The Addictive Organization
eBook - ePub

The Addictive Organization

Anne Wilson Schaef

Share book
  1. 240 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

The Addictive Organization

Anne Wilson Schaef

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

Schaef and Fassel show how managers, workers, and organization members exhibit the classic symptoms of addiction: denying and avoiding problems, assuming that there is no other way of acting, and manipulating events to maintain the status quo.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is The Addictive Organization an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access The Addictive Organization by Anne Wilson Schaef in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Persönliche Entwicklung & Zeitmanagement. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
HarperOne
Year
2013
ISBN
9780062283429
III

The Four Major forms of Addiction in Organizations
1. Organizations in Which a Key Person Is an Addict
In the course of our consulting, we have worked with several organizations where we saw that recognizing that a significant person in the organization was an active addict was the key to understanding what was going on in the organization itself.
In Section I we referred to a book, The Neurotic Organization, that describes the unhealthy climate created by top executives. The Neurotic Organization asserts that companies do tend to take on the personalities of key executives. We extend this analysis further. We believe it is not just the top executives whose basic character sets the tone of the organization, it is any person who is “key” in the system in either line or staff. In fact, in addictive organizations, an active addict can have tremendous influence, because an addict’s behavior draws an excessive amount of attention and is a constant drain on the time and energy of others.
How does this happen, and why? First of all, the addictive process is a very powerful disease process. It is a “cunning, powerful, baffling, and patient” disease. In addition, those who are actively operating in this disease become so confused and confusing to others that they begin to isolate themselves and cease to be subject to the normal feedback mechanisms that other employees face. The higher the person is in the company, the less likely he or she will be closely scrutinized, and the more the disease progresses, the more isolated the addict becomes.
In a small mid-western manufacturing company with which we consulted, a comptroller who was an active alcoholic suffered a series of blackouts. During these blackouts he authorized the purchase of forty new automobiles for salespeople. Of course, the car dealers in the town loved this man, and the sales staff was incredulous but believed that top management must know what they were doing. Up until the time of this incident, which cost the company over $300,000, this man had been described as “eccentric” and/or as having “a strange personality.” No one saw him for what he was, a “drunk” on a rampage. For this company, an alcoholic was someone falling down drunk in the street. This man was seen as somewhat peculiar, but doing his job. The most anyone proposed was that the comptroller could use some psychological help and that he needed to be supervised more closely.
Both of these solutions are responses typical of organizations. Rather than see the problem as the addictive process, they define it psychologically and treat it with psychological intervention. The other strategy companies use is to exert some kind of control over the addict, thereby frequently exacerbating the problems, because focusing on control puts the company into the same addictive system as the addict, that is, a system operating out of the illusion of control.
The reaction of the company was to look for every kind of traditional solution, which is typical of the naïveté or functional blindness of those in the addictive organization. Most people in the addictive organization have been trained to act and think addictively, and one of the chief characteristics of addiction is denial. Even though crises push us to re-form our old concepts and abandon them, the main line of defense is first to refuse to see what is happening, and then to fall back on an older, familiar style. Blake and Mouton first documented this tendency when they observed that under stress people go to a familiar “backup” style that has been deeply integrated into their personalities. They do this even after they have been trained in more humanistic and more effective styles of management.
The company in our example tried all the usual backup solutions: suggesting psychological help, providing closer supervision, and sending the comptroller to workshops on communication and management training. When the situation reached a crisis that was about to endanger the rest of the company as well as the comptroller, they knew that they needed further help and sought outside consultation. The company was about to hit a financial bottom just as the comptroller was about to hit a personal bottom. Fortunately, in this particular company, the employee was sent for treatment for chemical dependency and returned to his job, where he is continuing to deal with the effects of the “auto caper.” He also openly shares with management and employees what he has learned about the addictive disease and has activated a recovery for the entire organization.
The other focus of The Neurotic Organization is the identification of executive leadership styles. The styles described are the dramatic, the depressive, the paranoid, the compulsive, and the schizoid. The authors believe these styles are dysfunctional for the executives they studied, although they feel that a combination of styles might be more workable.
As we studied these styles, it occurred to us that Kets deVries and Miller had gathered valuable data and then made a wrong interpretation. We believe this happens when the researchers, for whatever reason, do not have or ignore an important piece of the puzzle. All of the “neurotic behaviors” they describe are found in the addictive personality. For example, they describe the compulsive type as characterized by perfectionism, insistence that others submit to their way of doing things, dogmatism, and obstinacy. We have already identified the addict as compulsive, perfectionistic, and controlling. They describe the paranoid type as cold, rational, and unemotional. This coincides with the frozen feelings of the addict, and the defense mechanism of projection is dominant in both the paranoid and the addict. The dramatic type was given to self-dramatization and incessant drawing of attention to self. This type fits with what we have named the self-centeredness of the addict, which is always accompanied by mood swings and a crisis orientation. The depressive, who harbors feelings of guilt and inadequacy and a diminished ability to think clearly, fits what we described as key characteristics of the co-dependent and the addict. The schizoid, who is detached, not involved, estranged, with lack of interest in present or future, is what we saw as exhibiting ethical deterioration and out-of-touch feelings, frequently using chemicals or process addictions to maintain detachment and distance from the present.
The entire constellation of behaviors of the “neurotic executive” are the characteristics of the active addict, the addictive system, and the co-dependent. Interestingly, The Neurotic Organization claims that healthy functioning will result if executives find a better neurotic style than their present style. They counsel a combination of styles.
We would say that such a proposal is tantamount to telling an alcoholic to stop drinking so much and start taking some cocaine in addition. The real problem has never been addressed. The behaviors the authors describe are all behaviors of an active addict and an addictive system. You cannot trade one addictive behavior for another and hope the organization will move to more healthy ways of functioning.
The therapeutic community at large has denied the role of addictions in dysfunction. When addiction is the “norm” for the society or when persons are addicts or come from addictive families, unless they are recovering, their denial systems tend to remain intact and they just do not “see” what is going on at a systemic level. In fact, sometimes seeing the pieces themselves serves to “protect the addictive supply” and draw attention away from the larger systemic problem. In this way, the addictive process is supported and can continue.
The power of key people in organizations is related to their influence and to the networks they have built. When they are nonrecovering addicts, one power they have is the power to bring a company to the brink of destruction.
We were contacted recently by an internal consultant from a very large Fortune 500 corporation. This man believed that they had an incipient tragedy developing in the company. He said he was concerned about a vice-president who was responsible for a division that accounted for 25 percent of the profit of the entire corporation. The vice-president was exhibiting all the behaviors of an active addict. He had become increasingly controlling and perfectionistic; he was having memory loss; and his behavior was self-centered and dishonest.
The internal consultant, who himself was a recovering co-dependent, recognized these behaviors as addictive and knew the disease was progressive. He had no hope the vice-president would get help for himself, by himself. The consultant’s concern was for the man and for the company. “I’m afraid this guy is going to wipe out, but he’ll take the division down with him before he goes,” said the internal consultant. “It would be absolutely disastrous for the company.”
Compounding the seriousness of this situation was that the vice-president had developed a very sophisticated “con” (which is typical for an active addict), so that most of his behaviors were excused. In fact, many of his irrational behaviors were overlooked by his staff precisely because he was the boss. We do believe that frequently those in high-power positions have a wider range of dysfunction allowed to them than those with less power in the organization. In true alcoholic fashion, he began to isolate himself, so that even those close to him had difficulty getting the information that would have clearly indicated a pattern of personal and organizational destructiveness. His company has yet to do an intervention, and his division is on the brink of disaster.
It is important to recognize that it was both the vice-president’s cunning and baffling behavior and the organization’s deliberate blindness to a pattern of trouble that created this situation. If either party in this addictive system had stepped out of the disease process, the entire addictive system would have crumbled. In this case, the addict was safe as long as the co-dependents maintained their denial. Basically, the co-dependents remained oblivious or covered up his behavior, while the addict became sicker with a progressive and fatal disease and was not given the help he needed.
High-tech companies, with their stress and competitiveness, are not the only ones to face this disease. Even those whose work is the treatment of addictions find themselves mired in the very thing they are supposed to be experts in detecting. A good example is a psychiatric treatment center in a major metropolitan hospital complex with which we consulted several years ago.
Initially, we had been contacted to do an organizational assessment and to work with the treatment staff of this center. The center had been open for about three years, and it was experiencing increasing problems with organizational structure and personnel. In the course of our assessment interviews, it became apparent that a key team member was a nonrecovering “dry alcoholic.” This person (Sue) had been to treatment for alcoholism and was no longer using chemicals, but she was not actively involved in a program of recovery and was not making a personal system shift. She was operating like an active drunk even though she was not drinking, which is the definition of a “dry drunk” or “dry alcoholic.” How did we know this woman was on a dry drunk? Here are some of the behaviors we encountered. First of all, she was deeply dishonest. She was employed at the treatment center full time and simultaneously was holding down two other full-time jobs in other places in the city. We discovered this when we uncovered the fact that nobody, including the administrator, knew what she did with her time or where she was most of the time. Upon interviewing the patients, we found that she rarely kept her appointments and commitments to them and was rarely around.
During a series of interviews with the other staff, they kept saying things about the center’s administrator of a highly personal nature. When we probed further, asking how people knew these things, they said they did not have the information from their own experience but that Sue had said they should mention it to us. Sue was involved in a second level of dishonesty. She refused to speak to us directly about her concerns with the administrator. Instead, she funneled the information through others, who did not even share her concern. Clearly, she did not want to be linked with the information she was spreading around, because much of it was geared at questioning the integrity of the administrator.
Gossip and rumor abounded in the organization. As we tracked down the source of the rumors, they all led back to one person, Sue. This process kept the staff in continual upheaval, for they were constantly trying to deal with a myriad of rumors. They engaged in endless one-on-one meetings in which they tried to clear up what was going on. Since much of their free time was occupied with rumor management, they had little time to focus on professional issues related to treatment. In addition, there was no attention to or energy left for focusing on Sue and seeing her behavior for what it was: addictive. She created confusion in the system, and the confusion left people powerless to do anything other than deal with the confusion. They also, like good co-dependents, chose to remain ignorant of what was really happening.
Lastly, Sue used a very interesting—and common—addictive process to avoid being confronted. It soon became apparent that the consultants were aware of the addictive functioning in the center, and specifically concerned about Sue, her disease, and its effect upon the center. Very early in the process, Sue let it be known that she had a “personality conflict” with the consultants. We found this very interesting, because we had had very little interaction with her and, in fact, had spent most of our time listening and interviewing. It may be that only addicts possess the ability to have an instant and thorough personality conflict based on little or no interaction with a person! The purpose of the fabricated personality conflict was to discredit the perception of the consultants and, by doing so, make our assessment of what was going on in the organization questionable.
When we confronted the fabricated personality conflict along with the other behaviors we observed, Sue announced that it was “her or us” (dramatic!) and offered her resignation on the spot if we were not terminated as consultants. Luckily for the center and the administrator, who had been looking for a way to let her go for months, Sue was taken at her word; her resignation was promptly accepted.
Sue’s behavior raises another typical technique addicts tend to use. It is the process of setting up a me(us)-you(they) situation in which people believe they have to take sides. This is a form of the dualistic process we mentioned earlier. When Sue set it up as either her or us, she set up a dualistic situation in which the practicing co-dependents in the organization immediately felt they had to take sides, and it was easy to see the panic in their faces. Sue was clearly acting out of her disease in setting up an impossible situation, yet the consultants were outsiders, and the loyalty of the staff was to Sue. What were they to do?
Luckily for us, we immediately recognized the “side-taking” dualism that was being set up, knew that it was a ploy of the addictive process, and refused to play. As consultants, we brought the focus back to the needs of the organization and Sue. We used this opportunity to recommend relapse treatment for Sue, with her continuation in the organization being contingent upon her going for treatment. She chose not to go; the administrator accepted her resignation; and we moved on to the needs of the center and the staff. As consultants we had exhibited concern for the organization and concern for Sue. We believe that if we had not been aware of this process of the addictive disease, we could have been sucked into the addictive process and become enmeshed in it.
In this case an employee chose to leave rather than get better. It is also a case in which one can see the tremendous power of the addict when she elects to involve other people in her addictive behavior. The rest of the staff had been keeping secrets, carrying tales, and protecting Sue from experiencing the consequences of her behavior. They were acting like good nonrecovering organizational co-dependents.
Look at the insidiousness of the process of this disease. The very people whose daily work was providing treatment and facilitating recovery were as deeply mired in disease as those who came to them for treatment. Their knowledge and skill could not help them if they were willing to enter the disease process with Sue. Compare the secretiveness surrounding addictions with the attitude we have toward another disease, say cancer. We are much more open to discussing someone with heart disease, getting information on the person’s progress, asking whether there is something to be done, and gradually supporting the treatment. We do not make the person or the disease invisible. With addictions we are much less ready to intervene, to be open, and to confront the problem. This reticence, we believe, is due to the addictive system itself, which uses denial as the main defense against seeing and acknowledging what is happening. As long as something is hidden, it is powerful.
From the example of the treatment center and many others we have encountered, we are convinced that no one is immune to these addictive behaviors, regardless of their life-style or training. In two of the aforementioned situations, there was enough openness in the system that key people were eventually recognized as addicts and their power to completely undermine the company minimized. In groups that are more closed, or that have extremely hierarchical or authoritarian leadership structures, leaders are less assailable. Consequently, their disease can have more disastrous effects on the group.
A severe case we encountered as consultants took place ten years ago in one of the most unlikely of places—a monastery in southern Germany. Because of the authority structure of the monastery, which is supported by a centuries-old theology, the head monk, the abbot, has complete responsibility for the monks of the abbey, from the oldest to the youngest. The abbot has a council that assists him in decision making, but in the practical running of the monastery, the abbot is the ultimate authority.
In this particular situation, a t...

Table of contents