Archive

Toxic behaviours

The Metaclueless Developers: Inheriting Teams Unaware of Their Own Shortcomings

March 15, 2024
Article, Product development, Relationships, Software development, Teambuilding, Toxic behaviours
2 Comments

The Metaclueless Developers: Inheriting Teams Unaware of Their Own Shortcomings

The Back Story

One time, as VP of Engineering, I inherited a motley team of metaclueless developers and testers.

The Flawed Assumptions

From day one with this new team, it became clear my assumptions were way off base. My attempts to understand the existing codebase, dependencies, coding and deployment processes were met with confusing non-explanations from the senior developers. Proposals for changes, reviews, or other improvements were immediately dismissed with a passive-aggresive demeanour as unnecessary red tape. There seemed to be this ingrained belief that “we’ve been doing just fine” simply because they hadn’t suffered many major outages yet.

Peeling Back the Layers

But as I started really digging in, the reality was more problematic than I initially realised. The codebase was a disorganised tangle of inconsistent patterns and anti-patterns. Automated testing and deployement was sporadic at best. The deployment process involved brittle, undocumented scripts that only a few developers halfway understood. Institutional knowledge was scattered among individual brain silos.

The Destructive Hubris

Rather than a receptive discussion when invited to discussion on making things better, I faced a brick wall of defensiveness and hubris. The team was convinced they knew best – such that any invitations went unadopted. Every mention of improvement was met with circular justifications about “how we’ve been doing it for years” or “we haven’t had any serious issues yet”.

The Path Forward

Looking back now, I see that the situation revealed some universal truths about software:

First, we all get blindspots and make flawed assumptions over time – no matter how experienced we think we are. Maintaining a beginner’s mindset of continual learning helps.

Second, defensiveness and “ingrained way” thinking are toxic team pathologies that noone can solve alone. An environment of open dialogue and reasoned self-critique must be continually fostered.

And finally, the most dangerous hubris of all is assuming you already have all the answers rather than a humble openness to involving everyone in uncovering the real issues at hand, and ways forward.

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

March 11, 2024
Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Article, Business, Collaboration, Culture change, Management, Marshall Model, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Quintessence, Software development, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

The Executive Fuckups Crippling Software Development

Let’s be honest, executives and seniors managers are forever fucking up their organisations’ software development efforts, big time.

Category Error

The Crux of the Problem

Let’s be honest, successfully executing software development initiatives is no easy feat for executives and senior managers. As the Harvard Business Review aptly states,

“The greatest impediment [to effective software development] is not the need for better methodologies, empirical evidence of significant benefits, or proof that agile can work – it’s the behaviour of executives.”

At the root of these struggles lies a fundamental “Category Error” – the failure to recognise collaborative knowledge work (CKW), such as software development, as a distinct category from other types of work.

Applying the Wrong Lens

Whilst leadership plays a crucial role in complex projects, executives often fuck up development big time by attempting to manage software development through the same lens as:

  • Factory work
  • Manufacturing
  • Traditional office work
  • Service work (e.g. call centres, help desks)
  • Individual knowledge work

However, collaborative knowledge work demands a radically different approach. Imposing management practices from other categories inevitably leads to “management monstrosities” – dysfunctional, ineffective tech organisations.

The Pitfalls of Misclassification

  1. Disconnect Between Business and CKW
    Executives struggle to bridge the gap between business objectives and CKW realities when software development is treated as akin to factory work or manufacturing.
  2. Unrealistic Expectations
    Viewing software development through the lens of production lines and factory work breeds cultural mismatches, unrealistic timelines and quality compromises.
  3. Resistance to Change
    Legacy systems persist due to inertia from treating CKW like the more understood office work.
  4. Resource Misallocation
    Without recognising development as collaborative knowledge work, resources for talent, tools and infrastructure are inadequate.
  5. Micromanagement
    An authoritarian command-and-control ethos stifles the autonomy and collaboration that development teams need.

The Crux of the Issue

The HBR quote exposes this truth – executives’ mindsets, shaped by misunderstanding the category of work, undermine methodologies and processes.

Unlocking True Potential

Overcoming “management monstrosities” requires understanding software development as collaborative knowledge work. This shift allows:

  • Fostering cultures of learning and evolution.
  • Embracing self managing, autonomous team models.
  • Aligning resources for teams of knowledge workers.
  • Building bridges between business and CKW domains.

With the right categorisation and mindset, executives can transform organisations into innovative powerhouses (fat chance of that happening in our lifetimes).

The Path Forward

The key lies in shedding industrial-era management thinking (they do think, don’t they?) and nurturing environments suited to this distinct category of work.

Open communication, adaptability and appreciating the complexities of collaborative development are vital. Escaping the “Category Error” unlocks outstanding delivery of software solutions and delight for all the Folks That Matter™.

The Blissfully Unaware Manager

March 11, 2024
Article, Business, Careers, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Story, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

The Blissfully Unaware Manager

A short story about metacluelessness and the distinction from stupidity.

Hubris in the Corner Office

Sitting in his corner office overlooking the city skyline, Simon felt a swell of pride. At 38 years old, he had accomplished so much – an MBA from a prestigious university, a high-flying career in management consultancy, and now the coveted role of Managing Director at SapriCoZa Tech, the tech division of one of the largest corporations in the country. His achievements were a testament to his sharp intellect and tireless work ethic. Yet when it came to leading SapriCoZa’s technology division, Simon was operating in a realm far outside his expertise.

The Cracks Begin to Show

The first warning sign came when Simon insisted on adopting a radical new software methodology. Despite polite pushback from Megan, the Head of Development, he forged blindly ahead without fully grasping the nuances of the approach. To the developers, it was clear their new leader lacked the technical know-how, but they followed orders, watching helplessly as the project derailed.

As issues mounted, Megan attempted to explain the root causes, but Simon simply couldn’t comprehend where his understanding fell short. How could someone of his pedigree be so misguided? In his mind, his way was unquestionably correct – after all, he was the one calling the shots.

A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

Weeks became months, and the project slipped further and further off the rails, bleeding money and resources. The once-harmonious tech team now operated in an environment of scrutiny and demoralisation. Still, Simon remained oblivious to the self-inflicted mayhem unfolding under his leadership.

Simon’s problem wasn’t lack of intelligence – he was undoubtedly bright. His issue was that he couldn’t recognise the boundaries of his own expertise. In his world of business strategy and operations, he was a savant. But technology? He couldn’t even spell it, let alone steer it.

A Failed Intervention

Finally, Megan felt she had no choice but to escalate the matter to Simon’s superiors, hopeful they could make him see reason. But alas, Simon’s blindspot was total. When presented with the disastrous results of his tenure, he simply doubled down, unable to accept that his approach could be the root cause. The issues, he reasoned, must lie with his insubordinate team.

The Inevitable Conclusion

SapriCoZa’s leadership eventually reached their limit. Though Simon ticked all the right boxes on paper, his obliviousness was putting the entire technology division at risk. With resolve and pragmatism, they asked for his resignation, unable to withstand further damage from his incumbency.

As Simon cleared out his belongings, his overconfidence remained intact – he still couldn’t fathom where he had gone so wrong. His self-assurance, once a strength, had become a ruinous liability that left him unable to recognise his own shortcomings. Never mind. His career options were still numerous, and his future bright.

The Lesson Learned

Simon’s undoing was a harsh reminder that even great intelligence is no protection against being unable to grasp the boundaries of one’s knowledge. While stupidity represents a lack of intellect, far more insidious is the meta-ignorance that allows people to sail forward convinced of their expertise in areas where they are largely unskilled and unknowledgeable. A deficit of self-awareness can undo even the most credentialed leaders.

Metacluelessness – The Competence Blind Spot Plaguing Organisations

March 10, 2024
Actionable Insights, Alien tech, Article, Business, Capability development, Ethics, Gullibility, Improvement, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Psychology, Quintessence, Teambuilding, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Metacluelessness – The Competence Blind Spot Plaguing Organisations

The Danger of Overconfidence

As a manager, having confidence in your abilities is certainly important for leading teams and making critical business decisions. However, there is a fine line between self-assurance and falling victim to a dangerous cognitive bias called metacluelessness – a lack of awareness about the boundaries of your own competence.

Clifford’s Ethics of Belief

Philosopher William Kingdon Clifford highlighted the ethical importance of not allowing ourselves to remain in a state of false beliefs or delusions. In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues it is wrong, whenever the occasion arises, to believe something on insufficient evidence. To do so is to erect a “scorner’s chair” for truth and to fail to uphold our fundamental duty as human beings to pursue truth diligently.

Metacluelessness as Unethical Delusion

Metacluelessness directly violates this duty that Clifford lays out. It causes managers to grossly overestimate their skills, knowledge, and overall managerial competence based on delusional confidence rather than objective assessment of the evidence of their understanding. Managers suffering from metacluelessness erect their own “scorner’s chairs” for truth in their areas of responsibility.

They think they have a solid handle on principles, best practices, people, psycvhology, emerging trends, and the complexities involved, when in reality there are gaping holes in their grasp that they fail to acknowledge. Suffering from metacluelessness, managers operate under a false sense of mastery over critical management disciplines. They are clueless about the true extent of their cluelessness and knowledge gaps. This creates disastrous blind spots in their judgment and decision-making.

The Root of Managerial Arrogance

As Clifford states, “The source of all the miserable self-idolatries…the despicable vices…is nothing other than a persuasion existing in men’s minds not based on fair reasoning and evidence.” Metacluelessness breeds overconfidence based on delusional beliefs about one’s true competence. It is the root of managerial arrogance, close-mindedness, dismissal of risks, and poor strategic vision.

Catastrophic Consequences

The consequences can be catastrophic – flawed strategies, missed opportunities, sunk costs from failures, poor leadership examples set for teams, and more. Entire companies have met their demise because executive leadership teams suffered from the “miserable self-idolatry” of individual and collective metacluelessness in critical areas.

Cultivating True Competence

Combating metacluelessness requires cultivating true competence – an awareness of what you don’t know and diligence in addressing those shortcomings. It starts with the intellectual humility that Clifford upheld as critical for a responsible pursuit of truth and knowledge. Admit the limits of your expertise without feeling inadequate. As Clifford wrote, “A generous admission of knowledge gaps is the condition of all real progress.”

The Best Never Stop Learning

Recognise that as a manager, you supervise teams filled with specialised knowledge you cannot possibly match in every domain. True competence means knowing when to rely on the wisdom of others with deeper mastery and looking for opportunities to expand your own understanding through fair reasoning and examination of evidence. It’s about embracing a habit of perpetual learning to strengthen beliefs in alignment with evidential proof.

The best managers never stop questioning their grasp of important principles and best practices based on the ethics of belief laid out by Clifford. Don’t let the “despicable vice” of overconfident metacluelessness derail your judgment through beliefs detached from rigorous evidentiary standards. Proactively identify and confront the boundaries of your competence. Only then can you become a more complete, ethically sound, and effective manager capable of leading teams and companies to success built on a foundation of diligently pursued truths.

Workshy Culture: A Top-Down Issue

November 28, 2023
Article, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Quality, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Workshy Culture: A Top-Down Issue

What Is Workshyness?

Workshyness is not just laziness; it’s a pattern where employees consistently do only what’s necessary to avoid dismissal. Only when we begin to understand this behaviourcan we start to address it effectively. Unlike “quiet quitting”, where employees fulfil their job requirements but don’t go beyond, workshyness involves not even meeting basic job expectations.

Example: The Workshy Employment Advisors

In an employment support office, where the staff’s mandate is to assist the unemployed in their job search, a covert workshy culture is evident through the actions of an advisor named Emily. Emily’s role involves providing personalised career advice, assisting with job applications, and conducting mock interviews. However, her engagement with these tasks is superficial.

Emily’s Covert Workshyness

Emily pretends to review CVs and cover letters, giving the impression of thoroughness while actually offering only superficial and hand-wavy feedback. Her client meetings are conducted with a professional demeanor, but her guidance is often generic, lacking in depth, and fails to address the specific needs and challenges of each individual. She fulfills her duties on the surface, but her involvement falls well short of genuinely empowering her clients in their job hunt.

Subtle Influence on Team and Management’s Lack of Insight

Other staff members, noticing Emily’s approach of maintaining appearances without delivering substantive support, begin to adopt a similar method. They keep up a façade of engagement but shy away from providing the in-depth assistance that clients truly need. This shift is not overt, making it more challenging to detect and address.

Helen, the office manager, perceives the team as functioning well, failing to recognize the lack of depth in their engagement. Without delving into the quality of service being provided, she inadvertently allows this minimalist work culture to continue.

Impact on Service Quality

This covert form of workshyness significantly undermines the quality of service. Clients receive assistance that appears adequate on the surface but lacks the tailored, proactive support essential for effective job seeking. The office, maintaining an exterior of efficiency, falls short of its fundamental mission to empower the unemployed with substantial support. This subtle workshy culture, marked by a lack of genuine engagement from both advisors and management, subtly but significantly diminishes the organisation’s impact and its ability to make a meaningful difference in the lives of its clients.

How Do Managers Contribute?

Management plays a significant role in fostering a workshy culture. Many managers themselves display workshy tendencies, and thus inadvertently set a standard for their employees to follow. This trickle-down effect can create an entire organisational culture that normalises minimal effort. Moreover, as at least part of the managers’ role is to call out workshyness and work on tackling it, when they themselves are workshy their reports have free rein to persist in their avoidance of work.

What Happens When Leaders Are Workshy?

Leadership workshyness is particularly problematic. It’s not always apparent, as their positions often mask their lack of engagement. However, their minimal input and disengagement can severely impact organisational culture and performance. It creates a cycle where workshyness is both a cause and a symptom of a deeper organisational issue.

Why Address Workshyness?

Ignoring workshyness leads to a decline in overall organisational health. It affects productivity, team dynamics, and employee morale. Addressing it isn’t just about improving numbers; it’s about sustaining a healthy, thriving organisational culture.

Strategies for Change

Organisations can choose to actively combat workshyness. This involves rethinking leadership roles, ensuring managers are actively engaged and setting the right example. Companies can also choose to create environments where effort and engagement are expected and valued at all levels. It’s not enough to simply identify workshyness; organisations must actively work to build cultures where it cannot thrive.

In conclusion, workshyness is a systemic issue that often stems from the top. By acknowledging and addressing the role of management in perpetuating this culture, organisations can take significant steps towards fostering a more engaged and productive workforce.

Work Is Toxic

November 9, 2023
Article, Culture change, Organisational Therapy, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Work is Toxic

“Work is toxic.” This stark assertion captures a universal truth about the modern workplace. The tales of toxicity that surface from McDonald’s and Pizza Hut here in the UK serve as harbingers of a deep-seated issue that goes far beyond individual organisations or industries.

What Is a Toxic Culture?

In a toxic work environment, negative behaviours such as self-aggrandisement and petty vendettas often overshadow the organisation’s purpose and what’s best for it. It’s a place where the pursuit of individual accolades and personal gain trumps collaboration and collective progress, leading to a detrimental atmosphere for everyone involved. This behaviour not only stifles progress but also erodes the morale and well-being of individuals.

How Common Is This Issue?

The unfortunate reality is that a toxic work culture is not an anomaly. It is a pervasive element found across all sectors, impacting numerous organisations of all sizes and types. Its universal prevalence is a sobering reminder of the widespread nature of the problem.

Is Recovery Possible?

Acknowledging the pervasiveness of toxic work cultures is the first step toward healing. Organisations can indeed rehabilitate their cultures, but it requires a comprehensive strategy involving a fundamental shift in assumptions, values and behaviours, driven by collective commitment to change.

What Does a Shift Involve?

A transformational shift involves embracing respect, recognising the intrinsic value of each employee, and realigning day-to-day activities with the organisation’s overarching goals. It means moving away from ego-driven motives to a collective vision of success, and where e.g. organisational psychotherapy can offer effective methods for cultural change.

Do Nothing That is Not Play

The ethos of approaching work as play, championed by thinkers like Marshall Rosenberg, is integral to detoxifying work. When tasks are performed with joy and viewed as play, they align with our deeper values and become more than mere duties; they become avenues for fulfillment and personal growth.

The Bright Side of the Discussion

The increasing dialogue on workplace toxicity is encouraging. It’s helpful in acknowledging the scale of the issue and initiating a shift towards healthier, more sustainable work environments. By recognising the inherent toxicity in our workplace cultures, society can move towards creating spaces that foster well-being and a sense of shared purpose.

Unmasking Pseudo-Compliance: A Psychological Approach

September 27, 2023
Article, Toxic behaviours, Trust
Leave a comment

Unmasking Pseudo-Compliance: A Psychological Approach

Competence is Irrelevant; Compliance is the Daddy

In many business organisations, competence takes a back seat to the all-important compliance. Hiring, promotions, rewards; most times these are based on compliance rather than competence. Let’s be blunt: elevating compliance above all else is a misguided pursuit. It leads to a stifling environment where checking boxes becomes more crucial than innovation or effectiveness.

What Lies Behind Pseudo-Compliance?

Pseudo-compliance presents as a mirage of following the rules, but it’s a facade that can lead organisations astray. The problem isn’t always with the regulations or procedures; it’s often with the culture and mindset of the organisation.

How Do Trust and Psychology Come Into Play?

Trust and psychological understanding can be potent tools in dismantling the culture of pseudo-compliance. Without trust, employees are less likely to adhere genuinely to policies. Understanding the psychology behind pseudo-compliance can help organisations address root causes rather than symptoms.

Can Trust Counter Pseudo-Compliance?

Trust isn’t built overnight but through continuous, transparent actions. Approaches for fostering trust include:

  1. Open Communication: Regularly update everyone on changes, reasoning behind decisions, and how these align with organisational goals.
  2. Employee Empowerment: Involve employees in decision-making processes to foster a sense of ownership and accountability.
  3. Consistency: Consistent actions and responses from all involved can set the stage for a high-trust environment.

How Can Psychology Help?

Organisational psychology digs deep into the behavioural patterns and beliefs that can foster an atmosphere of pseudo-compliance. The approaches that can help include:

  1. Cognitive Assessments: Understand the mental models that drive individual and group behaviours.
  2. Organisational Psychotherapy: A deep dive into addressing the emotional and psychological drivers that cause pseudo-compliance.
  3. Systemic Interventions: Targeted programs to alter the systems – the way the work works – that cause pseudo-compliance.

How to Merge Trust and Psychology?

Combining these two aspects can help create a holistic solution. Support that focuses on psychological principles can provide the context, while a culture of trust ensures that employees are more likely to apply the principles sincerely.

Is There Ever a Finish Line?

Full compliance may be an ideal rather than a realistic end goal. However, an ongoing commitment to fostering trust and understanding psychology can significantly diminish pseudo-compliance within an organisation.

Summary

Pseudo-compliance can’t be remedied simply by doubling down on rules or monitoring. A deeper understanding rooted in trust and psychological insight is essential. By implementing appropriate methods and embracing sound psychological methodologies, organisations can move towards a culture of performace and integrity, without the stifing yoke of compliance.

Hierarchy Kills People: A Health Warning

September 15, 2023
Article, Business, Organisational effectiveness, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Hierarchy Kills People: A Health Warning

What Does UK Civil Service Research Reveal?

The Whitehall Studies, conducted on British civil servants, provide compelling evidence on the negative health effects of hierarchical structures. The lower an individual’s rank, the higher the risk of cardiovascular diseases and other adverse health outcomes. This UK-based study serves as a poignant backdrop for discussing how hierarchy impacts more than just workflow; it affects life itself.

Does Hierarchy Harm Health Globally?

The detrimental health impact of hierarchy isn’t unique to British civil servants. Research around the world concurs that rigid hierarchical structures can lead to stress, worsened mental health, and even shortened life expectancy.

How Does Hierarchy Create Stress?

A power imbalance is inherent in hierarchical systems. Employees lower in the pecking order often feel powerless, anxious, and undervalued. The stress isn’t merely mental; it triggers the production of cortisol, a hormone linked to various health risks, including heart disease.

Does Hierarchy Impede Communication?

The Whitehall Studies not only highlighted the health implications but also revealed that communication becomes strained in hierarchical setups. Lower-ranked employees are often left without avenues for constructive feedback, causing further stress and poor job satisfaction.

What about Innovation?

Rigid hierarchical systems often stifle creativity. Employees, anxious about repercussions, refrain from proposing innovative ideas. This leads to organisational stagnation, with limited room for development or adaptation.

Is Productivity a Victim?

Hierarchy might initially appear to promote efficiency, but it often backfires. Inhibited communication means employees hesitate to share vital feedback, leading to poor strategies and, ultimately, failure.

Would It Be Better to Rethink Hierarchy?

The Whitehall Studies have spurred some organisations to experiment with flatter structures, which often result in reduced stress levels and increased employee satisfaction. It appears that a shift towards a more democratic decision-making process can yield positive outcomes.

Final Thoughts: Is Hierarchy a Necessary Evil?

While hierarchy may offer some vague and unsubstantiated organisational advantages, the costs to health and well-being are way too significant to overlook. The concept of fellowship, where organisations prioritise collective collaboration and mutual support, offers a compelling alternative. By embracing a culture of fellowship  in place of traditional hierarchical models, organisations could not only boost productivity but also enhance the overall well-being of their workforce.

 

So You’re a Manager and You Hate Your Job?

September 12, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Leadership, Management, Teambuilding, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

So You’re a Manager and You Hate Your Job?

So you’re a manager now. Welcome to the party! You’ll quickly find that a lot of things about the role are neither as fun nor as straightforward as you may have been led to believe. Let’s dig into the factors that make the job less glamorous than advertised.

What Makes the Job Risible?

  1. Unrealistic Expectations: You’re now the solver of everyone’s problems. Good luck juggling everyone’s needs and desires.
  2. Blurred Lines of Authority: You’re told you’re the boss, but often, decisions are made over your head.
  3. Dealing With Personalities: Unlike chess pieces or cogs or Borg Drones, humans have emotions, opinions, and bad days.
  4. Daily Drudgery: Meetings, paperwork, more meetings. Did anyone mention there’d be so much admin?

Why Is the Job Detestable?

  1. You Can’t Just Order People Around: Gone are the days where a stern look would do the trick. You’re not in a dictatorship, you’re in an office – or not even.
  2. Lack of Autonomy: Being a manager doesn’t mean you have all the power. In fact, it generally feels like you have less.
  3. Accountability Without Control: When things go south, you’re the first to suffer, even if the factors were beyond your grasp. A veritable whipping boy (or girl).
  4. Mundane Tasks: Think management is all strategy and expense account lunches and power moves? Think again. You’re also the go-to for approving holiday leaves and dealing with niggling disputes.

Remember Captain Sobel from ‘Band of Brothers’?

You might recall the character Captain Herbert M. Sobel, portrayed by David Schwimmer in the miniseries “Band of Brothers.” Sobel’s style was authoritarian, focused on discipline and regimen, often at the cost of morale and trust. His approach led to a lack of faith among his men and ultimately didn’t serve him or his troops well in the field.

Can Nonviolence Be the Answer?

Nonviolence is more than the absence of physical force; it’s about fostering an environment of respect, dialogue, and mutual understanding. Sobel’s method lacked these qualities, highlighting how ineffective a ‘command and control’ model can be.

Is Sobel’s Style a Cautionary Tale?

Absolutely. A rigid, authoritarian style might work in certain settings, but in most modern workplaces, this approach is outdated, ineffective and doomed to failure. Employees don’t respond well to leaders who operate solely on a basis of power and fear. A successful  team is not a set of robots to command.

What Should You Do Instead?

  1. Be Flexible: Adapt your style to the situation and the needs of your teams.
  2. Communicate: Keep the lines open. No one can read minds.
  3. Be Human: Show empathy and understanding. You’re managing people, not machines. In fact, don;t manage the people at all.”You manage things; you lead people.” ~ Grace Hooper, Rear Admiral, USN
  4. Learn Continuously: The best managers know they don’t have all the answers and are willing to grow.

Managing is tough, no doubt. But understanding its flaws and challenges is the first step in doing it better. Don’t be a Sobel; be the manager you wish you had.

Why Not Managers?

September 10, 2023
Agility at Scale, Article, Business, Culture change, Fellowship, Management, Psychology, Quintessence, Toxic behaviours
1 Comment

Why Not Managers?

The Managerial Role: Obsolete

Traditionally, managers serve as overseers, ensuring work flows smoothly and deadlines meet their marks. But in today’s business environments, we’re seeing a seismic shift. Teams are self-organising and making decisions independently. Why do we still need managers?

Do Teams Manage Themselves?

The answer seems to lean towards ‘yes’, teams can and do “manage” themselves. In settings where productivity is of the essence, the emphasis is on empowering teams to solve problems and innovate without having a managerial figure present, breathing down their necks. Collective ownership becomes the mantra, and everyone takes responsibility for the product’s success or failure.

What Happens to Accountability?

Contrary to popular belief, the absence of a traditional managerial role doesn’t mean accountability vanishes. In fact, team members often feel more accountable to each other than they might to a distant or toxic boss. Review processes become more meaningful, as peers understand the challenges and intricacies of the tasks at hand.

Is Decision-Making More Efficient?

The chain of command usually slows down decision-making. In a manager-less environment, teams arrive at decisions more quickly and can adapt to changes or unexpected challenges without having to wait for managerial approval. This can be especially vital in the fast-paced world of software development. See also: Auftragstaktik.

Does Quality Suffer?

One concern is that without a managerial figure to enforce standards, quality might slip. However, evidence suggests that the opposite happens. A sense of ownership and peer review often leads to a higher standard of work. Team members become each other’s quality control, leading to a more cohesive and well-executed end product. See also: Ensemble development.

What’s the Role of Leadership?

Leadership doesn’t evaporate in the absence of managers; it merely takes a different form. Leaders emerge naturally, guided by their expertise, communication skills, context, and the team’s respect. These leaders are often more in tune with the needs and dynamics of the team, making for a more harmonious and productive work environment.

Is This Model for Every Business?

The manager-less model isn’t just a passing fad in the software development world; it raises legitimate questions about the universal need for managers across all business types. While some argue that industries with stringent regulatory compliance or high-volume customer interactions need a managerial structure, this reasoning often serves as a convenient crutch rather than a real justification.

Firstly, regulatory compliance doesn’t inherently require a managerial role. Businesses can still adhere to laws and regulations through well-documented processes and collective responsibility. Teams can be educated and empowered to include regulators in the set of Folks That Matter™ and comply with rules without a manager acting as the gatekeeper.

Secondly, the idea that customer service businesses benefit from managerial roles is also questionable. Frontline employees are more likely to understand the intricacies and nuances of customer interactions than a removed managerial figure. Empowered teams often show better problem-solving capabilities, which is beneficial in handling complex customer concerns.

So, are managers necessary? The evidence increasingly points to ‘no’. Even outside the tech sector, rethinking the need for managers can lead to more agile, responsive, and accountable businesses.

So, Are Managers Redundant?

In the context of modern software development and certain types of businesses, managers are increasingly looking like relics of a past era. For businesses willing to take the leap, a manager-less structure offers more than just cost savings; it paves the way for innovation, efficiency, and a far more engaged workforce.

Further Reading

Zanini, M. (2021). Can we manage without managers? Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.michelezanini.com/can-we-manage-without-managers/
Zanini, M. (2014). Companies without managers better every metric. Retrieved on 9 September 2023 from https://www.cobrt-archive.com/archived-blog/2014/08/companies-without-managers-better-every-metric/

Are Managers Killing Their Golden Geese?

September 9, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Management, Organisational effectiveness, Product development, Psychology, Software Delivery, Software development, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Are Managers Killing Their Golden Geese?

Cognitive Function Rules

Cognitive function encapsulates the mental processes needed for problem-solving, abstract thinking, and quick decision-making. In the realm of software development, high cognitive function is indispensable for understanding complex algorithms, creating efficient code, delivering quality, and solving intricate problems.

Why Does Cognitive Function Matter?

When cognitive function is at its peak, developers can perform their tasks not just quickly but also effectively. It enables them to come up with innovative solutions, debug issues proficiently, and contribute meaningfully to a project’s success.

How Do Managers Disrupt Cognitive Function?

Routine managerial practices like frequent check-ins, status reports, micromanagement, and unclear objectives can negatively impact a developer’s cognitive function. Added to this, loaded work schedules and harsh deadlines contribute to stress, which further degrades cognitive performance.

What About Toxic Behaviour?

Abusive and toxic conduct from managers goes beyond disrupting cognitive function. This behaviour often leads to severe emotional stress, causing long-term harm – including brain damage – that manifests as burnout, poor performance, and staff turnover.

What’s the Consequence?

When cognitive function suffers, the ripple effect is felt throughout the team and the organisation. There’s a decline in product quality, an increase in mistakes, and a noticeable lag in delivery timelines. In such a scenario, managers are essentially killing the very geese (developers) that lay the golden eggs (software).

Is There a Remedy?

Creating a more nurturing work environment can help. Managers might choose to adopt practices that allow for focused work, respect individual needs, and most importantly, eliminate toxic and abusive behaviours.

Will Change Happen?

The ball’s in the managers’ court. The cognitive well-being of their software developers—and by extension, the quality and success of their own wellbeing—depends on how they choose to adapt their management styles.

Brain Damage

September 9, 2023
Article, Nonviolence, Psychology, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Brain Damage

What’s Workplace Abuse?

Workplace abuse includes a variety of behaviours that create a toxic environment. This can range from overt actions like bullying and harassment to more subtle forms such as undermining someone’s performance.

How Does It Affect the Brain?

Evidence shows workplace abuse has tangible effects on the brain. Chronic stress from a toxic workplace can lead to the release of stress hormones, which in turn can affect areas of the brain responsible for memory, decision-making, and emotional regulation.

Scans Prove It

MRI scans can reveal changes in brain structure and function in people who have experienced workplace abuse. Regions like the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, responsible for emotional processing and executive functions respectively, show discernible alterations.

What’s the Real Cost?

Beyond the immediate mental health impact, brain changes due to workplace abuse can also lead to long-term issues like depression, anxiety disorders, and even a decline in cognitive functions.

How Do We Address It?

Addressing workplace abuse is essential not just for employee well-being but also for organisational health. Support systems, clear grievance mechanisms, and a zero-tolerance policy towards abuse can contribute to a healthier work environment.

Is Change Possible?

Absolutely. While brain changes from abuse are concerning, the brain also possesses a remarkable ability to adapt and heal. Supportive environments can facilitate this process, creating a positive feedback loop for both individuals and organisations.

Trauma-Informed or Trauma-Inducing Leadership?

September 8, 2023
Article, Culture change, Leadership, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Trauma-Informed or Trauma-Inducing Leadership?

What is Trauma-Informed Leadership?

Trauma-Informed Leadership is an approach that recognises the prevalence of trauma in the workforce and strives to create a supportive environment. This type of leadership acknowledges the various ways trauma can affect people’s work performance, mental health, and overall well-being. Leaders who adopt this approach aim to foster a workplace culture of understanding, compassion, and mutual respect.

What is Trauma-Inducing Leadership?

On the flip side, Trauma-Inducing Leadership does the opposite. Rather than acknowledge or accommodate for trauma, this style of leadership may inadvertently or deliberately create a toxic environment. Leaders may engage in behaviours like micromanagement, public humiliation, or even verbal abuse, causing stress, anxiety, and traumatising experiences for their employees.

How Does Each Affect Employee Well-Being?

Trauma-Informed Leadership not only fosters emotional safety but also boosts productivity and job satisfaction. Employees are more likely to engage in their work and report higher levels of mental well-being. Conversely, Trauma-Inducing Leadership can result in high staff turnover rates, reduced productivity, and a slew of mental health issues, including heightened stress and burnout.

Can Culture Shape the Leadership Style?

Yes, organisational culture can significantly influence the type of leadership that flourishes. Firms that value employee well-being and ethical conduct are more likely to develop Trauma-Informed Leadership. In contrast, high-pressure environments that focus solely on outputs and targets may inadvertently encourage Trauma-Inducing Leadership.

What Can You Do?

If you’re a leader, self-reflection is key. Consider your behaviours and their impact on your team. If you’re an employee under a Trauma-Inducing Leader, it may be beneficial to seek professional advice or consult HR. Organisations as a whole benefit from regularly reviewing leadership approaches and can choose to be willing to change to foster a healthier work environment.

In summary, the distinction between Trauma-Informed and Trauma-Inducing Leadership can make or break the workplace experience. It’s crucial for leaders to be conscious of the role they play in shaping this experience and for organisations to recognise the impact of their leadership styles on their workforce.

Abuse at Work

September 8, 2023
Article, Culture change, Psychology, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Abuse at Work

This topic is of close persoanl interest to me, having seen many occasions where people have been recipients (I refuse to label them victims) of abuse.And I’ve been a recipient myself, on occasion.

Is Management Blind to Abuse?

Workplace abuse doesn’t just harm employees’ morale; it affects health, engagement, and productivity too. Most would like to think that leaders take reports of abuse seriously, but research paints a different picture. In a series of studies, researchers found that those who reported being victims of abuse were largely seen by their managers as the perpetrators of abuse. Disturbingly, employees flagged for abusive behaviour escaped this perception only when they had a close relationship with the manager or were high-performing.

Are All Industries Equal?

To widen the lens, the researchers moved beyond a single organisation and analysed data from a variety of sectors. Be it office workers, mechanics, nurses, or plumbers, the pattern persisted. Across the board, leaders seemed to be biased when evaluating incidents of abuse in their teams. So it’s not just isolated to one sector or another; this is an organisational issue that invites attention.

Can Victims Also Be Perpetrators?

Of course, it’s helpful to consider the limitations of the research. Could it be that the victims were also perpetrators? To rule this out, the researchers conducted further experiments. Profiles of fictitious employees were assessed by participants, some of whom were victims and others who weren’t. Results showed that even when victims had done nothing wrong, they were still blamed for the mistreatment they endured.

Abuse Affects Performance Ratings

The researchers then extended their investigation to the impact of abuse on performance evaluations. Shockingly, victims were perceived as less competent compared to their non-abused counterparts, irrespective of their actual performance. This is cause for concern as performance ratings influence career progression and financial remuneration.

How Can Organisations Do Better?

Rather than defaulting to training programmes, organisations can make immediate changes by inviting senior people to become more self-aware and vigilant in their decision-making processes. This requires actively challenging pre-existing biases and assumptions when dealing with reports or signs of abuse. Peer reviews or collective decision-making can also be used to limit individual biases and make the evaluation process more transparent and fair.

It’s equally important to establish a culture where employees feel safe to report abuse without fear of reprisal or being labelled as troublemakers. Transparent policies and procedures related to abuse benefit from being clearly communicated and consistently enforced.

Ultimately, our findings indicate a troubling trend where managers often misattribute blame in cases of abuse. Tackling this means adopting a more critical and skilled approach to conflict management and promoting an organisational culture that doesn’t tolerate abuse.

 

Why Hide Organisational Issues?

September 8, 2023
Article, Organisational effectiveness, Toxic behaviours
3 Comments

Why Hide Organisational Issues?

Avoidance Doesn’t Help

No, it doesn’t. While it may offer short-term relief, avoidance perpetuates anxiety and, to some extent, depression within the organisation. The longer an issue remains unaddressed, the more it allows negative sentiments and unproductive behaviours to fester. This isn’t just an individual concern; it undermines organisational health.

What’s the Cost of Avoidance?

When an organisation avoids confronting issues or treats them as “undiscussables”, whether they’re toxic behaviours, inefficient ways of working, or a flawed company culture, it misses out on vital learning opportunities. Ignoring the problem or keeping it off the table essentially communicates, “This organisation can’t deal with this,” thereby fuelling collective anxiety for the next challenge. It’s like shunning an exam due to the fear of failing; there’s no feedback to drive improvement.

Are Undiscussables Really Taboo?

Addressing so-called “undiscussables” can actually lead to breakthroughs within the organisation. These are often issues everyone is aware of but avoids discussing openly. By transforming these undiscussables into discussables, an organisation can uncover root causes of systemic issues, thereby paving the way for effective solutions.

Are There Benefits to A Direct Approach?

Certainly. Taking a direct approach to problems can be a catalyst for long-term benefits within the organisation. Facing an issue head-on can be uncomfortable but it reveals not only the gaps that need filling but also the strengths that can be leveraged. Discomfort is often the price of progress.

How to Overcome Initial Discomfort

Problems may seem more daunting when they’re initially addressed. However, as the organisation gains the skills and knowledge to cope effectively, the discomfort diminishes. What initially induced anxiety can become manageable or even trivial. The key is to focus on long-term gains over short-term discomfort.

Are There Exceptions?

Indeed. There are instances where avoidance might seem like the right move, such as emotionally draining or unsafe situations. These are unique cases where avoidance actually serves as a form of approaching the problem through a different strategy, like setting boundaries. The organisation amy wish to choose their approach to suit the particular situation faced.

What’s the Bottom Line?

Smart organisations choose to cultivate a culture where problems aren’t shunned but addressed in the most effective manner for the organisation’s context. Avoidance doesn’t make a problem disappear; it merely postpones the inevitable and often makes it worse. Remember, facing an issue may be tough initially, but it’s the most promising strategy for long-term organisational health.

Leaders’ Inconsistencies

August 9, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Culture change, Dialogue, Lamentation, Leadership, Management, Memeology, Organisational Therapy, Psychology, Quintessence, Reflections, Relationships, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Leaders’ Inconsistencies

In every institution—whether in politics, business, or broader community contexts—we frequently observe those in authority saying one thing and doing another. It’s not just about broken campaign promises or managers who preach work-life balance while flooding inboxes at midnight. This inconsistency has far-reaching implications, especially when considering the concept of pragmatic legitimacy.

Espoused Theory vs Theory in Action: An Introduction

Chris Argyris’s groundbreaking insights shed light on this phenomenon. He distinguished between “espoused theory” (what people claim they believe) and “theory in action” (how they actually behave). For example, a leader might verbally prioritize team input (“espoused theory”) but may sideline their team in decision-making processes (“theory in action”).

Impacts of Inconsistent Leadership

  1. Erosion of Credibility: A clear disparity between words and deeds erodes leaders’ credibility. When words are at odds with by actions, followers and stakeholders are left questioning the authenticity of the leader’s commitments.
  2. Mistrust and Cynicism: Inconsistent actions breed skepticism. Over time, this could dampen motivation and commitment, leading stakeholders to question the leader’s genuine intentions.
  3. Ambiguity and Misdirection: When words don’t match actions, it creates confusion about actual priorities, making it difficult for subordinates to align their actions with organisational and leaders’ goals.
  4. Organisational Dysfunction: This kind of behavior can fuel conflicts, inefficiencies, and cultivate a culture of disillusionment.
  5. Undermining Pragmatic Legitimacy: Perhaps one of the most profound impacts is on an organisation’s pragmatic legitimacy. When stakeholders perceive that an organisation’s actions aren’t aligned with its stated goals or aren’t beneficial to them, its pragmatic legitimacy is compromised. A lack of pragmatic legitimacy means stakeholders doubt the organisation’s capacity or willingness to fulfill its promises or meet their needs, which can result in decreased support or commitment from these stakeholders.

Bridging the Divide: Recommendations for Leaders

  1. Enhance Self-awareness: Leaders should continuously introspect and seek feedback. Recognizing one’s inconsistencies is the first step to addressing them.
  2. Foster Open Communication: Encouraging an environment where individuals can voice concerns about perceived discrepancies promotes accountability and transparency.
  3. Prioritize Consistency: Leaders should evaluate if they can truly align with what they promise, setting achievable expectations to maintain credibility.
  4. Acknowledge and Amend: When discrepancies arise, leaders should admit them, apologize, and take measures to correct their course.
  5. Continuous Learning: Regular training sessions emphasizing the importance of consistency in leadership can be instrumental.
  6. Lead by Example: If leaders advocate specific values or principles, they must personify them in their actions.
  7. Tend to your pragmatic legitimacy: By becoming more consistent in aligning saying with doing, thereby improving your legitimacy, stakeholders will lend increased support and commtiment to your initiatives and directions.

Navigating the Discrepancies: Recommendations for Those on the Receiving End

It’s often challenging to be on the receiving end of inconsistent leadership. It can be demotivating, confusing, and sometimes even detrimental to one’s mental health. If you find yourself in such a situation, it’s essential to take proactive steps to preserve your well-being and sanity.

  1. Seek Clarification: If you notice a discrepancy between words and actions, ask for clarification. There might be reasons or perspectives you aren’t aware of. By seeking a clearer understanding, you can align your expectations accordingly.
  2. Maintain Open Communication: Foster an environment where you feel empowered to communicate your feelings and perceptions. This not only helps you address potential misunderstandings but also lets leaders be aware of their inconsistencies.
  3. Document Everything: When you see inconsistencies, make a note of them. This isn’t about “keeping score” but about having a reference point for discussions or to ground your own understanding of events.
  4. Find Support: Confide in colleagues or friends who understand the situation. Sharing experiences can provide validation and sometimes lead to collective solutions or coping strategies.
  5. Set Boundaries: It’s essential to protect your mental and emotional well-being. If you’re consistently receiving mixed signals, it may be necessary to set clear personal and professional boundaries to avoid burnout.
  6. Seek External Mentorship: Connect with mentors outside your immediate work environment. They can provide an outside perspective, offer advice, or sometimes just serve as a sounding board.
  7. Engage in Self-care: Engaging in activities that relax and rejuvenate you is crucial. Whether it’s reading, exercising, meditating, or pursuing a hobby, make sure you have an outlet to destress.
  8. Consider Professional Counseling: If the inconsistency in leadership begins to take a toll on your mental health, consider seeking professional counseling. Therapists can provide coping mechanisms and strategies to navigate such situations.Organisational therapists can support organisation-wide initiatives to help reduce discrepancies between words and actions.
  9. Evaluate Your Position: If you find the environment to be consistently toxic with no signs of change, it may be worth considering a change. Your well-being should always be a top priority. “Change your organisation, or change your organisation”.

Remember, in environments where leaders are inconsistent, it’s essential to prioritise your own personal well-being. By taking proactive steps, you can navigate the challenges while ensuring you remain grounded, supported, and mentally resilient.

To sum it up, pragmatic legitimacy is crucial for any organisation, and leaders play an integral role in upholding it. By aligning their words with their actions, leaders can reinforce trust, maintain credibility, and ensure that stakeholders see the organisation as a beneficial and aligned entity.

Unmasking Ghosting

August 7, 2023
Article, Nonviolence, Relationships, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Unmasking Ghosting

“Ghosting”, a term once confined to the realm of online dating, has stealthily crept into the corridors of business relations and community interactions. It describes the abrupt end of communication from one party, without any explanation or closure. This puzzling phenomenon now pervades various spheres, manifesting in unanswered emails, silent exits from ongoing projects, and an unanticipated distancing from community members.

The Ripple Effect of Ghosting

Ghosting, in its silent exit, leaves in its wake feelings of disrespect, confusion, and devaluation. It can sow seeds of doubt in one’s self-worth, particularly as there is no closure or understanding. In the business context, this abrupt severance disrupts workflows, delays projects, and fosters an atmosphere of uncertainty. Within communities, it fractures cohesion and trust, hampering the collective ability to grow and learn together.

The Ghosters and Their Motives

The motivations behind ghosting are as diverse as the individuals themselves. Some may ghost to avoid confrontations or uncomfortable situations, while others may unintentionally vanish due to personal emergencies or health crises. In business, feelings of being overwhelmed, or inability to meet commitments, may lead some to ghost their partners. However, the central theme here is the lack of communication.

Counteracting Ghosting: Strategies and Approaches

Combating ghosting requires empathy, understanding, and the fostering of open communication. Here are some strategies:

Encouraging Openness

Promote an environment where open communication is the norm. This fosters a culture where individuals feel comfortable voicing concerns and challenges, deterring potential ghosting scenarios.

Mastering The Art of Non-Confrontational Confrontation

If you’ve been ghosted, refrain from personalising the situation. Rather, reach out with a non-threatening message, allowing the other party an opportunity to explain.

Finding Self-Closure

In cases where the ghoster remains unresponsive, it’s crucial to seek closure independently. Validate your feelings, but remember your worth isn’t dependent on the other person’s actions.

Establishing Boundaries

Setting clear expectations and boundaries from the start can help prevent ghosting. This could include outlining communication norms, project commitments, or guidelines for respectful engagement.

Ghosting: A Subtle Form of Violence?

The emotional and psychological stress caused by ghosting calls into question whether this silent act could be considered a form of violence. Violence isn’t just physical harm; it also includes psychological and emotional harm. Ghosting can inflict emotional trauma akin to a form of neglect or abuse, thus aligning with this broader understanding of violence.If you’ve ever been ghosted, you might know the feelings it induces.

However, not all may agree with this perspective due to the variance in the ghoster’s intent. The term “violence” generally implies an intent to harm, but many ghosters may lack this intent. Nevertheless, we might choose to consider the potential damage ghosting can cause and work towards fostering empathy and emotional literacy.

Summary

Ghosting, whether in personal or professional relationships, is a silent yet powerful signal reminding us of the timeless values of respect, communication, and empath.

1000 Little Acts of Defiance: Disengaged Employees Are Costing You Big Time

February 1, 2023
Antimatter principle, Article, Business, Culture change, Needs, Organisational effectiveness, Risk, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

1000 Little Acts of Defiance: Disengaged Employees Are Costing You Big Time

1000 little daily acts of defiance are small, seemingly insignificant actions that individuals take to undermine the purpose and goals of an organisation. Defiance is the flip side of compliance.

1000 little daily acts of defiance can take many forms, such as purposely slowing down everyone’s work, failing to complete tasks to the best of one’s abilities, and spreading rumors and negativity. The motivations behind these acts can range from frustration with management decisions, a feeling of being undervalued or that one’s needs are being discounted or ignored, or a desire to push back against what is perceived as an oppressive work environment.

One historical example of this type of resistance can be seen in the Luddite movement of the 19th century. The Luddites were skilled textile workers who, in response to new technologies that threatened their livelihood, engaged in acts of sabotage against the factories that employed them. This act of defiance was rooted in a desire to protect their jobs and way of life, and it had a significant impact on the industry.

Similarly, saboteurs are individuals who intentionally engage in acts that disrupt the operations of your organisation. This can range from damaging equipment to leaking sensitive information. Saboteurs are often motivated by a desire to cause harm or disrupt the operations of an organisation that they believe is acting unethically or in opposition to their interests.

The impact of these 1000 little daily acts of defiance can be significant. The reduction in productivity and morale can have a direct impact on the bottom line, with a recent study finding that quietly defiant employees can cost a company an average of $3,400 per year. In addition, these actions can also create a toxic work environment, leading to increased turnover and decreased employee satisfaction.

Data further supports the impact of these acts of defiance. For example, a study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that companies with high levels of employee engagement had a 41% lower absenteeism rate than companies with low levels of engagement. This highlights the fact that when employees feel valued and engaged, they are more likely to show up for work and be productive.

In conclusion, 1000 little daily acts of defiance can have a significant impact on an organisation’s bottom line. From the Luddites to modern-day saboteurs, individuals have long sought to resist the operations of organisations that they believe are acting in opposition to their interests. While these acts may seem small and insignificant, they can have a significant impact on productivity and morale, leading to a major drag on the overall success of an organisation. Creating a supportive, engaging work environment well serves those companies needing to mitigate the occurrences of defiance and enhance their success.

Mind Games: Let’s Talk About the Dark Side – Psychopathy in the Workplace

January 31, 2023
Article, Psychology, Risk, Toxic behaviours
2 Comments

Mind Games: Let’s Talk About the Dark Side – Psychopathy in the Workplace

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by traits such as lack of empathy, charm, and manipulation. It has a significant impact on organisations, as individuals with psychopathic tendencies have a negative effect on their colleagues, as well as on the overall work environment.

Sidebar: Psychopathy is considered a disorder because it is associated with a range of negative outcomes, including violent behavior, impulsive and irresponsible actions, and a lack of empathy or remorse. People with psychopathy often have difficulty forming and maintaining meaningful relationships, and they may engage in antisocial or criminal behavior. Additionally, research has shown that individuals with psychopathy have neurological and cognitive differences suggesting that it is a biological as well as psychological disorder.

Studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy tend to have lower levels of emotional awareness. This lack of empathy could stem from a low awareness of others’ emotions, which can result in a lack of concern for the feelings and well-being of others. However, it should be noted that this is only true for individuals with psychopathy who have also experienced childhood abuse or neglect. For those who have not experienced abuse or neglect, they may have high levels of emotional awareness, which could help them be more manipulative and charming.

According to data from the World Health Organisation, approximately 1% of the general population is estimated to have psychopathy. In organisations, this number is likely to be higher, as individuals with psychopathic tendencies tend to be drawn to positions of power and control, such as CEO, CFO, and senior management positions.

The impact of psychopathy in organisations can also be seen in terms of unethical behavior. Individuals with psychopathic tendencies have been shown to engage in unethical behaviors such as lying, cheating, and stealing, and are more likely to engage in illegal activities, such as embezzlement or fraud. This can have a significant financial impact on organisations, as well as harming their reputation.

The negative impact of psychopathy on the work environment can also result in lower morale and increased turnover rates. Individuals with psychopathic tendencies can be hostile and intimidating, causing fear and stress in their colleagues.

Furthermore, the manipulative nature of individuals with psychopathic tendencies can also result in a lack of trust among employees. Psychopaths are often able to deceive others and manipulate situations to their advantage.

In conclusion, the impact of psychopathy in organisations can be significant and far-reaching. Few organisations have any kind of programme to address this risk.

 

Hunting for Success: The Predator Management Group Stalks the Workplace Savannah

January 30, 2023
Article, Toxic behaviours
Leave a comment

Hunting for Success: The Predator Management Group Stalks the Workplace Savannah

[Written from personal experience: Have seen this first hand on some number of occasions]

Management groups are typically composed of individuals who have a common goal to oversee a company and make strategic decisions to drive growth and success. However, in some cases, a management group can act like a pack of hyenas, a group of scavengers known for their cunning, aggression, and ruthless behavior.

The term “pack of hyenas” is often used to describe a group of individuals who behave in a similar manner, working together to dominate and assert their power over others. In a management group, this can result in a toxic work environment where individuals are pitted against each other and decisions are made based on personal gain rather than what is best for the company.

One reason why management groups may act like a pack of hyenas is due to the competitive nature of the corporate world. Individuals are often vying for promotions, raises, and recognition, and this competition can breed resentment and animosity among colleagues. When a group of individuals with these competitive tendencies come together, they can form a pack mentality where they support each other’s efforts to outdo their colleagues.

Another factor that can contribute to a management group acting like a pack of hyenas is a lack of clear direction or communication from upper management. When there is a lack of clear goals and objectives, individuals may feel unsure about their role in the company and may resort to trying to establish their own dominance over others.

A pack of hyenas can also emerge in a management group when there is a power imbalance. This can occur when a few individuals hold the majority of decision-making power and use it to their advantage. In this situation, the individuals with the most power can manipulate their colleagues and make decisions that benefit themselves, while disregarding the needs and opinions of others.

The effects of a management group acting like a pack of hyenas can be disastrous for a company. A toxic work environment can lead to low morale and high turnover rates, which can negatively impact the productivity and success of a company. Additionally, when individuals are focused on personal gain rather than working together for the good of the company, decisions can be made that harm the business rather than help it.

In conclusion, a management group acting like a pack of hyenas is a serious problem that can have significant consequences for a company. It is important for upper management to create a clear direction and set of goals, establish a fair power balance, and promote a positive work environment to avoid this type of behavior. By doing so, a management group can work together as a team to achieve success, rather than acting like a pack of hyenas and sabotaging the company.