Show me some courage
I discovered the term Institutional Betrayal listening to Tiny Spark’s podcast The Woman Who ‘Saved Mercy Corps’.
After listening to the podcast, I sensed a breakthrough in my search for closure.
Although I was sexually harassed, the compliance office dictated otherwise: a poorly conducted investigation concluded that the behaviour of my colleague did not constitute sexual harassment against me. This outcome enhanced my suffering and hindered my healing — not because of the conclusion, but because of the process.
I felt the powerful organisation on which I was dependent and that I trusted had betrayed me, and this is the very definition of institutional betrayal.
I regretted having reported the sexual harassment as I considered the whole investigative procedure had added insult to injury. It felt like a stab in the back, an additional harm. I found that my emotions were explained by the research of Dr. Freyd (the professor in psychology who introduced the concept of “institutional betrayal”): “This exacerbative effect of institutional betrayal is particularly interesting as the betrayal necessarily occurred apart from the sexual assault itself—either in events leading up to the sexual assault or in those following it.”* I began to grasp the nuances of my wounds as I dove deeper into these concepts.
Both the events leading up to my harassment and the investigative procedures afterwards failed to provide me the most basic support. Therefore, besides trying to heal myself of the trauma created by the sexual abuse, I had to deal with the additional pain caused by institutional betrayal.
The antidote to address institutional betrayal is “institutional courage.” Institutional courage includes avoiding cruel responses to victim disclosures and enabling discussions about what happened to the victims— with the victims. This approach proclaims as well the need of the organisation to be accountable and apologize for mistakes.
I wish my organisation showed courage. I hope for an honest and transparent conversation about the way my case was handled, and an apology for the lack of sensitivity shown by them. There lies in these actions more than redress for an individual grievance. Because my story illustrates known damaging patterns that endanger the whole humanitarian sector.
When scandals arise, a common reaction from insiders is to turn against whistleblowers as public disclosure tarnishes the image of the sector:
“Sssh, you are harming our projects, funding will be cut and it is your fault if we can’t continue our good work”.
Instead of cherishing the people who point out the problems so they can be addressed, these attitudes feed betrayal blindness— described as the refusal to see what is going on when we care so much about the organisation that we are ready to overlook abuses.
By exposing institutional betrayal, I actually remain faithful to the pillars of the institution I still cherish. Because, as Dr. Freyd puts it, “... it’s really not a stretch to ask nonprofits to be making their own backyards the place they want the world to be”.
*Institutional Betrayal. Carly Parnitzke Smith and Jennifer J. Freyd University of Oregon
