, since A) She's not his boss, and B) he himself resigned. Do you know, though, if a person can be said to have been "not of sound mind" when having made such a move, and thus able to reverse it regardless of the employer's intent? How can one stop such a ploy, if it could be attempted? How do they finesse his self-initiated termination without seeming like callous opportunists looking to jettison a troubled but righteous individual denied his due? As sick as it sounds, this (oh I am tempted to use some unpleasant epithets here) _person_ has some people in the organization convinced that The Management are a bunch of self-serving buffoons. His "gamesmanship", though not very adept, is to not have ever done anthing criminally wrong (as far as anyone can tell) up to this point, though he certainly has behaved in a deplorably unethical manner, as far as I'm concerned.I'm not worried about your girlfriend being protected from any legal action against her (I can't see a cause . . .). What I am concerned about is that she help her employer by making her claims of not feeling safe known to the employer in front of counsel, which provides immense protection to the organization.
A company is under no obligation to keep an employee or take back an employee who has resigned and recanted, especially if that employee has caused other employees to be fearful. Frankly, all the employer has to do, if this employees says, "Hey, I didn't mean to quit," is say, "We've accepted your resignation."
>
> Shite. One can really imagine some serious doomsday scenerios here, and it seems like the really tough job is to react in the proper measure, discretely and decisively, so that those in the organization, who shouldn't be concerned with these sticky details, know little or nothing about any possible legal actions taken, and that nothing that could come back and bite you in the arse later isn't overlooked.You're absolutely right. That's why I said get Thee to Counsel, as in the organization's attorney, now!
>
> And last, but not least, as thoroughly unsympathetic as I feel toward this person, how do you make sure he doesn't end up in some irredeemable predicament? I think Noa had it right with sympathetic gestures made in a non-work-related capacity, but what?I admire Noa's compassion, but anything the organization does can be used against it, in our litigious society. The "beauty", if you can call it that, in workplace violence, is that appropriate intervention has an excellent record of success, in keeping people safe, in helping people turn their lives around. The WORST thing that can be done is to ignore it and allow the dangerous situation to continue.
It's crucial to know that during separation, via termination or resignation, is when the risk is the greatest and your girlfriend's organization needs professionals to assist them in handling this situation for all concerned. There are VERY specific steps to be taken under the guidance of a workplace violence specialist.
Good luck and let us know what happens....
Coral
Posted by Adam on November 22, 2000, at 9:32:02
In reply to Need Some Advice, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 19:13:44
Again, I think you all are right: One must be compassionate, but also use common sense. I'm leaning as hard as I can to get legal counsel involved immediately. The very fact that it hasn't happened already is, in my mind, a clear indicator of the unconventional (or simply disorganized) environment in which she works. She has done a great deal to imrove on this (hence her rapid ascent), but it seems, unfortunately, she must take the intitiative again even when others should have a long time ago.
I must, at this point, confess my own transgression in that I did not get her complete permission to print my concerns here (meaning I should have let her see the message before I posted it). It was not my first impulse to share it with her at all, but seeing the real potential for violence, I did, and I think she rightly feels my description of events contained too much detail, is concerned about its accuracy, since it contains only one perspective, and wishes I hadn't done it. So I must apologize to you all, too, since I clearly overstepped a bound myself, and may have done her harm. I'm hoping very much nothing comes of it. Perhaps I should look to counsel myself to make sure nothing I say could be incriminating, or that I absorb that responsibility completely. I should say publically she has never been deprecating in her descriptions of anyone in that organization. If any individuals or the institution appear in a negative light, it is my own assessment, and in no way reflects her oppinions. It is the record of events, with possible mistakes, through my own lense, and I take full responsibility for any wrongdoing if I have done wrong.
But, be that as it may, I am, as I said, doing what I can to make sure this proceeds expeditiously to a lawyers office. I will post followups, though I hope you understand, I will need to be more vague.
Thank you very much for your help.
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 12:07:04
In reply to Manipulators do happen, posted by shar on November 21, 2000, at 21:29:56
I agree, Shar.
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 12:10:45
In reply to Re: Noa, coral, posted by Adam on November 21, 2000, at 21:51:29
Adam, I don't fault you at all for being suspicious of or furious with this guy!! Or scared of him, either!
And, I don't take what you said to mean you are insensitive to those in pain.
This is a difficult situation, and of course his behavior would stir up those feelings. And those feelings probably should be trusted as signals.
I think Coral's advice was far more informed than my own. Good legal advice seems indicated here.
Posted by Noa on November 22, 2000, at 12:19:07
In reply to Re: Thank you, all, posted by Adam on November 22, 2000, at 9:32:02
Adam,
if it makes you feel better, ask a lawyer about your having talked to us about it, but I really doubt it is an issue because we don't know who you really are or who your girlfriend is or who the guy is or what company it is.
Perhaps for now, just tell your girlfriend you have been thinking about it , or even that you ran a "hypothetical" by an old friend who has knowledge of such things, and you believe she and her boss need to involve the company attorney NOW.
Ignore my compassionate suggestions. They were not the main thrust of my point anyway, and I have to defer to Coral and Racer, who know a LOT more about this than I do.
This is what company lawyers are for. And, employment law can be tricky if correct procedures are not followed. I hadn't really considered the violence thing as seriously as I should have, either.
Posted by coral on November 23, 2000, at 7:37:14
In reply to Re: Thank you, all, posted by Adam on November 22, 2000, at 9:32:02
I'm not an attorney but work with enough of them (a major law firm is one of my clients), and as I see it, the only potential liability now is with the employer. Once an unsafe condition is identified, the liability for the employer increases tremendously. So, it's not what you posted here that would create liability because you have protection under the First Amendment, and beyond that, you're entitled to your own feelings.
I don't recommend being dishonest with your girlfriend due to potential damage to your personal relationship. Furthermore, her safety is what is in jeopardy here - psychologically, at least, and we hope that doesn't progress to any physical harm. I can't tell you the number of times employees, employers, friends, etc., have said to me, "Oh, geez, yeah, I thought he was dangerous but didn't want to make waves." In one particularly horrific situation, a supervisor knew threats had been made, did nothing other than just "listen", and the employee was killed. While it's not the fault of the supervisor that a murder happened, the guilt this man lives with will haunt him for the rest of his life. In these situations, an organization is consistently far better off to act now, rather than waiting. When someone's dead, it's too late, for everyone concerned.
Posted by Adam on November 30, 2000, at 12:32:17
In reply to Re: Thank you, all, posted by coral on November 23, 2000, at 7:37:14
Just as an update, and possible conclusion, things seem to have proceeded fairly smoothly. There was a big meeting of board members and employees. The meeting was not directly related to recent events, but the issues I raised above were discussed, and, per all of your suggestions, certain thorny legal and safety concerns were raised to good effect.
Disiformation has been tolerably neutralized, at least in the board. Eroded confidence among employees will probably take more time to rebuild, but folks are optimistic that concerted efforts or natural attrition (there tends to be high turnover in small-non-profits in entry-level postions) will fix this problem too.
Locks have been changed, and the resignation is now most definitely final.An attempt at re-hire some time in the future will not succeed under the current management.
Those in the know have confrimed my suspicions: The individual who caused the trouble attempted suicide, or so he says. What is clear is that his life was never in serious danger, so long as reasonably swift medical attention was available. It was, of course, which makes the question of intent rather moot. I remain highly suspicious of manipulative behavior, but I suppose I will never know for sure.
As for what will become of this person, I'm also not sure. He is physically well, from what I understand. His demeanor is outwardly cheerful, and references to the event are made matter-of-factly, as if it happened to someone else. Unfortunately for this person, I think his future may lie largely in his hands at this point, since he will be an outpatient soon. Now that he appears to be out of physical danger, I think the sad truth is he has burned so many bridges few who we know are inclined to maintain contact or offer assistance unbidden.
From what I understand, he is not prone to violence, though I don't think my girlfriend will be spending many nights alone for a while. Beyond what we're doing, I'm not sure there are any other angles to explore. It's largely done.
Again, I thany you all for your input. It actually was quite valuable, got the dialogue focused on some key issues, and likely expedited the appropriate actions. Give yourselves a hug and a pat on the back for me.
Adam
> I'm not an attorney but work with enough of them (a major law firm is one of my clients), and as I see it, the only potential liability now is with the employer. Once an unsafe condition is identified, the liability for the employer increases tremendously. So, it's not what you posted here that would create liability because you have protection under the First Amendment, and beyond that, you're entitled to your own feelings.
>
> I don't recommend being dishonest with your girlfriend due to potential damage to your personal relationship. Furthermore, her safety is what is in jeopardy here - psychologically, at least, and we hope that doesn't progress to any physical harm. I can't tell you the number of times employees, employers, friends, etc., have said to me, "Oh, geez, yeah, I thought he was dangerous but didn't want to make waves." In one particularly horrific situation, a supervisor knew threats had been made, did nothing other than just "listen", and the employee was killed. While it's not the fault of the supervisor that a murder happened, the guilt this man lives with will haunt him for the rest of his life. In these situations, an organization is consistently far better off to act now, rather than waiting. When someone's dead, it's too late, for everyone concerned.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.