Theory: Surrounded by Lies
The "troublemaker" was placed in his/her position usually by lies about him/her made by someone usually jealous of the space he/she had, or the recognition and PR he/she got, or the workers he/she had, or because he/she showed up his/her boss, etc. Someone wants to bring him/her down.......... They will use anything they can to bring him/her down: sex, alcohol use, tobacco use, being late, leaving early, his/her private life, etc., etc.
It is connived so he/she cannot win. If he/she works on all jobs under his/her command so the work gets done he/she is said to be wasting his/her education on technician, or "grunt" work. If he/she does not do the work to get the job done, he/she is said to be above such work and has no feeling for the project and the organization. Either way he/she loses....and this starts the lies. If people buy into those initial lies then they just expand them to say things like he/she is spending valuable time fixing things rather than buying new equipment, or he/she spreads himself/herself too thin by trying to do too much, or he/she cannot manage his/her time well. Vague accusations are used that are hard to prove one way or the other. Other co-workers are glad he/she has been singled out for persecution because that means they are safe ........ for a while .........
People that have no concept of the work involved, and do not do any of the work involved, are making the decisions on the project, not because they know anything about the project, but because of the sick organization chain-of-command. Sometimes the "troublemaker" is singled out because he/she "shows up" his/her boss with a better idea or invention, or is just smarter. The boss then thinks he/she has to make the "troublemaker" look bad to the rest of the organization to prove he/she is still "top dog," and will do almost anything to make the "troublemaker" look bad, and him/her smarter and in command (usually an appointed, rather than earned, position).
By then the "troublemaker" has to make a decision on whether to leave (usually without a letter of recommendation) and start all over, or to stay on and try to get a retirement (if he/she is closer to retirement than half-way).
If he/she stays then it becomes a race to the finish ..... can he/she reach retirement, or will they finally get him/her?? ........... Or drive him/her nuts? .......... Or will he/she drive them crazy? ........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Theory: "Troublemaker" Becomes Superhuman
Theory: "Troublemaker" Becomes Superhuman
Tormenting or bullying can sometimes, probably rarely, lead the victim (one path/theory of many) to adapt to think faster, react faster, and be smarter than those around him/her in order to stay ahead of the tormentors. This, unfortunately, leads to the bullies trying harder to do him/her in. So the tormented has to become ever faster and smarter to stay ahead of the bullies ..... superhuman in taking abuse and out-thinking the bullies in order to keep his/her job.
This drives the bullies and sick organization establishment crazy, so they try ever more nasty tricks and set ups to try to get to the "troublemaker." They send sexy members of the opposite sex to see if person says anything wrong, or acts wrong, so they can get him/her on a sex crime, or misconduct. They make his/her papers, reports, and mail disappear, or get "lost," then punish him/her for missing a meeting, or deadline he/she knew nothing about.
They harass or torment him/her daily, making him/her toe the lines that no one else is forced to walk. They hold hearings or "inquisitions" over things he/she says. They make mountains out of insignificant things he/she says or does. They put him/her through kangaroo courts where so-called impartial members of the court have to call time-out to leave to go get more nasty questions from the tormentors for the kangaroo court. They make him/her do nasty jobs to see if they can get him/her on insubordination. They make him/her work holidays and weekends so they can do as they wish. They isolate him/her from about everyone. They try to trap him/her in making a mistake, but he/she knows by now he/she cannot make a mistake. He/she has to be perfect in every way on every day.
His/her mind is now like a huge computer, taking in all around him/her in order to protect himself/herself the best way possible to survive, and stay ahead of the bullies. He/she can outthink them all by now, and counters their moves. It was not how they planned his/her torture. They hate it............
It could happen as presented above; this could be one outcome of bullying, tormenting, etc.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Tormenting or bullying can sometimes, probably rarely, lead the victim (one path/theory of many) to adapt to think faster, react faster, and be smarter than those around him/her in order to stay ahead of the tormentors. This, unfortunately, leads to the bullies trying harder to do him/her in. So the tormented has to become ever faster and smarter to stay ahead of the bullies ..... superhuman in taking abuse and out-thinking the bullies in order to keep his/her job.
This drives the bullies and sick organization establishment crazy, so they try ever more nasty tricks and set ups to try to get to the "troublemaker." They send sexy members of the opposite sex to see if person says anything wrong, or acts wrong, so they can get him/her on a sex crime, or misconduct. They make his/her papers, reports, and mail disappear, or get "lost," then punish him/her for missing a meeting, or deadline he/she knew nothing about.
They harass or torment him/her daily, making him/her toe the lines that no one else is forced to walk. They hold hearings or "inquisitions" over things he/she says. They make mountains out of insignificant things he/she says or does. They put him/her through kangaroo courts where so-called impartial members of the court have to call time-out to leave to go get more nasty questions from the tormentors for the kangaroo court. They make him/her do nasty jobs to see if they can get him/her on insubordination. They make him/her work holidays and weekends so they can do as they wish. They isolate him/her from about everyone. They try to trap him/her in making a mistake, but he/she knows by now he/she cannot make a mistake. He/she has to be perfect in every way on every day.
His/her mind is now like a huge computer, taking in all around him/her in order to protect himself/herself the best way possible to survive, and stay ahead of the bullies. He/she can outthink them all by now, and counters their moves. It was not how they planned his/her torture. They hate it............
It could happen as presented above; this could be one outcome of bullying, tormenting, etc.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Friday, October 21, 2011
Theory: Victim, Ringleader, or both?
Theory: Victim, Ringleader, or both?
The victims of a sick organization are looked at differently by different people, depending on their job status, morals, etc. Some of those of lower job status, and some of those of the higher job status see one who is being treated unfairly, bullied, lied about, tormented, harassed, etc., and think of the person as a victim. The victim thinks of himself/herself as a victim. The victim is also called a complainer by many because he/she squawks when stepped upon. However, those of a lower job status that want to gain favor with the establishment, plus those of the establishment who want to stifle the "victim's" voice, ideas, influence, complaints, etc. usually think of the "victim" as the "ringleader" of the dissenters, especially if the "victim" is vocal in his/her complaints about the way he/she is being treated, or is going against the flow of the organization.
In one theoretical case (of many possibilities) one person had his/her salary reduced, and his/her workers taken away twice over the years in order to break him/her, or force him/her out. The sick organization thought the increased work load would force him/her out. There was infighting among several higher management people so higher authorities called for each senior member of the sick organization to go before a psychologist so everyone's character and personality could be analyzed prior to a mandatory weekend retreat that all would attend to work out the problems so work would flow more smoothly, and production increase. As the "troublemaker" or "victim" walked into the appointment with the psychologist, he/she was greeted with, "We understand you are the ringleader of the troubles around here." The victim got so angry he/she went into a several minute documentation of what had been done to him/her over the years and asked if he/she was the victim or the ringleader. The psychologist do not know what to say; shortly thereafter the mandatory retreat was called off and the parent organization of the sick organization then proceeded to do nothing about the problem, thereby enpowering the establishment to keep up their torment of the "troublemaker" and several others. The parent organization had backed the ones in power before (when they put them in) and they were not going to change no matter what, or admit they had done anything wrong, or stupid (by backing their people they put there in charge).
The sick organization had passed on the idea to the parent organization that the "troublemaker" was the "ringleader" of all sorts of crimes against the sick organization, when all he/she was doing was squawking when stepped on, and trying to protect himself/herself, and trying to fend off attacks. Of course the parent organization believed their own people who they had put in the positions of power over believing the "troublemaker," and also considered him/her the "ringleader" of problems around there.
Apparently it did not help the idea of a mandatory retreat when someone asked "Who's going to bring the guns? "
The parent organization did nothing then (retreat was cancelled), and did nothing to their buddies who just kept on doing as they had before, and just let attrition take its course. As each "troublemaker" left the sick organization had to pick another for the "troublemaker" position, and the sick organization went on as before.........
Depending on which side you are on (sick organization or tormented) the "troublemaker" is considered a ringleader of the opposition, or the victim of bullies.....and everyone loses..........and is not the best they could be........and the sick organization stays sick on and on ...............
Add your own theory to the comments...........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
The victims of a sick organization are looked at differently by different people, depending on their job status, morals, etc. Some of those of lower job status, and some of those of the higher job status see one who is being treated unfairly, bullied, lied about, tormented, harassed, etc., and think of the person as a victim. The victim thinks of himself/herself as a victim. The victim is also called a complainer by many because he/she squawks when stepped upon. However, those of a lower job status that want to gain favor with the establishment, plus those of the establishment who want to stifle the "victim's" voice, ideas, influence, complaints, etc. usually think of the "victim" as the "ringleader" of the dissenters, especially if the "victim" is vocal in his/her complaints about the way he/she is being treated, or is going against the flow of the organization.
In one theoretical case (of many possibilities) one person had his/her salary reduced, and his/her workers taken away twice over the years in order to break him/her, or force him/her out. The sick organization thought the increased work load would force him/her out. There was infighting among several higher management people so higher authorities called for each senior member of the sick organization to go before a psychologist so everyone's character and personality could be analyzed prior to a mandatory weekend retreat that all would attend to work out the problems so work would flow more smoothly, and production increase. As the "troublemaker" or "victim" walked into the appointment with the psychologist, he/she was greeted with, "We understand you are the ringleader of the troubles around here." The victim got so angry he/she went into a several minute documentation of what had been done to him/her over the years and asked if he/she was the victim or the ringleader. The psychologist do not know what to say; shortly thereafter the mandatory retreat was called off and the parent organization of the sick organization then proceeded to do nothing about the problem, thereby enpowering the establishment to keep up their torment of the "troublemaker" and several others. The parent organization had backed the ones in power before (when they put them in) and they were not going to change no matter what, or admit they had done anything wrong, or stupid (by backing their people they put there in charge).
The sick organization had passed on the idea to the parent organization that the "troublemaker" was the "ringleader" of all sorts of crimes against the sick organization, when all he/she was doing was squawking when stepped on, and trying to protect himself/herself, and trying to fend off attacks. Of course the parent organization believed their own people who they had put in the positions of power over believing the "troublemaker," and also considered him/her the "ringleader" of problems around there.
Apparently it did not help the idea of a mandatory retreat when someone asked "Who's going to bring the guns? "
The parent organization did nothing then (retreat was cancelled), and did nothing to their buddies who just kept on doing as they had before, and just let attrition take its course. As each "troublemaker" left the sick organization had to pick another for the "troublemaker" position, and the sick organization went on as before.........
Depending on which side you are on (sick organization or tormented) the "troublemaker" is considered a ringleader of the opposition, or the victim of bullies.....and everyone loses..........and is not the best they could be........and the sick organization stays sick on and on ...............
Add your own theory to the comments...........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Sunday, October 9, 2011
One Theory : Why Some Organizations Stay Sick a Long Time (by Adrian R. Lawler)
One Theory : Why Some Organizations Stay Sick a Long Time (by Adrian R. Lawler)
The following comments represent one theory (of possibly many) on why/how some sick organizations could stay sick for a long time:
One reason some sick organizations stay sick a long time is that the head leaders are continually selected from within the organization ranks. They then continue all policies and management style, etc. that they worked under/on and are used to following, continue their buddies in positions of power, and thus continue the organization's sickness over years. Even a new leader selected from elsewhere can be visited and influenced to be their buddy and follow the same everything, including those to pick on, as before.
People selected as head person/supervisor tend to enjoy (or learn to enjoy) control or dominance over others. They tend to think they are always right, and cannot be questioned in any way without getting angry in some way (they might just turn red and appear ready to explode). Only their authority, ideas, or their way matter. If one complains or questions or has an idea of his/her own and the leader(s) do not like it he/she is labelled a "troublemaker" --- which is then voiced far and wide to label that person as an enemy of that particular organization.
Since the other people in the organization then tend to shun/persecute those labelled "troublemaker" in order to get/stay on the "good side" of the tormentors/head person and thus try to avoid their own persecution for being on the "enemy's" side, the staff becomes apprehensive/wary/more isolated/distrustful/etc. and the organization communication starts shutting down. Staff won't admit the "troublemaker" helped them, or saved their project, or anything else good because being the "troublemaker" everyone "knows" he/she does no good, even if it is not reality, and saying something good about the "troublemaker" will put them in jeopardy. There is less cooperation from/among staff because they are avoiding the tormentors and the "troublemaker" (they don't want to be treated that way), and they are spending a lot of time and energy trying to protect themselves.
It is especially bad if someone recognizes the problem, mentions it, and is then shut up (silenced) because it is not "their business," a change would cost too much time, effort, and money, a political order comes down to stop anything from changing present system (which some people like), etc. If this occurs then the staff gets the message that no one really cares, no one is listening, nothing is ever going to change ---- so it becomes every person trying to save his/her own rear. Then you get infighting and protection of "territories," status, image/ reputation, etc., which lead to various words between various people --- and cooperation is stalled. Joy is mostly gone from the organization work, and the organization stalls........... (Competitors delight in sick organizations because they cannot compete well.)
It can stay stalled for years, unless fixed.........
The "troublemaker" may be kept on as an example to/punching bag for the rest of the staff, and as the local "black sheep," so all (leaders & staff) can continue their torment (which gives some great delight and some feeling of power to all who torment the victim, and gives staff a target for venting their anger, etc.), etc. The leaders think they are doing great because they are keeping the complainer/questioner/boat-rocker/free thinker/etc. under control and the rest of staff are following their lead of shunning/tormenting the "troublemaker" and the enemy is contained and the organization stays the same.
If the "troublemaker" leaves (for any reason), then the sick organization may talk about him/her for years to use him/her as an example of what not to do, as a "black sheep," as a teaching story for interns/employees, etc. Over the years the sick organization takes great delight in embellishing the story so the person who first asked a question, or had an idea, or complained about unfair treatment etc., goes from "troublemaker" to the organization's "bogyman." And since the organization wants to stay the same, they must pick another person as their "troublemaker" and new target for all so all stays the same.........
And some of the organization staff no longer complain or question, or have an idea of their own, or think for themselves because they saw what was done to one who did. And the sick organization continues on with no real advance in ideas, production, or reputation. .......... And few, or none, of leaders or oversight powers at the organization are smart enough, or care enough, or will investigate to see what is going on and get advice/help from some specialists. But some others may see........
The "troublemaker" could have been "broken" by all the torment, and stress, and left organization, or stayed/left to become an even better survivor and stronger person. If he/she became stronger some of the organization may continue to "pick at" him/her for years (even if gone), because they have not yet finished their task of tearing him/her apart, or their brain is still "stuck" on "getting" that person. By then the "troublemaker" has three main options: (1) do nothing and let the torment continue (to keep the job, or if gone let torment continue and just try to forget it), (2) seek revenge and expose sick organization far and wide (like they lied about him/her), or (3) still believe in the concept of the organization but not how it is operated. If the "troublemaker" chooses the last option he/she may be able to wield some influence (whether still at organization, or gone) to help change the sick organization, because he/she has more proof the organization is sick from their continued torment and feels his/her job and family are/can be no longer threathened, and quietly tries to make it better. At any rate, the "troublemaker" is/was probably affected in one to many ways that badly stressed people are known to be affected. Those people at the sick organization may be affected in some ways if they have a conscience and a feeling of right and wrong.............
And if the sick organization never recognizes (one ex: positive PR, thanks, etc.) the "troublemaker" for the work he/she did, or never tries to correct (showing it can acknowledge good in "troublemakers") the lies against him/her, or allows the sick practices of the organization to continue, or does nothing, it will continue to stay sick (and the same), and be known as sick ...............
( My theory could be true. Things could happen as I presented them. (Compare part of above to a wolf pack.) Experts on sick organizations are requested to comment on this theory and its various parts/paths. Others are encouraged to note their observations, experiences, etc., to help us all be able to better deal with a sick organization, the people really causing the real problems, and the resulting stress, because sick organizations are all around us and will affect us all sometime during life.)
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D. , (C) 2011 --
The following comments represent one theory (of possibly many) on why/how some sick organizations could stay sick for a long time:
One reason some sick organizations stay sick a long time is that the head leaders are continually selected from within the organization ranks. They then continue all policies and management style, etc. that they worked under/on and are used to following, continue their buddies in positions of power, and thus continue the organization's sickness over years. Even a new leader selected from elsewhere can be visited and influenced to be their buddy and follow the same everything, including those to pick on, as before.
People selected as head person/supervisor tend to enjoy (or learn to enjoy) control or dominance over others. They tend to think they are always right, and cannot be questioned in any way without getting angry in some way (they might just turn red and appear ready to explode). Only their authority, ideas, or their way matter. If one complains or questions or has an idea of his/her own and the leader(s) do not like it he/she is labelled a "troublemaker" --- which is then voiced far and wide to label that person as an enemy of that particular organization.
Since the other people in the organization then tend to shun/persecute those labelled "troublemaker" in order to get/stay on the "good side" of the tormentors/head person and thus try to avoid their own persecution for being on the "enemy's" side, the staff becomes apprehensive/wary/more isolated/distrustful/etc. and the organization communication starts shutting down. Staff won't admit the "troublemaker" helped them, or saved their project, or anything else good because being the "troublemaker" everyone "knows" he/she does no good, even if it is not reality, and saying something good about the "troublemaker" will put them in jeopardy. There is less cooperation from/among staff because they are avoiding the tormentors and the "troublemaker" (they don't want to be treated that way), and they are spending a lot of time and energy trying to protect themselves.
It is especially bad if someone recognizes the problem, mentions it, and is then shut up (silenced) because it is not "their business," a change would cost too much time, effort, and money, a political order comes down to stop anything from changing present system (which some people like), etc. If this occurs then the staff gets the message that no one really cares, no one is listening, nothing is ever going to change ---- so it becomes every person trying to save his/her own rear. Then you get infighting and protection of "territories," status, image/ reputation, etc., which lead to various words between various people --- and cooperation is stalled. Joy is mostly gone from the organization work, and the organization stalls........... (Competitors delight in sick organizations because they cannot compete well.)
It can stay stalled for years, unless fixed.........
The "troublemaker" may be kept on as an example to/punching bag for the rest of the staff, and as the local "black sheep," so all (leaders & staff) can continue their torment (which gives some great delight and some feeling of power to all who torment the victim, and gives staff a target for venting their anger, etc.), etc. The leaders think they are doing great because they are keeping the complainer/questioner/boat-rocker/free thinker/etc. under control and the rest of staff are following their lead of shunning/tormenting the "troublemaker" and the enemy is contained and the organization stays the same.
If the "troublemaker" leaves (for any reason), then the sick organization may talk about him/her for years to use him/her as an example of what not to do, as a "black sheep," as a teaching story for interns/employees, etc. Over the years the sick organization takes great delight in embellishing the story so the person who first asked a question, or had an idea, or complained about unfair treatment etc., goes from "troublemaker" to the organization's "bogyman." And since the organization wants to stay the same, they must pick another person as their "troublemaker" and new target for all so all stays the same.........
And some of the organization staff no longer complain or question, or have an idea of their own, or think for themselves because they saw what was done to one who did. And the sick organization continues on with no real advance in ideas, production, or reputation. .......... And few, or none, of leaders or oversight powers at the organization are smart enough, or care enough, or will investigate to see what is going on and get advice/help from some specialists. But some others may see........
The "troublemaker" could have been "broken" by all the torment, and stress, and left organization, or stayed/left to become an even better survivor and stronger person. If he/she became stronger some of the organization may continue to "pick at" him/her for years (even if gone), because they have not yet finished their task of tearing him/her apart, or their brain is still "stuck" on "getting" that person. By then the "troublemaker" has three main options: (1) do nothing and let the torment continue (to keep the job, or if gone let torment continue and just try to forget it), (2) seek revenge and expose sick organization far and wide (like they lied about him/her), or (3) still believe in the concept of the organization but not how it is operated. If the "troublemaker" chooses the last option he/she may be able to wield some influence (whether still at organization, or gone) to help change the sick organization, because he/she has more proof the organization is sick from their continued torment and feels his/her job and family are/can be no longer threathened, and quietly tries to make it better. At any rate, the "troublemaker" is/was probably affected in one to many ways that badly stressed people are known to be affected. Those people at the sick organization may be affected in some ways if they have a conscience and a feeling of right and wrong.............
And if the sick organization never recognizes (one ex: positive PR, thanks, etc.) the "troublemaker" for the work he/she did, or never tries to correct (showing it can acknowledge good in "troublemakers") the lies against him/her, or allows the sick practices of the organization to continue, or does nothing, it will continue to stay sick (and the same), and be known as sick ...............
( My theory could be true. Things could happen as I presented them. (Compare part of above to a wolf pack.) Experts on sick organizations are requested to comment on this theory and its various parts/paths. Others are encouraged to note their observations, experiences, etc., to help us all be able to better deal with a sick organization, the people really causing the real problems, and the resulting stress, because sick organizations are all around us and will affect us all sometime during life.)
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D. , (C) 2011 --
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)