And...there is a difference between joking and ridicule. Jokes build the spirit and foster group solidarity.

Ridicule drains people's spirit.

Ponder the difference.

A real leader can make a joke at his or her own expense.

And...in authoritarian groups, only the leader and his or her favorites (of the moment) are allowed to 'joke'. The kind of laughter in an authoritarian group is forced, tight, and never, ever from deep in the belly.

One of the cruelest leaders of a cult is known for a harsh cacking laugh.

Corboy -

Hehe, I'll go for mashed potatoes then.

Thanks for sharing the articles. Had a good laugh and liked them. Had read Bob Sutton's book when it came out but just decided that I've got to reread it!

And Bob Woodward is of course another critical super hero we need. Thank God for him! That was indeed a fun application of professor Gruenfeld's experiment. Ha!

pepefranca -

I just smiled when watching the latest Dilbert comics. Did you see them by any chance? This is the one dated Aug 12:

[www.dilbert.com]

In our minds we will dedicate this to you, lol...

Ultima -

Thanks for the input! That is very interesting indeed. How long did you stay in the place and what made you ultimately decide against it (if you can share)?

Corboy -

On kicking out leaders: yes that was actually my final impression. It started out differently though as I mentioned, much kinder. It was a gradual approach that could trick one into believing everything was just fine, which of curse it wasn't... I was familiar with many aspects though and probably caught on faster re: the overall context. Needless to say I don't believe in such methods either.

In that sense great reading on manipulative / undue influence is Harriet Braiker's "Who's Pulling Your Strings?" Two brief excerpts of what defines manipulators and manipulative behavior:

Quote
Harriet Braiker

p. 4 "Manipulation is different from - and should not be confused with - legitimate, direct, above-board influence. We all engage in attempts to influence others. In some relationships, such as parent-child, teacher-student, and therapist-patient bonds, attempted influence in the service of the target's best interests and needs is central to the definition of roles. Healthy, appropriate influence [however] is shaped by a process of reward. It is guided by open, honest, and direct communication. Strategies of threats and coercion are not used. The agenda or purpose of the influence is defined and made public to the participants. In contrast, manipulation thrives in an atmosphere of indirect, devious, and even deceptive communication [and settings]. Agendas frequently are hidden and purposes disguised. Threats, intimidation, and coercion are preferred tactics. Manipulators seek the opportunity to ensnare and entrap their victims. They often proceed in subtle, devious, or covert ways so that the manipulative character of the relationship is well established long before its true nature becomes apparent to the victim."

p. 75 "Generally, manipulation refers to attempts to change another person using methods that are exploitative, devious, deceptive, insidious, or unfair. And, manipulation is always one-sided, asymmetrical, or unbalanced in its motivation. Manipulation advances the interests and furthers the goals of the manipulators only, without regard to the needs or interests of the mark - and often at the mark's expense. ... In fact, the tendency to cross the line from respectful influence to outright exploitation and disregard for the rights of others is a defining feature - and an important diagnostic criterion - of unhealthy personality functioning."

She continues with a systematic analysis of manipulation hot-buttons one might have and who, how, why might push and exploit them. She also helps to develop tactics against such manipulation. While there are some very minor parts that could be misread as blaming the victim, I assume that wasn't intended. Altogether an excellent purchase and must-read!

Something else re: "isolating the leaders" -
10 methods resulting from the Milgram model (adapted from P.Zimbardo, previous head of APA who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment):

1. Some sort of contractually binding agreement prior to process that creates a manipulative steering instrument (e.g. public acceptance of rules and tasks)
2. Distribution of roles that produce automatic associations with previously learned values and reaction patterns.
3. Rules that appear to be reasonable on the outside but can be (re-)interpreted and changed any way the leader or group in charge wants to, while the "underling" has to keep abiding by the rules in their original form.
4. Reframing connotation and context, loading the language ("hurting people" becomes "helping the person in charge", dissasociation, dehumanization)
5. Allow for a guilt denial / diversion mechanism (e.g. put all blame on authority but "do it!").
6. Foot in the door principle, slippery slope argument (evil starts with a small step and the resulting pressure to submit to authority, group, fear, etc. lead to further adaptation, submission and justification in an attempt to rationalize and reduce dissonance)
7. Small steps and changes, almost imperceptible to divert from bigger problem (Milgram used 15 V increments).
8. Gradual and therefore almost unnoticeable character changes of authority figure from benign to evil (since we expect consistent behavior we often don't perceive such shifts which may result in mindless obedience, so in a way bait and switch)
9. Increase exit cost and aggravate exiting by allowing objections (allows subject to feel good about themselves while authority figure duplicitously insists on continued submission of subject to the process).
10. Offer an ideology, a "big con" by declaring everything a means to an end (Milgram used the set-up of a study to justify all unpleasant experiences and to veil future threats and intimidations. Such a "cover-story" could also be evoking fears of a fabricated enemy. Hence, he concludes, always look for such unreasonable justifications.)