Not that unbelievable, sadly

I withdraw that word 'unbelievably' in the previous post. It is all too believable because it is consistent with a certain personality type. A type which I meet constantly whenever I swim against the tide.

Of course, swimmimg against the tide is the result of a personality type too: I don't seek to minimise my own responsibility for my behaviour. But the personality type against which I swim does that all the while.

Consider the person whose insecurities lead him (or, obviously, her...) constantly to control every facet of his existence: the sort of person we might call a control freak. But there's more to it than that. The fear of embarrassment or the fear of being found out, or just of being thought challenged, which leads to the need for excessive control brings with it an inability to accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Such people can't accept blame: so they blame someone - anyone - else.

It is clear where the 'blame culture' which goes inevitably with the habit of micro-management comes from, and therefore why the letter had to state that I had resigned when in fact I was 'sacked' (in quotes because it wasn't a paid job: if it had been I'd be agitating for an employment tribunal and compensation for constructive dismissal and injustice).

So not unbelievable at all. Just very sad and very unfair.

Unbelievably a letter, sent from the trustees to a wide range of people including unspecified  'correspondents', claimed that I had "felt it necessary to resign as editor' etc.  The fact is that I was forced to resign, but inevitably they don't mention that...

Then, adding further insult to this and to the injury, the letter burbled on about being "grateful for the gifts Revd Dr Jordan brought to his role" and wished me "well in the future."

This is not what psychologists call 'cognitive dissonance'  because that entails a degree of discomfort at holding two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time: the writer(s) of this letter clearly see nothing incongruous about treating me so unjustly one day and writing such sanctimonious rubbish the next. 

Storms among the tea cups

Until last Monday I was the editor of the York Diocesan Mothers' Union Newsletter. Then, as a direct result of my "appeal" against disciplinary action which had been  taken against me in my absence and even without my ever having been told what the charges were, I was summarily 'sacked.' 

If I had to speculate about the reasons behind this, I would say that I had been declared persona non grata by refusing to compromise the integrity of the newsletter. It is pertinent to note that having successfully 'sacked' me, the Board went on to kill the newsletter anyway...

In the face of the gross injustice I have resigned all office with Mothers' Union (which is why, if you came via either of them,  I took down the web site and the mailing list which, incidentally, I had initiated and maintained at my own expense on behalf of York Diocesan Mothers' Union).

Mothers' Union has the potential to be a major force for good: we can - and should - be about more than just making the tea for the Church of England. But, sadly, I believe that the present administration has slid into a habit of micro-management, and the inevitable 'blame culture' which goes with it, and it is this which directly led to my being so unjustly treated. This 'style' of management stifles creativity and productivity, and needs to be challenged and changed.

The purpose of this post is to ask for comments - if I'm wrong, I need to know how: if the present administration of Mothers' Union in the Diocese of York is wrong, they need to know.