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 --