ARTICLES for the Leadership Class

Contents

Read for Session #6a: "The Quantum Approach to Organizational Creativity"
Read for Session #10a: "The Perfectly Competitive Organization"
Read for Session #14b: "Managing Troublemakers"

The Quantum Approach to Organizational Creativity

by Ralph H. Kilmann

Getting members to "think outside of the proverbial box" has been advocated for some time. Not surprisingly, various quick fixes have been implemented to enhance creativity and innovation in the workplace—such as hiring new people who appear to be creative thinkers or known innovators, conducting management workshops on new ways of thinking, and using performance appraisal to reward new ideas and thoughtful suggestions. But improving creativity throughout an organization is a SYSTEMS problem requiring a genuine SYSTEMS approach, which is fundamentally different from the quick-fix mentality that prevails in most organizations today. Indeed, a big irony is that to radically improve the creative brain power throughout an organization means that its senior executives must already have developed a genuine systems approach to all their other organizational problems—instead of succumbing to the all-too-familiar, within-the-box, quick-fix approach that blindly searches for success.

In this article, I make use of a genuine systems approach that I have found to be exceedingly helpful in seeing the many interrelated dynamics involved in trying to improving anything in a complex organization-- whether it is member creativity, customer satisfaction, or shareholder wealth. I specifically name my framework a QUANTUM approach to organizations in order to respect the wide range of scientific theories that it integrates—including quantum physics, relativity theory, chaos theory, systems theory, cosmology, evolutionary theories, neuroscience, and spirituality. (For the full derivation of this approach, see Kilmann, R. H., Quantum Organizations: A New Paradigm for Achieving Organizational Success and Personal Meaning. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black, 2001).

THE EIGHT TRACKS

Briefly, there are eight elements, or "tracks" as I call them, which must be addressed to achieve any lasting, meaningful, and worthwhile improvement in an organization: (1) the culture track; (2) the skills track; (3) the team track; (4) the strategy-structure track; (5) the reward system track; (6) the gradual process track; (7) the radical process track; and (8) the learning process track.

The purpose of the first three tracks (the culture, skills, and team tracks) is to establish an infrastructure: an invisible, yet predictable manner in which members interact with one another to get things done. The key question is whether this QUANTUM INFRASTRUCTURE is healthy and functional or if it is defensive and dysfunctional. But one thing is clear: Members who are interacting within an unhealthy infrastructure will find it immensely difficult to be creative about anything, let alone use their many talents efficiently and effectively in the pursuit of organizational goals. Instead, they will be severely blocked, put down, and burned out from fighting useless battles and defending themselves from a threatening and punishing environment.

To be more specific, let's consider the first of the eight tracks. In the culture track, a concerted effort is made to uncover the hidden, unspoken cultural norms that dictate how people should behave toward one another in the workplace. These "unwritten rules of the game" are uncovered by asking members these probing questions: What really goes on around here? How do you get ahead? How do you stay out of trouble? What does the boss really want? What have you learned by living here and surviving here all these years?

The following ten cultural norms—in the form of ironic imperatives—are offered as a way of capturing the experience of working within an all-too-familiar, self-defeating, unconscious, cultural mess:

1. Do not trust across the boundaries (including divisions, departments, and work groups).
2. Refuse to see the big picture (that is, anything beyond your own job).
3. Pick your favorites and promote them (regardless of competency and fairness).
4. Do not confront poor performance (that results from the previous cultural norms).
5. Make decisions in a total vacuum (by ignoring relevant information from others).
6. Do not listen across the boundaries (just ignore others in the same organization).
7. Avoid the tough problems at all costs (so you won't rock the boat and make waves).
8. Blame others when things go wrong (which will take the pressure off your back).
9. Punish others every chance you get (so they will leave you alone in the future).
10. Keep wounds open (versus forgive and forget).

These typical cultural norms are bad for mental health as well as for organizational success. Yet if such a cultural mess is allowed to continue, trust and confidence will only further erode. The prospects for achieving long-term success will become doubtful as well: Essentially, without an adaptive, positive, healthy culture, there is little hope of overcoming the increasing challenges in our global economy, let alone improving creativity (or anything else) in the workplace.

Briefly, here is a process for identifying and healing an unhealthy culture:

1. Surface the actual, unhealthy, negative cultural norms in open forums.
2. Develop a list of desired, healthy, positive cultural norms.
3. Identify the culture-gaps: actual versus desired cultural norms.
4. Plan specific behavior and attitudes to close culture-gaps—and heal the wounds.
5. Monitor behavior and regularly reward cultural change (which is further addressed during the reward system track)

Now let's consider the second of the eight tracks. The skills track teaches members how to define and solve complex problems. In particular, members are taught how to surface and revise their hidden assumptions. Much like cultural norms, hidden assumptions prevent members from understanding the root causes of their problems and then finding new—creative—solutions. Basically, false (outdated) assumptions about what your customers want, what determines the future success of your organization, what your competition is likely to do (and who they are in the first place), whether new technologies can eliminate the way business is conducted in your industry, and so forth, are what define the mental walls of the old box: your old ways of thinking. How can anyone break out of this old box if its hidden, unspoken, and unquestioned assumptions (mental walls) are automatically treated as fixed for all time? Indeed, a crucial aspect of creativity is deliberately challenging and then changing your assumptions about a complex problem or strategic issue in order to create a brand new box and, thereby, stimulate out-of-the-old-box thinking.

The process for doing an ASSUMPTIONAL ANALYSIS on any complex problem or vital issue includes the following steps: First, list all the people and organizations that are affected by the problem and who will determine whether any solution will succeed. These are called stakeholders: Those who have a stake in how a problem is defined or solved. Next, for every stakeholder, write out all the assumptions that would have to be true in order to make your definition of the problem or your proposed solution the best thing and right thing to do. Here is the trick: Write out all the assumptions to give maximum support for your approach—no matter how obvious or ridiculous these assumptions appear, now that you have made them explicit! You might be discovering, for the very first time, that your hidden assumptions are actually false or even absurd—now that you see them face to face. For example, a classic hidden assumption behind doing things in the same old way is "our competition is waiting on us to do something new, before they will try to do anything new." In order words, everyone is waiting on you to decide what to do and how to do it. That, of course, is quite ridiculous given what we know to be true in our fast-paced, increasingly competitive, global marketplace. Lastly, once the false or outrageous assumptions are seen explicitly, members can revise and rewrite these inaccurate assumptions in order to reflect what is known to be true. And if members are unsure about any of their assumptions behind any stakeholder, more information can now be collected to learn about the truth or falsity of these crucial assumptions.

The beauty of assumptional analysis should be apparent: Once hidden assumptions about key stakeholders on a complex issue are surfaced, members can then get closer in touch with what is true and real. This "being in touch with reality" is in sharp contrast to making decisions according to the familiar, out-of-date assumptions that undoubtedly ran the organization in the past—but in a very different environment than today. Ironically, being creative is sometimes as simple as seeing the way things really are now and then being able to offer solutions that address your stakeholders' true needs and wants. Being uncreative, in contrast, is continuing to view your key stakeholders from yesterday's worldview and thus continuing to think and act within the rigid mental walls of a very old and outdated box. This Newtonian box, as I call it, continues to prevent any creative thought from arising, from being heard, and from being used in today's new world.

But recall: Even if every member in the organization learns how to think with assumptional analysis, there must be healthy cultural norms surrounding all these members. Otherwise, a self-defeating, dysfunctional culture will force members to play it safe and do things in the same old way—while keeping all their false assumptions hidden!

Regarding the third track, the team track, members must learn to engage in synergistic interaction with other members, particularly with members who are very different from themselves (regarding gender, race, ethnic background, religion, education, specialization, personality, and unique life experiences). So often, people can only hear and learn from those who offer similar ideas! Obviously, this does not foster synergy, in which one person's thoughts stimulate another person's thinking, on and on, until no one really knows for sure how (and by whom) a brilliant, creative, new idea was born. In actuality, great insights from such intensive dialogue emerge from a quantum interaction of diverse minds/brains. In the team track, consequently, members learn to consciously look for and listen to different perspectives—instead of falling into the unconscious trap of being most comfortable with what is already familiar. Once again, the hidden process—in this case, group process—must be seen and learned explicitly so members unleash the quantum creativity that lies below the surface, behind the scenes, and between the lines of diverse human interaction.

The fourth of the eight tracks is the strategy-structure track. This is a golden opportunity for organization-wide creativity: using assumptional analysis to rethink and then rewrite a strategic mission for the organization based on explicit, revised, in-touch-with-reality assumptions about what to expect from all key stakeholders—as the uncertain future unfolds. The highly related golden opportunity is to then redesign the organization's structure of SBUs, divisions, and departments to be fully aligned with the new strategic mission. Organizations that achieve only modest or sustained improvements within their well-defined industries epitomize the traditional thinking within the old box—while their competitors proceed to radically redefine the strategic boundaries for the future by creating new industries, markets, products, services, and, hence, new quantum lenses (versus Newtonian boxes).

The fifth of the eight tracks is the reward system track. Now we must recognize that members are more likely to practice what they learn about creativity (and will continue to support healthy cultural norms) if it truly counts on their bottom line: Does the reward, incentive, and performance appraisal systems explicitly assess members' contributions to healthy cultural norms, effective use of assumptional analysis on complex problems, and active dialogue among diverse group members? If members are not assessed and ultimately rewarded for their efforts to improve the QUANTUM INFRASTRUCTURES of their organization, why would they continue to do new things in new ways? Yet, if it truly counts, according to the actual reward practices in the organization, members are more likely to support a creative—quantum—approach to the onslaught of strategic and operational challenges facing their organization.

The last three tracks—the process tracks—suggest how total quality management (the gradual process track), business process reengineering (the radical process track), and organizational learning (the learning process track) can further improve organizational success and personal meaning. The eighth track, the learning track, is most interesting for our brief glimpse into organizational creativity. In particular, organizational learning is when members regularly get together to discuss how they did on their latest project or work cycle and how they can achieve better and faster results the next time around. Organizational learning means being self-reflective as a community and thus surfacing the hidden processes behind how things take place (which directly builds on the principles and tools of TQM and reengineering). Much like surfacing hidden cultural norms, implicit assumptions, and unconscious group processes, members learn to surface the particular way they worked together during the course of their latest project or work cycle. Then they focus on how they can achieve better results even faster than before—by improving their learning processes. And once members articulate this knowledge explicitly, it is important to share it with all others in the organization who have similar or relevant projects. By explicitly documenting what has been learned and then rapidly sharing it with other members in the organization, creative solutions do not have to be continually reinvented from scratch. Instead, every mission or project begins on a solid foundation of what has already been learned and documented; then members add to this foundation of knowledge—work cycle after work cycle. Organizational learning thus institutionalizes creativity beyond the limited insights of only one person or only one group.

CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, improving creativity in the workplace is truly a systems effort—requiring a quantum approach across eight tracks. Most important, all members must become more self-aware of the hidden cultures, systems, and processes that shape how they see, think, and behave in their organization—their paradigm. Only if all members are encouraged to learn this new paradigm and only if organizations are prepared to establish the necessary culture, systems, and processes to support this new paradigm, will creativity be further unleashed, disseminated, and utilized for the benefit of all present and future members of society.

Top of Page

 

 

The Perfectly Competitive Organization: A Worldwide Network of Interpersonal and Electronic Relationships

by Ralph H. Kilmann

Organizations are the greatest invention of all time. They enable people to transcend their own limitations of both body and mind in order to manage the problems of nature and civilization. Without organized activity, all the other great inventions either would not have been created or would not have been brought to the marketplace. It is hardly an overstatement to suggest that economic prosperity for the people of the world has largely been determined by the success of organizations and institutions.

In the past, successful companies had these attributes: (1) a well-defined management hierarchy—with the higher positions having more authority, information, and influence than the lower positions, (2) a well-accepted way of dividing and assigning the work—manufacturing, finance, marketing, human resources, R&D (or whatever the standard organizing principles for any industry happened to be), and (3) a well-ingrained mindset among the members that viewed the ownership of assets as the center of the universe.

But circa 1980, the world changed: A conjoint technological and political revolution of mind-bending and body-extending proportions. On the technological side of the revolution, the world has become instantaneously accessible: With a personal computer, modem, telephone, and facsimile nearby, the world is at one's fingertips. On the political side of the revolution, the world has become increasingly interconnected—due to the deregulation of many industries and the global competition for world markets. Forming one European economy out of many diverse nations and peoples, for example, vividly demonstrates how all the traditional barriers, boundaries, and borders between organizations and nations are being transformed into one intertwined whole.

For banks, insurance companies, retail firms, and real estate companies, a dynamic financial services industry took shape in the mid 1970s; for the airlines industry, the year of deregulation when everything changed was 1978; for the health-care industry, the new pricing system for medicare hospitalization was implemented in 1983; for AT&T and the telecommunications industry, January 1, 1984, the day of divestiture, will never be forgotten. For virtually every other industry, there was a unique event or dramatic unfolding—just before or right after 1980—when what was predictable, regulated, domestic, and clearly bounded become quite the opposite.

This worldwide accessibility and interconnectedness means that the past form of organization can no longer prosper in the remainder of this century and into the next. We need a new form of organization that parallels what is taking place throughout the world—a system of managing people and information across the traditional boundaries of departments, organizations, institutions, and nations.

A twenty-first-century form of organization—a new paradigm—is gradually taking shape, which can best be described as the network organization. Companies have already adopted one attribute of it or another, but no one company does it all. It is possible, however, to highlight the critical ingredients of the network organization that allow it to adapt and flourish in the post-1980s world.

Understanding the New Form of Organization

The perfectly competitive organization is an elaborate interpersonal and electronic network of people, information, and influence. The nucleus or hub of the organization is connected primarily through in-person relations among team members, while interdepartmental, cross-organizational, and international relations are connected through on-screen work stations—electronically. The hub represents the control of assets and a distinct competency (what the organization can do particularly well relative to its global competitors), while the "outside" links represent negotiated arrangements that extend the influence of the organization to other relevant functions (what other groups can do better than the organization itself). Joint ventures, partnerships, associations, informal modes of cooperation, and temporary deals across traditional "walls" will become commonplace. Every organization can and will have access to the entire world.

Thus, the hub of the network organization is small, centralized, local, based on ownership, self-managed, in person, and focused on a single function of excellence—which provides a comparative advantage. At the same time, the extended network is big, decentralized, global, based on control, negotiated, on screen, and designed for the multiple functions that others can perform better than the hub itself—which provides the competitive advantage. The new organizational paradox is simultaneously managing these conflicting properties of the face-to-face hub versus the electronic network into one system of coordinated responsiveness. Developing skills that augment trust building, collaborating, communicating, deal making, and negotiating will be more essential than ever before.

Furthermore, the hub of the network organization has a rotating membership so that a larger set of persons (representing customers, governments, suppliers, manufacturers, banks, and other key stakeholders) internalize the strategic focus, cultural spirit, and global mindset needed to compete in the changing technological and political scene. The traditional division of labor, therefore, is replaced by the contemporary division of knowledge organized according to new categories: setting goals and benchmarking results, collecting strategic information, identifying customer needs, attracting resources, delivering new services, and keeping the paradoxical network together through whatever broker function seems appropriate. The traditional management hierarchy is replaced by who—at anytime, anywhere—has the relevant information to contribute to the topic at hand. The ownership of resources is overshadowed by the negotiated control of activities across traditional organizational and national boundaries—via personal computers and fax machines.

The typical day in the life of a "hub" member would consist of one or more group meetings to address complex business problems with diverse experts. While each specialist would have only a limited view of the whole situation (all the interrelated aspects involved in penetrating a new international market with a new generation of products, for example), all the necessary wisdom, experience, information, and expertise to resolve any such problem would be available in the group as a whole. Obviously, in order for this type of group to function well and take full advantage of what they know individually, the members must value their differences, search for areas of disagreement, be comfortable with conflict, and collaborate to find an integrated approach to the problem at hand. (Most traditional organizations conduct meetings of similarly-minded people who downplay any conflicts or disagreements while they quickly search for consensus.)

Besides these hub meetings among diverse experts, most of a member's time would be spent with his personal information technology: a high-powered, portable PC with fax and teleconferencing components to connect with anyone in the world. Centralized data bases that are updated continuously would provide information on competitors, governments, economic trends, exchange rates, consumer surveys, prices, technological developments, and people—in various companies and nations—who might have particular insight, information, or resources to enhance the organization's shareholder value. Software for all kinds of information and people search routines would connect those who need, and those who provide a particular service. For those cases in which contractual arrangements—instead of informal exchanges—are deemed necessary to reduce misunderstanding and uncertainty and to satisfy legal requirements, various software packages would facilitate the development of formal agreements across organizational and national boundaries.

The portable, electronic, networking technology at the disposal of each hub member will add a new dimension of meaning to flexible-working hours and work-at-home privileges. Other than the scheduled face-to-face hub meetings, the remainder of each hub member's work agenda can be conducted at any time, any where. Differences in time zones (New York versus Tokyo, for example) means that work takes place at odd hours and when it suits the convenience of the network members and associates. Naturally, for those days in which no face-to-face hub meetings are scheduled, all electronic connections can take place from remote locations—early in the morning, late at night or anytime in between. For some network organizations, as little as one day per week of each hub member's time might be spent in the "office" while the remainder of one's time would be spent at home or in transit. Of course, the "office" can be any convenient location where all the hub members can convene a meeting, since they will have instant access to their files and other work-related materials—electronically.

Between formal meetings, all members of the hub would keep one another informed about various opportunities to improve the value of their organization through on-screen exchanges. But at any time when any problem would become larger than the expertise of any one person, a group meeting is called to discuss—in person—the various viewpoints, opinions, and expert judgments that would be necessary to address the complex problem in question. Again, it is through an effective interpersonal process that synergy among diverse experts provides the basis for decision making and action taking. In effect, information technology is used to address focused search and specialized agreements, whereas interpersonal skills would be used to resolve those complex problems that transcend current technological limitations—that is, those cases in which people have the comparative advantage over technology. Thus, to gain a competitive advantage for the network organization in managing its relations with the world, the network itself has to live according to its own principles: Do those things you can do best (a unique brand of complexity management), network the rest (what can best be managed by existing channels, technologies, and other organizations).

Since it is rather easy to copy new products, services, technologies, and the acquisition of capital in this instantaneously accessible world, the new form of organization will nurture its unique culture and the quality of its human resources—the only renewably assets—above all else. The particular way a network organization makes decisions and implements its decisions cannot be copied or implanted onto another organization. Network cultures must be home grown for a one-of-a-kind modus operandi. Ultimately, what makes each organization a sustained value-added partnership is analogous to what makes each individual in the universe unique—its essential character, mindset, and ingrained manner of coping with changed circumstances.

Creating the Network Organization

When more people discover the perfect match between the network organization and the nature of the world today—instantaneous interconnections—there will be a growing demand to first design and then form this perfectly competitive organization. In most cases, however, the desire will be to transform an already existing organization, one that functioned well in yesterday's world, into a new organization for today and tomorrow. Such a transformation would be a more desirable route (especially for current organizational members) than letting old organizations die a natural death (while market shares are gobbled up by foreign competitors who are already creating new network organizations).

While the transformation process to form a well-functioning network organization is difficult to describe in the space of a short article, I can outline the crucial ingredients of the approach. The interested reader is referred to my book, Managing Beyond the Quick Fix, for the detailed theories and methods of my approach.

Transforming a traditional, hierarchical organization into a network organization requires a "completely integrated program." Just as the world has become interconnected, only an integrated program of planned change can bring about the desired result.

The core of the completely integrated program is a carefully orchestrated sequence of five tracks. The first three tracks adjust the people side of the organization, what is often called the informal organization—the blood and guts of how people behave toward one another on the job. Essentially, the first three tracks (the culture track, the management skills track, and the team-building track) provide the foundation for an effective, synergistic interchange among all hub members in their face-to-face discussions (as supported by norms for electronic interaction between formal meetings).

The last two tracks adjust the formal side of the organization—the systems, resources, technologies, and documents that guide what hub members and their network associates are supposed to do: Where are we headed and how are we organized—networked—to get there (the strategy-structure track) and what do we receive for helping out (the reward system track). Without first establishing an effective inner organization through an adaptive culture, updated management skills, and cooperative team effort (the first three tracks), any adjustments to the formal systems (the last two tracks) will be cosmetic—on paper only—and therefore short-lived. Thus, the network organization can only work as intended if its members and associates interact in synergistic ways according to a clear strategic focus—and they have acquired the necessary skills and are offered the incentives to do so.

For the network organization, the culture track establishes trust, communication, information sharing, and a willingness to challenge differences among members—the conditions that must exist before any complex problem can be resolved. The management skills track provides all hub members with the latest methods for coping with complex problems and hidden assumptions and diverse experts. The team-building track infuses the new culture and updated management skills into all hub meetings on complex problems—thereby instilling synergistic teamwork in practice so that complex problems can be addressed with all the expertise and information available. The strategy-structure track develops either a completely new or a revised strategic plan for the whole organization and then aligns the hub and the extended network with the new strategic direction. The reward system track establishes a performance-based reward system that sustains the functioning of the new organization by officially sanctioning the new culture, the use of updated management skills, and cooperative team efforts within and between the hub and the extended network.

The body of the completely integrated program consists of five critical stages for introducing and managing the transformation process. These stages include initiating the program with the hub members (and making sure that the conditions for successful change are in place), diagnosing organizational barriers to forming a network organization), scheduling the tracks to transform the identified barriers into channels for success, implementing the tracks in a flexible and adaptive manner (as the network forms and matures), and evaluating the results of the entire effort. Additional cycles of planned change unfold as the network organization responds to its changing environment. Thus, by surrounding the five tracks (the core) with the five stages of planned change (the body), effective face-to-face and electronic networking becomes ingrained in the organization.

Epilogue

The twenty-first century will be full of organizational surprises, but the essential process of arranging cooperative efforts to achieve a strategic mission is already emerging: Equal opportunity to link with anyone in the world, to connect people and systems together for both comparative and competitive advantage, to add value by creating products and services with new collections of firms, and to influence the definition and experience of human relationships. And the completely integrated program (with the five tracks at the core) are now available to transform any traditional organization into a well-functioning network organization with the right culture, skills, teamwork, strategy, structure, and reward systems.

NOTE: This article is adapted from two of Ralph H. Kilmann's previous publications: "21st Century Management: Tomorrow's Company Won't Have Walls," The New York Times, Section F (June 18, 1989), 3; and "Leadership: The Perfectly Competitive Company," PC/Computing (1989), 128-133.

Top of Page

 

 

Managing Troublemakers: Confronting Pathology in
Today's Workplace

by Ralph H. Kilmann

Just how badly can people behave? What happens when their deepest animal instincts and their most aggressive fantasies go unchecked? What behavior is possible when the culture and the system of organization do not curtail people's dark side? Building on accounts given by Colin Turnbull—an anthropologist with the American Museum of Natural History—Allen (1980, pp. 27-28) vividly depicts the epitome of horrendous behavior by a tribe known as the Ik:

• It is hard to imagine a group of people more selfish and ruthlessly cruel than the Ik, a small tribe of nomadic hunters who were living out their lives in a remote region of East Africa in the early 1960s. They were not only unkind, but heartless; not only stingy, but maliciously grasping; not only dishonest, but cunningly deceitful. They were selfish and ruthlessly cruel beyond the imagination. They pushed their children out of the home at three years of age to fend for themselves—and then stole food from them. They stole from the elderly, the weak, the blind. The strongest men grabbed the limited food supply for themselves. When they found game in the fields, they at it on the spot instead of taking some home to their starving families. They even ate it raw, for fear the smoke might attract others and force them to share. It was common for a brother to take food from the hand of a sick brother, to turn a sick family member out of the house to die. Even the last of the ritual priests was abandoned by his son and sent out to his death. Old people were frequently left alone in their huts to die. Sometimes they were pushed off the sides of the mountain to the amusement of other tribesmen, and once, when a blind woman fell off a cliff and landed on her back like a tortoise, helpless with all four limbs flailing the air, the others went into peals of laughter and left her struggling. The killing of a child by a leopard was seen as a cause for celebration it meant that there was edible game nearby. The people went out, found the leopard, ate both it and the child on the spot.

Allen (1980, p. 28) recognizes that the behavior of the Ik is not restricted to East Africa but can be witnessed in any organization:

• With very little effort of the imagination, we can discover the Ik in the office, in the classroom, in the committee and boardroom, everywhere demonstrating just how badly it is possible for people to behave. There is the pusher, the grabber, the stealer, the nonsharer, the one who abandons, the one who laughs at others' struggles, the one who hides his riches for fear that they will be taken from him, and the one who risks the lives of others to add to his own wealth.

Troublemakers come in many varieties. Bramson (1981), in his book, Coping with Difficult People, profiles some of these characters as Sherman tanks, snipers, exploders, and bulldozers. It does not take much imagination to picture these types in action or to identify people we know who fit these types almost to a T. Similarly, Lombardo and McCall (1984, p. 45), in an article titled "The Intolerable Boss," show how some bosses—described variously as snakes-in-the-grass, Attilas, heel grinders, egotists, dodgers, and detail drones—torment their subordinates:

• He was a living snake and a pathological liar. His decisions were based on whoever talked to him last. He was a little dictator. . . . If anyone else tried to make a decision, he took it as a personal insult.
• Does this sound like anyone you know—your current boss, perhaps, or one you've endured in the past? Most people have met up with at least one impossible boss—someone who fully deserved unflattering characterizations like the ones above.

It would take too much space to provide a full account of each type of troublemaker and the psychodynamics that make these people the way they are. Suffice it to say that deep within each type is an insecure and troubled person, one who copes with his inner conflicts and negative self-image by projecting them onto other people. In essence, troublemakers spend most of their energy surviving, defending, protecting, and living out their problems on others. There is a stark intensity in this life-and-death struggle with the world. And make no mistake about it, troubled persons are very much at war—they have no inner peace.

For some types of troublemakers, there is a dire need to control everything and everyone in every situation. No matter how much power and authority such a person may have, it still is not enough. The need is insatiable. For other types who have grown up in an atmosphere of suspicion, insufficient love, and constant disappointment, there is an extraordinary mistrust of others in everything they do. Such people demand blind loyalty and complete harmony—anything less is taken as a personal affront. Still other types must win every dispute at any cost and must receive all the credit for any success. Some of these troublemakers are especially aggressive and hostile toward organizational members as a way of getting back at people (mainly parents and "significant others") who inflicted great pain on them in the past.

There are three basic coping styles that troublemakers use in order to satisfy three basic ego needs: achievement, affiliation, and power. "Normal" people vary in the strength of their needs for competing with some standard of excellence (achievement), being accepted by coworkers (affiliation), and controlling the means of influencing others (power). But anyone who tries to satisfy his ego needs by approaching or avoiding behavior in a more extreme form, in spite of the needs of others, is likely to be viewed as a troublemaker.

Specifically, the extreme avoidance side of troublemaking behavior describes a person who fears failure, remains aloof, and prefers to be dependent and subordinate. The extreme approach side is illustrated by a person who must win at any cost, does not tolerate disagreement, and grossly exaggerates the authority of his position and his significance to the organization. While the approach side may appear to represent the most disruptive coping styles that interfere with organizational success, a boss that acts out the avoidance side is disruptive (and extremely frustrating) for group members who are willing to take risks, work together, and influence one another.

The connection between how one was treated in years past and how one copes with the world today is evident with all the troublemakers. Thus if a person was shattered or abused in childhood (physically or psychologically), has never felt good about himself as a person (because he was taught to see himself as bad and guilty—how else can a child explain the abuse?), and has never acquired a sense of responsibility for his actions (the shame of doing one more thing wrong would be too much to bear), then becoming a troublemaking is a likely outcome.

If we understand these psychodynamics, it comes as no surprise that troublemakers are not likely to learn from reading self-awareness books, from observing how others seem to examine themselves and change for the better, and from attending workshops. More often than not, troublemakers attest to the great value of new material for all the other managers who desperately need to change. Troublemakers do not see that they themselves need to question their behavior and learn new skills. They are too troubled to look inside, see what is there, and change it.

Any change initiative designed to improve an organization (such as team building, cultural change, strategic change, restructuring, empowerment, quality management, reengineering, or organizational learning) usually encourages all members to question their habits, examine their assumptions, learn new skills, and cooperate with others. How are troublemakers likely to react to these intrusions into their organization? How are they likely to interpret these efforts at learning and change? A troublemaker may very well interpret any change initiative or improvement program as an outright act of war.

Managing troublemakers involves finding out who they are and then counseling them to curb their disruptive behavior. Although troublemakers have a hard time receiving any kind of feedback, a face-to-face counseling session is the most direct way to convey the corporate message: Troublemaking behavior will no longer be tolerated in this organization. Because of the deep psychological conflicts that drive troublemakers to act in dysfunctional ways, a skilled consultant is often needed to control these difficult people. Most managers have not acquired the skills to deal with pathology.

Identifying Troublemakers

It is essential to distinguish between troublemakers (destructive individuals) and objectors (well-intentioned deviants). These two types should never be confused. Objectors are mentally healthy people who happen to disagree with some decision or action by those holding—or controlling—the majority view. In contrast, troublemakers are not well-intentioned deviants who simply express disagreement with some decision or action. Rather, troublemakers enact unhealthy and even destructive behavior, as displayed by the Ik: lying, cheating, stealing, harassing, intimidating, and deliberately hurting other people. When troublemakers are allowed to act out their destructive tendencies on others, it is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion on complex problems. They prevent both majority and minority views from being voiced, let alone heard.

Often the organization's troublemakers come to the attention of consultants during the diagnostic phase of a change initiative—when data is being collected by either interviews or surveys concerning "what goes on around here." While interviews are being conducted, for example, certain names are inevitably mentioned again and again. Stories are told of mean and hostile acts that have hurt other people or even the organization as a whole. While stories often are exaggerated, distorted by years of repetition, one must be careful not to discount them when told by many interviewees. In some cases, the stories are so alarming that even if they were only 10 percent true one would have to take such information seriously.

The consultants also become aware of troublemakers during group meetings, learning workshops, and training sessions. Since troublemakers are usually unaware of how their behavior affects those around them, they create trouble right in front of everyone—making hostile remarks that are not germane to the topic of conversation, showing anger in verbal and nonverbal ways, and discouraging others from taking the discussion seriously. After a while, several members may speak to the consultants about the difficulty of applying new ideas or skills back on the job. Their own managers ridicule them and even threaten them with bad performance reviews if they continue to attend the workshop meetings.

Identifying troublemakers is a more delicate process than it may seem. When there has been widespread intimidation on the part of a manager, his victims may be afraid to come forth and reveal injustices. Sometimes they are convinced that if the troublemaker even suspects that others have revealed his name, he will take revenge. It is not uncommon for members to fear that this troublemaker will fire them for revealing anything to the consultants. Whether this is all due to fear or has some basis in reality is not clear. But it does cause members to hold back information on who is causing trouble for others. Ideally, as workshops and training efforts proceed, and the importance of a healthy interpersonal style is stressed, these members will begin to draw attention to troublemaking behavior when they see others taking risks for organizational success.

The troublemakers may range from a few people to as many as a dozen for a large organization; every organization seems to have at least one such individual. Experience has shown that the great majority of troublemakers are in management positions throughout the hierarchy where they exploit formal authority to their full advantage. Occasionally, however, nonmanagement personnel rely on their technical expertise or their informal ringleader status in order to get away with disruptive behavior.

Counseling Troublemakers

Each troublemaker is scheduled for a separate counseling session with a specially trained consultant. During this session, the consultant explains why the person was asked to attend. The consultant mentions general incidents and impressions (while protecting the confidentiality of the sources), emphasizing that these stories might be totally distorted. Any single incident can be explained away quite easily. But as a whole, as a pattern, is there any plausibility to these accounts? How can this person explain the perception others have of him or her?

Even though the person is shocked at being labeled a troublemaker, in rare cases he does seem to appreciate being given the information. After he recovers from the shock, he begins to explore how the incidents developed and how the perceptions must have formed. The individual then outlines how he plans to correct the perceptions, as well as his behavior. Here the person recognizes the problem and wants to solve it. Such an adaptive response suggests that he was mislabeled as a troublemaker—due to either abrasive behavior (lacking in tact or sensitivity) or embarrassing incidents. In these rare cases, perhaps no one has ever tried to tell him the problem and, consequently, he never has had the chance to change. But now this situation can be corrected.

In most cases, however, the troublemaker becomes defensive, argumentative, and nasty as the consultant tries to offer constructive, compassionate feedback. Should the consultant point out that the person's response seems to confirm what has just been described? If the troublemaker is extremely defensive, there is little likelihood that he will even hear the message. Instead, he will work very hard at protecting himself, as always. But the corporate message has been given, and the person has been put on the alert. The consultant concludes the meeting by encouraging the troublemaker to think about their discussion and indicating that there will be follow-up meetings to see how things are going.

Some troublemakers will act as if their behavior has changed, hoping that the consultants will leave shortly and that everything will go back to "normal." But a few weeks after the first meeting with each troublemaker, the consultant schedules the next round of counseling sessions to review what has transpired. Often, the same discussions are held again. The troublemaker insists that her behavior is fine—why can no one else see this? She claims that she is a victim of circumstance or of misunderstanding. She just does not see how her motives and behavior can be so misconstrued. Perhaps other members are simply jealous of her energy, intelligence, and accomplishments.

During these sessions, the consultants see creativity at work. The troublemaker can turn, rationalize, distort, and justify almost anything. These people, because of their wartime tactics, have learned to twist reality so that it matches the image they have of themselves. If the facts do not fit their needs, they change the facts. They come up with a new reality to explain the worth of their net contributions. The most vivid example of these distortions is illustrated by the troublemaker's insistence that she likes certain individuals—who just happen to be the very ones who have been hurt by her time and time again. Often these are the people who reported the troublemaker to the consultants in the first place. Such is the power of psychological compensation!

There may be as many as four to six counseling sessions over a period of several months in order to get each troublemaker to curb his or her disruptive behavior. It should be apparent, therefore, why top management's support must be behind such a confrontation. Without this support, the troublemakers will not show up for their counseling sessions and will ignore all the related discussions. Without this support, members will not confront the troublemakers for fear of reprisal. But if everyone is told in no uncertain terms that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated, the message will be received.

References

Allen, R. F. "The Ik in the Office." Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1980, pp. 26-41.

Bramson, R. M. Coping with Difficult People. New York: Ballantine, 1981.

Lombardo, M. M., and McCall, M. M., Jr. "The Intolerable Boss." Psychology Today, Jan. 1984, pp. 44-48.

Note: This article is adapted from Ralph H. Kilmann's Managing Beyond the Quick Fix: A Completely Integrated Program for Creating and Maintaining Organizational Success (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989).

Top of Page