What's best?

[MWB]

I volunteer at an "Activity Centre". It is a place where people come (after being referred by an appropriate agency) who have mental illness's, head injuries & intellectual disabilities. It is a small centre with approx 10 members. For the most part everyone gets on with each other & good times are had. There is, however, one member who is bossy in that he tells everyone what to do & in an unpleasant manner. He is loud even though he has been asked to not shout. But what my question is is, this member will not acknowledge another member. These 2 got on famously at first but when a staff member was complained about, (the complaint coming from the other member) the first member has disliked them, obviously blaming them for the staff member resigning after the complaint. It is an awful situation - the first member is more thick skinned than the second so they find it difficult & is very uncomfortable & not a bit unhappy. The first member also makes the occassional snipe at the second member about how they got the staff member sacked. So what can be done? Should the 2nd member "suck it up", ignore it, & get over it? Or should the 1st member be told to stop his shenanigans? The 1st member will not have a bar of talking about the issue to try & sort it out. The other members of course feel this situation & have mentioned they dislike it & how he is.

[Octavius]

Too many 'members' has left me confused about what is going on.

Is anyone actually a leader or 'in charge'?

[MWB]

Yes, it is confusing. The "1st member" is the one who is ignoring & sniping at the "2nd" member. There is a staff member but they don't seem to be doing anything about it.

[Octavius]

Is it affecting the work, or just generally unbalancing a normally buoyant happy ship?

[MWB]

It is affecting the 2nd member most in that their confidence & self esteem is undermined. The other members are affected by the, as you say very well, the unbalancing of the ship. The staff don't know what to do, every member is entitled to be there.

[Octavius]

You could either call a meeting to allow people to give their viewpoint and discuss issues oin a sensible manner - clear the air etc, with someone acting as a mediator to stop agresson and mud slinging, or

Arrange a social evening so you can all blow off some steam and put the world to rights, a sort of team building exercise. Again though, somebody needs to be the instigator and referee should things get a bit tetchy.

[Bonehedchico]

My skills as a team leader would benefit you greatly.

[MWB]

Bonehedchico - wanna be the arbitrator?

In a Pickle - that's what I think should happen. He should be banned, as the need of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Octavius - he will not have a bar of "talking" about the situation in any form.

[ludwig]

So you've got one person who's 'bossy and disruptive and tells everyone what to do in an unpleasant manner' and furthermore has singled out one of the others to conduct a low-level bullying campaign against, and you're wondering whether to tell him to stop it or not. Hmmm, yes that really is a very tricky decision isn't it.

[Lil O'lady]

I actually think it is, Ludwig. The environment MWB is in is supposed to be a haven for supportive therapy. If someone is being a pollock to even one other person it disrupts the centre's harmony. Sady however, it's existence reflects directly on the management of the centre cos if they were up to standard they woudl identify and deal with the problem. We have a parallel situation where I work where one person has been allowed to freely victimise first one then another, because management are too weak to deal with the situation.

[ludwig]

That's exactly what I'm saying o' Lady. The people in charge need to tackle the problem by having the balls to deal with the perpetrator, rather than wondering about how best to appease them and expecting the victims to 'suck it up' in the meantime. It's the same mentality that allows so much school and workplace bullying to continue, and a microcosm of society at large.