I stay out of drama so I have no idea what happened, but wouldn't the OP be an ironic example of "mass manipulation" in itself? who is to say the post is 100% true? where can one go to even confirm this sort of information? I'm not saying he's lying, I really don't know. but how much information that we consume can we really say is without doubt an unbiased first hand source? and even if it was first hand, how much can we confirm to be truth? I understand the OP is referring to a leadership and subordinate dynamic, but I hope my point will still be clear.
manipulation happens, to an extent, within every communication shared by two or more individuals. most people would choose to "frame a narrative" in their favor, sometimes not even 100% consciously. there is so much to interpersonal communication that is often overlooked by individuals, and without even thinking most people "fill in the cracks", per say. words and phrases conjure up images in a person's mind. it's practically magick if you think about it.. neuro linguistic programming and the like. with enough knowledge of an individual's thoughts, feelings, behaviors, experiences, etc. one can very easily manipulate a person through word choice alone, forget adding in emphasis, gestures, tonality, touch, facial expressions, etc.
something as simple as "golden arches" can conjure up numerous smells, tastes, sounds, feelings, etc. in a person's mind. "I was robbed" and "I was mugged" are two very similar phrases and arguably can be referencing the same exact event, but they conjure up (at least for me) very different mental imagery. someone who was mugged was surely robbed, but simply being stolen from does not mean a person was "violently mugged". I could be pick pocketed and declare "I was mugged once" and garner sympathy from my audience even if no literal violence occurred.
I know it's not the best example but I hope I got my point across at least somewhat. language, while serving it's purpose, is fundamentally flawed. very intelligent people can easily convey their thoughts to others in an easy to consume fashion, but even they are limited by words. and if all of the words in existence weren't enough, they're further limited by words their audience understands. I wish I was one of those people but more often than not I find myself frustrated and unable to truly "tell" someone something. when you think about it, it's practically impossible to explain to someone something even remotely abstract like a feeling, complex thought, etc. even if you did your absolute best, and both parties were of sound mind, and you took the time to thoroughly explain in detail every piece of what you wanted to be known.. even then they would only have a majority understanding, at best. 99% (completely made up statistic by me) of all communication is at least a partial misunderstanding. only simple minded ideas or feelings can be conveyed clearly, ie "I am hungry" "I am cold" "I am tired". but even still, how hungry, how cold, how tired? hunger for the wealthy is perhaps different than hunger for the poor.
I believe divinity sort of falls in line with this, although it's my own personal belief so take that as you will. true divinity can never really be known by a human. true omniscience, absolute holiness... these things can't be put into thoughts, let alone words. holy scripture (in my opinion) can never be more than printed partial truths. we see the surface of the ocean but there is just so much more beneath of it, you know?
I'll stop rambling because I'm straying off topic. regardless, I'm glad to have found this board. cheers.