The context
We are in a point of sale of a major international clothing brand. One of the employees, acting as deputy director without however having the title, has just been the victim of a robbery. He refuses to stop his work but is afraid, feels guilty and ashamed of what happened to him.
The protagonists
The store manager tries to find out how this robbery happened; he questions his subordinate relentlessly.
The HR department is going in the same direction because it wants to know if there have been breaches and if the employee should be sanctioned.
The occupational physician recommends psychological care.
Weakened, the victim of the robbery gets confused in his explanations; he gives different versions, reveals inconsistencies.
The store manager, who holds his subordinate in esteem and was preparing to promote him, begins to doubt him.
A blocking situation arises between the employee and the store manager. The collaborator does not want to stop his work even if he is afraid of ending up at the scene of the robbery; he ends up asking for mobility, even if this is accompanied by a renunciation of his status and a partial abandonment of his current responsibilities.
Attempts at solutions
The collaborator tries to control his emotions (fear, guilt, shame, etc.), tries to avoid negative reactions, accepts help. He needs to see himself as a lion and thinks he'll get by with mobility.
His hierarchical superior also sees the salvation of his collaborator only in mobility.
The entourage wants to protect him, shows empathy but persists in wanting to know the truth.
Our diagnosis
The employee is in a situation of acute stress. It seems essential to us to prevent post-traumatic stress.
Solution
The company must resolve to assume a position where the sanction will not be based on non-tangible elements and finally make a decision by ceasing to want to know the truth at all costs
We recommend supporting the employee to treat the symptoms of post-traumatic stress and anticipate the side effects of mobility.
