tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/bad-management-15483/articlesBad management – The Conversation2022-11-22T19:06:31Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1949992022-11-22T19:06:31Z2022-11-22T19:06:31ZElon Musk’s ‘hardcore’ management style: a case study in what not to do<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496328/original/file-20221120-16-i80nmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2065%2C1053&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> Jae C. Hong/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a case study in how to implement organisational change, Elon Musk’s actions at Twitter will go down as the gold standard in what not to do. </p>
<p>Among other things, <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0095">the evidence shows</a> successful organisational change requires: a clear, compelling vision that is communicated effectively; employee participation; and fairness in the way change is implemented. Trust in leaders is <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0095">also crucial</a>. </p>
<p>Musk, the world’s richest man, appears in a hurry to make Twitter into a money-spinner. But it takes time to understand the requirements for successful organisational change. <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0095">Two in three</a> such efforts fail, resulting in significant costs, a <a href="https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1273">stressed workforce</a> and loss of key talent. </p>
<p>Change management never quite goes to plan. It’s hard to figure out whether Musk even has a plan at all.</p>
<h2>Musk’s ‘extremely hardcore’ style</h2>
<p>Since taking over Twitter on October 27, Musk has stopped employees working from home, cancelled employee lunches, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/technology/elon-musk-twitter-fired-criticism.html">laid off</a> about 3,700 employees – roughly half of Twitter’s workforce. Many realised they had been sacked when they could no longer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/04/twitter-layoffs-elon-musk-revenue-drop">access their laptops</a>.</p>
<p>Just days later it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/technology/elon-musk-twitter-fired-criticism.html">emerged</a> that Musk had a team of snoopers comb through employees’ private messages on Slack, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/technology/elon-musk-twitter-fired-criticism.html">firing those</a> who had criticised him. </p>
<p>Then, on Wednesday last week, Musk sent an ultimatum to staff to pledge commitment to a new “extremely hardcore” Twitter that “will mean working long hours at a high intensity”. Employees had until 5pm the next day to accept, or take a severance package. </p>
<p>About 500 staff reportedly <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/after-elon-musks-ultimatum-twitter-employees-start-exiting-2022-11-18/">wrote farewell messages</a>.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Tweet from Twitter employee Leah Culver: " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496687/original/file-20221122-15-2fp8s6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Musk appears not to have anticipated this reaction. As the “hardcore” deadline approached, he started bringing key staff into meetings, trying to convince them to stay.</p>
<p>He also walked back his working-from-home ban, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/musk-softens-remote-work-mandate-to-retain-twitter-staffers">emailing staff</a> that “all that is required for approval is that your manager takes responsibility for ensuring that you are making an excellent contribution”.</p>
<p>It was unsuccessful. So many employees decided to leave that on Friday Twitter <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/musk-softens-remote-work-mandate-to-retain-twitter-staffers?srnd=premium&sref=QnKyEnuc&leadSource=uverify%20wall">locked all staff</a> out of its office until Monday amid confusion as to who actually still worked there and should have access.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Twitter has lost more than half its workforce in less than a month." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496660/original/file-20221122-24-qapv1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Twitter has lost more than half its workforce in less than a month.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeff Chiu/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Layoffs and restructuring are common in organisational change. But the way they are managed has significant <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2016-07814-001">effects</a> on those who are leaving, as well as those who remain. If you want employees to be committed and to respond to a crisis, telling them they are lazy and threatening them won’t help.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-breaking-up-with-twitter-heres-the-right-way-to-do-it-195002">Thinking of breaking up with Twitter? Here’s the right way to do it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Choice matters</h2>
<p>But what about SpaceX and Tesla – the companies on which Musk has built his fame and fortune? Doesn’t their success prove he is a good leader? </p>
<p>Not so fast. There is a big difference between a mission-driven company like SpaceX and a platform like Twitter. </p>
<p>When there is a common mission to achieve something extraordinary or which hasn’t been done before, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482212000629?casa_token=KV2BSOHMY2sAAAAA:mKXmNigQSkRramqQQDrYRliLH3h4iS-NMSGniS7CwDR_LVDAnRvQ-pCR7gK2lSBomq2Ued5xMA">employees</a> will often willingly work extremely long hours in difficult situations.</p>
<p>They will choose to go above and beyond and work long hours if they feel aligned with the organisation’s purpose or that their work matters. But the key point here is that they choose. </p>
<p>As one <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63672307">Twitter employee</a> tweeted after Musk’s “hardcore” email:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I didn’t want to work for someone who threatened us over email multiple times about only ‘exceptional tweeps should work here’ when I was already working 60-70 hours weekly.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Musk ignores the fundamentals</h2>
<p>Both Tesla and SpaceX have <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/797952/summary">many unhappy employees</a>, with lawsuits filed over working conditions and Musk’s management style.</p>
<p>He has been commended for his <a href="https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/musks-5-step-design-process">thinking</a> on iterative design and solving engineering problems. Challenging old models that may no longer be useful is important. But the <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0095">fundamentals</a> of leadership and organisational change are still essential – and on these, Musk falls woefully short. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-elon-musks-destruction-of-twitter-tells-us-about-the-future-of-social-media-194895">What Elon Musk's destruction of Twitter tells us about the future of social media</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While his employees – real people who aren’t billionaires and who have rent or mortgages to pay – were grappling with what being “hardcore” even means, and how that might impact their ability to have a life outside work, Musk was tweeting about his poll on whether former US president Donald Trump should be allowed back on the platform. </p>
<p>Then, after Trump declined to return, Musk tweeted the following: </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=659&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=659&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/496428/original/file-20221121-14-gfq5yp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=659&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The idea of any other chief executive sending such a message on social media almost defies belief.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/twitter-and-elon-musk-why-free-speech-absolutism-threatens-human-rights-193877">Twitter and Elon Musk: why free speech absolutism threatens human rights</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some have suggested this whole debacle is an ego trip for Musk – a theory lent credence by his attempt to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html">get out of the deal</a>. His actions pose a significant risk to the business even if there are still enough employees around to keep it working. </p>
<p>Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, who resigned on November 10, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/opinion/twitter-yoel-roth-elon-musk.html">wrote last week</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Almost immediately upon the acquisition’s close, a wave of racist and antisemitic trolling emerged on Twitter. Wary marketers, including those at General Mills, Audi and Pfizer, slowed down or paused ad spending on the platform, kicking off a crisis within the company to protect precious ad revenue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But even more powerful than the advertisers, Roth noted, are the digital storefronts of Apple and Google:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Failure to adhere to Apple’s and Google’s guidelines would be catastrophic, risking Twitter’s expulsion from their app stores and making it more difficult for billions of potential users to get Twitter’s services. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Organisations are complex, interdependent systems, underpinned by a web of behavioural processes. Creating <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/annals.2016.0095">successful change</a> requires aligning individual, work group and organisational goals. </p>
<p>Even if the little blue bird is still flying for now, the people-led systems that keep it aloft are under significant threat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Libby (Elizabeth) Sander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Change management never quite goes according to plan. But it’s hard to figure out if Elon Musk even has a plan.Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, MBA Director & Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1466852020-09-22T13:22:37Z2020-09-22T13:22:37ZWhy do bankers behave badly? They make too much to ask questions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359379/original/file-20200922-20-1l1kf4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C60%2C2676%2C1287&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rudy Balasko/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past 16 months journalists have been scouring through more than 2,000 Suspicious Activity Reports originally sent by banks to the United States Treasury, before being leaked to Buzzfeed and then passed along to the <a href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/">International Consortium of Investigative Journalists</a>.</p>
<p>The reports relate to more than US$2 trillion in transactions over the period from 2000 to 2017. Some of these transactions will already have been investigated, and may be legitimate. In the case of the Australian banks, the regulator AUSTRAC has already <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/macquarie-cba-face-fresh-money-laundering-scrutiny-after-data-leak-20200921-p55xmg.html">asked the US Treasury</a> for some of this information.</p>
<p>There are a number of questions raised by this latest episode of bad behaviour by banks. Firstly, why don’t banks have better controls to stop these kinds of transactions from occurring?</p>
<p>With transactions from tax havens, from shell companies, or to countries under sanction why aren’t banks themselves doing some investigation rather than simply passing information along to the US Treasury? </p>
<p>The short answer is that banks make too much money and it is not in their interest to ask too many questions.</p>
<p>An obvious example are the transactions processed by JP Morgan relating to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/1mdb">1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal</a> which netted the bank millions of dollars in fees despite the obvious questions the transactions should have raised.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xTXG_wiMI34?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A second question is why do banks consistently seem to behave so badly? </p>
<p>Australia has seen banking scandal after banking scandal over the last 30 years, with the latest detailed in the report of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/hayne-royal-commission-56073">Hayne Royal Commission</a> in 2019.</p>
<h2>Big rewards, less regulation</h2>
<p>I believe the reason the banking industry is particularly prone to scandals is because of the amount of cash sloshing through the system, and the fact that in recent years there have been fewer regulations and less policing than is needed.</p>
<p>Deregulation has been the general trend in finance since the mid-1980s, first in the United States and Britain, and then in countries such as Australia.</p>
<p>Australia’s deregulation began with the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/inside-the-floating-of-the-a-20131211-2z698.html">floating of the exchange rate</a> in 1983 followed by the removal of controls over bank interest rates and bank deposits with the Reserve Bank. </p>
<p>Sure enough, Australia’s first banking scandal was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-better-than-roulette-how-foreign-exchange-trading-rips-off-mum-and-dad-investors-113743">Swiss loans affair</a>
in 1985 in which unsophisticated Australians were encouraged to borrow in a foreign currency oblivious to the risk the Australian dollar might fall forcing them to pay back much more than they borrowed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-better-than-roulette-how-foreign-exchange-trading-rips-off-mum-and-dad-investors-113743">No better than roulette. How foreign exchange trading rips off mum and dad investors</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the United States the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis">Savings and Loan debacle</a> occurred at roughly the same time. A classic example is a large bank in Ohio, Home State, that failed in 1985. Depositors in Home State thought they were safe because their deposits were insured, but deregulation of deposit insurance led to private insurers. The deposit insurance company failed alongside Home State, leaving nothing for insurance payouts.</p>
<p>The next major banking disaster was the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asian-financial-crisis.asp">Asian financial crisis</a> in 1997. Deregulated banks in countries including Korea and Thailand failed due to large unregulated inflows the systems in these countries couldn’t handle. </p>
<h2>No learning from history</h2>
<p>A follow-on was the failure of <a href="https://www.managementstudyguide.com/failure-of-long-term-capital-management.htm">Long Term Capital Management</a>, a highly leveraged (borrowed) hedge fund in 1998. The US Treasury engineered a bailout of Long Term Capital Management that was favourable to its shareholders and lenders instead of letting it fail.</p>
<p>There were a number of obvious regulatory problems that led to the crisis. Hedge funds were not required to report their positions in these markets and the risk they were creating or exposed to. They were highly leveraged. Unsophisticated financial markets suffered unmanageable large capital flows.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=971&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1220&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1220&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359367/original/file-20200922-16-jaf8rx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1220&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Greenspan was head of the US Federal Reserve but opposed to regulation.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the crisis the Governor of the US Federal Reserve was Alan Greenspan, a man philosophically opposed to regulation. </p>
<p>He was a follower of the philosophy of <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2000/12/hitchens-200012">Ayn Rand</a>, whose view was that the government was incompetent and regulation was unnecessary.</p>
<p>Greenspan noted the contradiction in being a public servant of this mindset, but tried to further deregulate finance wherever and however possible.</p>
<p>Despite the Asian crisis coming close to creating the first global financial meltdown, there was no slowing in deregulation afterwards. </p>
<p>The result was the <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html">global financial crisis</a>. </p>
<p>Once again, high leverage and opacity were culprits, along with deregulation in derivatives markets and poor design for some market structures.</p>
<h2>Even businesses want better regulation</h2>
<p>After the global financial crisis, deregulation continued, at times despite the wishes of industries affected. On Monday this week 381 companies signed a letter <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/dbb65603-ece2-45b9-988c-20847594a40b">arguing against</a> a proposal that would remove the need for hedge funds to disclose their stock market holdings. US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin used to work in a hedge fund. He is unlikely to back down.</p>
<p>And this week the first details of the 16-month investigation were released, exposing major issues with transactions by the largest banks in the United States and United Kingdom in particular, but also all four of Australia’s major banks, and Macquarie Bank which was used for more than US$120 million (A$167 million) of suspicious transactions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-credit-rating-agencies-economic-advice-shouldnt-be-trusted-63253">Why credit rating agencies' economic advice shouldn't be trusted</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many won’t be illegal, but the suspicious activity reports suggest that where there is a conflict between profit and ethical decision making, profit usually wins. </p>
<p>I don’t think the reason for this is that all people in finance are unethical, but an industry with such a lot of cash floating around and too little regulation is likely to attract people with questionable ethics.</p>
<h2>It needn’t mean a return to the old days</h2>
<p>Regulation needn’t mean a reversion to the old “3-6-3” banking days where deposit rates were 3%, lending rates were 6% and the bank manager was on the golf course by 3pm.</p>
<p>But regulation needs to address disclosure issues, leverage, and issues with “sophisticated” products that create a significant risk of blowing up the global financial system.</p>
<p>Reforms should also focus the minds of management and boards on better behaviour. A simple one would be non-payment of bonuses when the organisation is brought into disrepute. It could be structured along the lines of the <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/the-two-strikes-rule-must-go-20190326-p517kp">two strikes</a> rule on remuneration.</p>
<p>Consumers of financial products are at a considerable information disadvantage, and need better protection. Currently consumer protection in the financial services sector lies with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and with state consumer affairs offices. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lunch-with-bankers-even-theyre-unimpressed-with-their-new-banking-code-of-conduct-122036">Lunch with bankers. Even they're unimpressed with their new Banking Code of Conduct</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In some cases this works, but neither ASIC nor consumer affairs offices are focused exclusively on protecting consumers against abuses in the financial services sector. ASIC is responsible to businesses and finance professionals as well as consumers, and at times these responsibilities conflict.</p>
<p>The codes of conduct we have are voluntary, although industry bodies can seek ASIC approval. The Australian Banking Association code is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-new-banking-code-looks-impressive-but-what-will-it-achieve-120582">essentially toothless</a>.</p>
<p>Until there is greater regulation in banking and finance we will continue to endure the kinds of bad behaviour we’ve been lumbered with for decades. And we will continue to pay for it too, when things go bad. It’s not enough to rely on banks to get banks to behave well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146685/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Crosby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Not all people in banks are unethical, but banking attracts unethical people.Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1406962020-06-24T16:46:17Z2020-06-24T16:46:17ZWhy good people manage badly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342490/original/file-20200617-94054-18sf78g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C238%2C4673%2C3384&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most management theories still in practice were developed more than a century ago.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The institution of management is bad. Bad because it causes too much stress and harms human health. Bad because it allocates too many resources to non-productive activity and hampers human progress. </p>
<p>We tend to focus on the <a href="https://www.ig.com/en/news-and-trade-ideas/top-10-biggest-corporate-scandals-and-how-they-affected-share-pr-181101">large scandals that make headlines</a>, blame individuals and then dismiss it as “a few bad apples” (despite the alarming frequency of such apples). What if it were not the apples that were bad, but the orchard? Maybe these scandals are just the visible symptoms of an underlying disease?</p>
<p>The more pedestrian “business as usual” institution of management, so consequential to the livelihood and well-being of hundreds of millions of people every day, produces mostly bad results for stakeholders. For instance, in a widely cited Gallup study, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx">only 13 per cent of employees are “engaged” at work</a>. Why is it that management is not better at managing?</p>
<p>It’s not like there are no other options. From the <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/2009/02/09/scientific-management">Scientific Management movement in the 1880s</a> to <a href="https://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/">Lean</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/08/13/what-is-agile/#1411217526e3">Agile</a> in the last 30 years, there have always been more progressive management philosophies for as long as there have been big companies.</p>
<h2>Few companies embrace change</h2>
<p>And this is not just theory. A small percentage of companies have embraced alternative management systems and have thrived, <a href="https://ufuture.com/top-10-lean-manufacturing-companies-world/">the largest and most famous being Toyota</a>. But even though there’s <a href="https://www.strategy-business.com/article/Danahers-Instruments-of-Change">empirical evidence</a> showing it’s possible, when a complete enterprise transformation takes place, to better satisfy the interests of customers, employees and even shareholders concurrently, the vast majority of executives have taken only a superficial interest in these transformative philosophies. Why?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342512/original/file-20200617-94049-1eejksp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Toyota has adopted a non-traditional management style that is cited by experts as a reason behind the company’s success.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’ve discovered some compelling answers from a voice in the wilderness of management thinking by the name of Bob Emiliani. In his 2018 book <a href="https://bobemiliani.com/book/triumph-classical-management/"><em>The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management</em></a>, and in shorter, related works he’s <a href="https://bobemiliani.com/book/irrational-institutions/">published more recently</a>, he argues that the prevailing ideology of “Classical Management” does not endure simply because of greed and profit motive.</p>
<p>While admitting that “pecuniary self-interest” is certainly a driver of executive behaviour, Emiliani marshals persuasive arguments that it’s due far more to sociological factors, like the maintenance of one’s honour, rights and privileges within a peer group.</p>
<p>This is why, for instance, executives will almost always prefer to spend tens of millions on new IT systems (that rarely improve company performance) rather than spend 15 minutes a month speaking to front-line employees directly, trying to understand their work and the problems they actually face while trying to serve customers every day. There is too much dishonour in the latter and much greater privilege and status in the former.</p>
<h2>Managing for the 19th century</h2>
<p>The institution of management has, over the past 150 years, created, upheld and reinforced such social norms of leadership behaviour, causing good people to manage badly. We’re still basically managing as if it were the 19th century.</p>
<p>Emiliani, a professor in the school of engineering, science and technology at Central Connecticut State University, ignores the boosterism and wishful thinking of the currently popular management books and delves instead into the classics of the social sciences — a somewhat remarkable move for someone with a PhD in chemical engineering. He weaves together an incisive and inter-disciplinary analysis of why contemporary executives behave and think the way they do. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342491/original/file-20200617-94101-16v0bbz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many CEOs are more worried about their own status rather than creating a more co-operative work culture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Emiliani uses the metaphors of war (aggression and conflict), hunting (predation), sport (competition) and devout observances (rituals and decorum) to describe and explain contemporary management culture. </p>
<p>What emerges is a view of a powerful trinity of sociological forces that act upon mostly well-intentioned executives, keeping them firmly attached to the status quo: firstly, a culture that requires them to maintain their honour and status in the eyes of their peers; secondly, politics and economics, which privileges power-seeking and territorial dominance above egalitarianism and co-operation; and thirdly, metaphysical habits of thought, which give licence to executives to forgo the need to use scientific rigour or rational logic in their thinking, and instead allows them to indulge in more mystical and supernatural explanations of cause and effect. </p>
<p>Emiliani’s prose has a certain delightful vitriol to it, using strong contrasts and the somewhat bombastic language of 19th-century socioeconomics to make his point. He writes with great candour, in part, because he can. </p>
<p>He is not subservient to vested interests: he self-publishes all his books and is not a big-name Ivy League business school professor with binding sponsorships, lucrative publishing contracts or viral TED talks. Nor is he a consultant (like me) <a href="https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/jeffrey-pfeffer-why-leadership-industry-has-failed">benefiting from the multi-billion-dollar “leadership industry,”</a> as Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer calls it.</p>
<h2>Respectful approach is needed</h2>
<p>His writing is a dispassionate and well-reasoned plea for a better, more respectful, humanistic system of management that creates more value for employees, consumers, shareholders and, ultimately, society. It provokes the reader to think deeply about the chronic nature of bad management and its widespread consequences, both economic and social.</p>
<p>While he spends most of his time illustrating how bad management has deep roots, Emiliani also offers some practical proposals for improving it. He recognizes and accepts that leaders are not likely going to change, or change very much, and so proposes two alternatives that do not require wholesale transformation of an enterprise.</p>
<p>One proposes that leaders obey only two rules: don’t disrupt the flow of operations and provide above-average compensation to employees.</p>
<p>The other proposes that leadership is seen as a set of flawed processes that can, with a little ingenuity, be improved. If leaders blame errors on the process and not their own character, Emiliani speculates that they might just be willing to improve.</p>
<p>These low-effort, low-cost options have yet to be thoroughly tested, but at least they offer reason for some hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140696/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ken Eakin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Very few companies have embraced alternative management systems that satisfy the interests of customers, employees and shareholders concurrently,Ken Eakin, Part-Time Instructor, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1231182019-09-19T11:24:42Z2019-09-19T11:24:42ZPathological power: the danger of governments led by narcissists and psychopaths<p>After spending his early life suffering under the Nazis and then Stalin, the Polish psychologist <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Political-Ponerology-Science-Adjusted-Purposes/dp/1897244258">Andrew Lobaczewski</a> devoted his career to studying the relationship between psychological disorders and politics. He wanted to understand why psychopaths and narcissists are so strongly attracted to power as well as the processes by which they take over governments and countries. </p>
<p>He eventually came up with the term “pathocracy” to describe governments made up of people with these disorders – and the concept is by no means confined to regimes of the past. </p>
<p>In the US, for example, despite a convention that psychologists shouldn’t unofficially diagnose public figures they haven’t examined (known as the “<a href="https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/goldwater-rule">Goldwater Rule</a>” after psychiatrists questioned the mental fitness of Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964), many have <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/14/unpicking-donald-trump-s-psychopathology-helps-explain-the-toxic-reality-facing-america-vi">publicly stated</a> that Donald Trump displays all the signs of narcissistic personality disorder. </p>
<p>Similar cases have been made by psychologists for other “strongman” politicians around the world, such as <a href="https://www.politurco.com/erdogan-is-mentally-stable.html">Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey</a> and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-mental-health-psychological-condition-a7355891.html">Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines</a>. </p>
<p>It’s not really surprising that people with personality disorders are drawn to political power – narcissists crave attention and affirmation, and feel that they are superior to others and have the right to dominate them. They also lack empathy, which means that they are able to ruthlessly exploit and abuse people for the sake of power. Psychopaths feel a similar sense of superiority and lack of empathy, but without the same impulse for attention and adoration. </p>
<p>But pathocracy isn’t just about individuals. As Lobaczewski <a href="http://www.ponerology.com/">pointed out</a>, pathological leaders tend to attract other people with psychological disorders. At the same time, empathetic and fair-minded people gradually fall away. They are either ostracised or step aside voluntarily, appalled by the growing pathology around them. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/narcissists-and-psychopaths-how-some-societies-ensure-these-dangerous-people-never-wield-power-118854">Narcissists and psychopaths: how some societies ensure these dangerous people never wield power</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As a result, over time pathocracies become more entrenched and extreme. You can see this process in the <a href="https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-germany-dictatorship/">Nazi takeover of the German government</a> in the 1930s, when Germany moved from democracy to pathocracy in less than two years. </p>
<p>Democracy is an essential way of protecting people from pathological politicians, with principles and institutions that limit their power (the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript">Bill of Rights</a> in the US, which guarantees certain rights to citizens is a good example).</p>
<p>This is why pathocrats hate democracy. Once they attain power they do their best to dismantle and discredit democratic institutions, including the freedom and legitimacy of the press. This is the first thing that <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ways-to-destroy-democracy/">Hitler did</a> when he became German chancellor, and it is what autocrats such as Trump, Vladimir Putin and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-world-should-be-worried-about-the-rise-of-strongman-politics-100165">attempting to do</a>.</p>
<p>In the US, there has clearly been a movement towards pathocracy under Trump. As Lobaczewski’s theory predicts, the old guard of more moderate White House officials – the “adults in the room” – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/jim-mattis-resign-trump-administration">has fallen away</a>. The president is now <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-adults-in-the-room-are-gone-6f35580d75c8/">surrounded by individuals</a> who share his authoritarian tendencies and lack of empathy and morality. Fortunately, to some extent, the democratic institutions of the US have managed to provide some push back. </p>
<p>Britain too has been fairly fortunate, compared to other countries. Certainly there have been some pathocratic tendencies in some of our recent prime ministers (and other prominent ministers), including a lack of empathy and a narcissistic sense of self importance. But the UK’s parliamentary and electoral systems – and perhaps a cultural disposition towards fairness and social responsibility – have protected the UK from some of the worst excesses of pathocracy. </p>
<h2>Pathocratic politics today</h2>
<p>This is why recent political events seem so alarming. It seems as if the UK is closer to pathocracy than ever before. The recent <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amber-rudd-warns-pm-moderate-103525718.html">exodus of moderate Conservatives</a> is characteristic of the purges which occur as a democracy transitions into pathocracy. </p>
<p>The distrust and disregard for democratic processes shown by the UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, and his ministers and advisers – the <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/63099/parliament-prorogued-what-does-it-mean-and-can-it-be-used-to-push-through-brexit">prorogation of parliament</a>, the insinuation that they may not follow <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-could-ignore-mps-bid-to-block-no-deal-brexit-michael-gove-suggests_uk_5d6b8685e4b09bbc9ef05e63?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly91ay5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD5p9wKGX9JcVly41bSY69-X75l46o04CGGcuWA-hBCbMMgnkBSr3FcSKovRPyW8rjYVsH6WYOATiZfojB7PTR2MJN4uhSxLjgVFxVTO2x8gBI2dI3YoFxMyuL_drXMfQg4QKbOUm3gw0Gr6M_Ex3Yseo2LEHG6e0KO0QKDgvUxf**">laws they disagree with</a> – is also characteristic of pathocracy. </p>
<p>As a psychologist, I would certainly not attempt to assess Johnson, having never met him. But in my view he is certainly surrounding himself with the most ruthless and unprincipled – and so most pathocratic – elements of his party. The former prime minister David Cameron even referred to Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings as a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/david-cameron-dominic-cummings-career-psychopath">career psychopath</a>”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292981/original/file-20190918-187974-16wv9wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prorogation protests in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-england-united-kingdom-august-31-1492714883?src=bUG8MmfZI7uQHvXlc-_94Q-2-55">Shutterstock/4-life-2-b</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, it is important to point out that not everyone who becomes part of a pathocratic government has a psychological disorder. Some people may simply be callous and non-empathic without a fully fledged psychological disorder. </p>
<p>Others may simply possess the kind of narcissism (based on a sense of superiority and entitlement) which arises from a certain style of upbringing. Some politicians may simply follow the party line through loyalty or in the belief that they will be able to rein in the pathocratic impulses of the people around them. </p>
<p>So far, thanks to the actions of parliament and the bravery of a small number of principled Conservative MPs, the potential pathocracy of Johnson’s government has been kept at bay. </p>
<p>But the danger of democracy transitioning into pathocracy is always real. It is always closer to us than we think, and once it has a foothold, will crush every obstacle in its way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123118/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The risk of “pathocracy” is always close. And once entrenched, difficult to dislodge.Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1186402019-06-16T19:29:12Z2019-06-16T19:29:12ZMajor corporate failures have more in common than you’d think, and can be avoided<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278951/original/file-20190611-32347-v8n2ym.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C90%2C1506%2C1037&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enron: Once powerful, now gone.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hanneorla/72929925">Hanneorla/Flickr</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Well-known firms such as AIG, American Airlines, Arthur Andersen, Blockbuster, Chrysler, Citigroup, Delta Airlines, Dunlop, Enron, General Motors, Kodak, Marks & Spencer, Nokia, Parmalat, Polaroid and Woolworth have one thing in common: They’re cases of major corporate failures. Any resemblance seems to stop there, as they worked in widely different industries and the reasons behind their declines and collapses seem quite different.</p>
<p>However, in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12341">April 2018 research</a> published in the <em>Journal of Management Studies</em>, my colleagues and I asked whether there are any recurring patterns explaining how and why large corporations fail, a fundamental question that has puzzled organisations and management scholars. This article was co-written by Stefanie Habersang (Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany), Jill Küberling-Jost (Technical University of Hamburg, Germany), and Markus Reihlen (Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany).</p>
<p>To explore such patterns, we used a qualitative meta-analysis research design. This allowed us to synthesize the wealth of previously published single-case studies on corporate failures.</p>
<h2>Four common processes leading to corporate failure</h2>
<p>A first salient finding of our analysis was that all the failure cases seemed to converge around four distinct process archetypes. We named these processes imperialist, laggard, villain and politicized.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Imperialist</strong>: This process archetype describes the failure of a firm due to overexpansion. For example in the cases of Parmalat, WorldCom, and News of the World, a dominant firm leader (often either autocratic or charismatic) fostered an aggressive expansion strategy. These firms failed due to an unfocused overexpansion of the firm which gave rise to conflicts with internal and external stakeholders.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Laggard</strong>: In the cases of Kodak, Nokia and Polaroid, once industry leaders, they failed because they did not adapt to changing market environments. These firms were stuck in their identity of being leaders, even as their dominance slipped away. While the management of these firms saw the need for change, they were not able to change a previously well-established business model that had made them so successful before – a similar process is described by Joshua Gans in discussing how the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-apple-and-its-iphone-confound-disruption-theorists-38205">iPhone disrupted the mobile-phone industry</a>.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Villain</strong>: Here the case involves the process of a previously good corporate citizen into a villain. In the cases of AIG, Enron and Fannie Mae, previously well-regarded firms with ambitious goals increasingly engaged in questionable business practices (<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-powerful-people-fail-to-stop-bad-behavior-by-their-underlings-73828">see also Kennedy and Anderson discussing how unethical practices can become routine</a>). After repeated discovery of such questionable business practices, these firms failed because they lost the trust of their customers and more generally their legitimacy in society. They lose their social “license to operate.”</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Politicized</strong>: This model describes how firms fail due to increasingly severe conflicts with internal and external stakeholders. In cases such as Arcandor, Chrysler and Delta Airlines, the firms failed because they engaged in “trench warfare,” which strained resources and did not allow them to adapt to changing customer demands.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Two underlying mechanisms explaining the four processes</h2>
<p>When examining the four typical process types in more detail, we were intrigued that each one could be explained by two underlying and self-reinforcing mechanisms: rigidity and conflict.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>“Rigidity mechanisms”</strong> are processes of converging interactions. In the case of Marks & Spencer, top managers overestimated the firm’s stature, which lead to middle managers developing an illusion of invulnerability, which was fed back to top management. The process took hold and led to the company becoming locked in to an erroneous self-perception.</p></li>
<li><p>In contrast, <strong>“conflict mechanisms”</strong> are contradicting interactions and are also self-reinforcing. In the case of Nokia, changing consumer preferences for mobile innovations collided with the organisation’s strategy to diversify into businesses unrelated to mobile phones and caused it to lose sight of its core business.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In total, we identified five types of rigidity mechanisms (e.g., identity rigidity, obedience rigidity, etc.), as well as five types of conflict mechanisms (e.g., identity conflict, authority conflict, etc.)</p>
<p>While the rigidity and conflict mechanisms are fundamentally different – one is based on convergence, the other on divergence – both are capable of bringing about or preventing firm-level change contributing to the failure. Furthermore, we find that it is the distinctive pattern of rigidity and conflict mechanisms over time that gives each process archetype its pronounced characteristics and explains why firms fail.</p>
<h2>Helping executives avoid corporate failure</h2>
<p>No manager wants to experience or be the cause of a corporate failure. But at the same time, it is notoriously difficult to detect early on the subtle signals of factors that could lead to a downward spiral. In this regard, the outlined process archetypes hold two important implications.</p>
<p>First, we provide evidence-based conceptual frameworks that can help managers recognise patterns that may threaten the survival of their firm. For example, the “laggard” archetype draws the attention to the role of organisational identity in corporate failure. When firms must engage in a radical technological shift – for example, the automotive industry needing to shift from thermal to electric motors (as explained by <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiAiIqX0a7iAhWp3eAKHenCCukQFjABegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fisiarticles.com%2Fbundles%2FArticle%2Fpre%2Fpdf%2F40660.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2hTBRdY2aZ6wKoF-1MN2OU">Stefan Tongur and Mats Engwall</a>), converging on a new identity becomes a crucial task in the turnaround process.</p>
<p>Second, the good news is that we find that each of the outlined processes can be overcome. While it is important to note that some rigidity and conflict is actually desirable within organisations because the former increases efficiency and the latter has creative potential, it is the extreme forms of these two mechanisms that contribute to organisational failure. The practical implication is that effective leaders will have to strike the right balance between rigidity and conflict within their organisations…</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118640/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christoph Seckler ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Once-leading firms such as Chrysler, Citigroup, Dunlop and Nokia have one thing in common: they failed. While each case seems unique, research points to key processes that lead to corporate failures.Christoph Seckler, Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurial Strategy, ESCP Business SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1007282018-07-30T19:58:55Z2018-07-30T19:58:55ZAustralians worry more about losing jobs overseas than to robots<p>Not a week goes by without a news story (or a few) about people losing their jobs to robots, or the potential effects of a rapidly changing labour market. We are told repeatedly about how many jobs are going to be lost. Both unskilled and skilled jobs are predicted to disappear.</p>
<p>These risks are no doubt real, if uncertain in their magnitude. But these prognoses are largely the work of academics and economic forecasters. How do Australians feel about their job prospects in an age of automation? Rather than robots, the <a href="http://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/surveys/anupoll">25th ANUPoll</a> finds our greatest concerns are the risks posed by poor management and jobs going overseas.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-dont-need-to-prepare-young-people-for-the-future-of-work-98385">Why we don't need to prepare young people for the 'future of work'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The <a href="http://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/">ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods</a> with the <a href="https://www.srcentre.com.au/services/life-in-australia-panel">Social Research Centre</a> recently asked a representative sample of more than 2,500 Australians about their anxieties related to the future of work. The <a href="http://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/research/surveys/anupoll">ANUPoll</a> finds that Australians are reasonably sanguine about their current jobs. However, we are concerned about finding employment in the future if we lose our job.</p>
<p>Pointedly, Australians are more concerned about the threats posed by poor business management and international workers willing to work for lower wages than about the prospect of our jobs disappearing through automation. To put this another way, we are more worried about the globalisation of employment and trade than about competition from robots.</p>
<h2>What did we ask and what did we find?</h2>
<p>A core question in this ANUpoll is: “Thinking about the next 12 months, how likely do you think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off/have to lay off employees or close the business?” </p>
<p>The overwhelming majority surveyed believe it is “not at all likely” (44.9%) or “not too likely” (42.8%). </p>
<p>Australian workers are quite comfortable with their current job security. But the level of comfort varies by sector of employment. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229681/original/file-20180728-106524-57rt3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Workers in the arts and recreation sector feel the most secure: 62.5% believe it’s “not at all likely” they will be laid off or need to lay off employees. At the other end of the spectrum, only 25.8% of workers in the electricity, gas, water and waste industries think it’s not at all likely.</p>
<p>We also asked workers: “If you were laid off how easy would it be for you to find a job with another employer with approximately the same income you now have?” </p>
<p>More than half – 54.6% – say finding an equivalent new job would be “not easy at all”. Only 10% believe it would be “very easy”.</p>
<p>Responses to this ANUPoll suggest Australian workers feel largely comfortable about their current employment but are less optimistic about their prospects should they become unemployed.</p>
<h2>Sources of job insecurity</h2>
<p>Workers may feel insecure about their employment for many reasons. We asked Australian workers about their level of concern about six different potential threats to their job.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229682/original/file-20180728-106524-16s9nxv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The most common concern is that poor management of the company that employs them will lead to losing their job, with 14.7% “very concerned” by this threat and 27.6% “somewhat concerned”. This is followed by: their overall industry is shrinking; their employer might find someone else in Australia who is willing to do the job for less money; and their employer might finding someone overseas who is willing to do their job for less money.</p>
<p>People are least concerned that employers may use machines or computers to replace human workers. Only 8% are “very concerned” and 9.8% “somewhat concerned”. </p>
<p>This is followed by an inability to keep up with the technical skills needed to do their job, with 6% “very concerned” and 15.2% “somewhat concerned” about this. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-technology-take-your-job-new-analysis-says-more-of-us-are-safer-than-we-thought-but-not-all-86219">Will technology take your job? New analysis says more of us are safer than we thought, but not all</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why should we be concerned about the future of work?</h2>
<p>The labour market is no doubt changing. New occupations are being created as others become more precarious. </p>
<p>Occupations that rely on creativity or human-to-human interaction are both being developed and expanding their share of the labour market. Those based on routine tasks, even complicated ones, are set to employ fewer and fewer workers.</p>
<p>Labour markets have always adjusted to new circumstances. However, we can reasonably argue that the current transformation of work will be more comprehensive and more rapid than before. This is at least partially due to a confluence of significant trends: increased computing speed, decreased computing costs, greater network speed and capacity, increased availability of data, the lessening of some barriers to international trade, and political and economic change in countries with large skilled and semi-skilled workforces.</p>
<p>These changes are having political ramifications. Voters’ anxiety about the labour market and their job prospects was significant in the election of Donald Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK and the increased success of populist parties and platforms in many countries.</p>
<h2>What to do about job security</h2>
<p>Attention is increasingly shifting from merely describing trends in job security and the future of work to understanding the attitudes and anxieties of the current and future workforce. These attitudes will help determine the effect of labour market change (perceived and actual) on the subjective well-being of the population. Attitudes to job security and the future of work also may affect people’s receptiveness to related policy proposals.</p>
<p>How to respond to the public’s views on job security depends on how accurate you think those perceptions are. There are many suggested policy responses. Examples include a universal basic income and re-regulation of the labour market. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-idea-of-a-universal-basic-income-work-in-australia-59811">Could the idea of a universal basic income work in Australia?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If you think the perceptions identified in the recent ANUPoll are a reasonable assessment of the risks to people’s jobs, then the focus should be at least as much on outsourcing and management practices as on skills mismatch and automation. If you think the public is underestimating these latter potential threats and under-investing in the retraining and skills development that would reduce their negative consequences, then greater public attention might be justified.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100728/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Gray receives funding from many Commonwealth, state and territory Australian government departments to undertake independent economic and social policy research. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jill Sheppard and Nicholas Biddle do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most Australian workers are fairly relaxed about their own job security, but they do worry about the risks of poor management and outsourcing to cheaper labour.Nicholas Biddle, Associate Professor, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National UniversityJill Sheppard, Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National UniversityMatthew Gray, Director, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/735032018-02-06T15:58:24Z2018-02-06T15:58:24ZDon’t know what a leader looks like? Nor do they – until they look in a mirror<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204853/original/file-20180205-19929-1byvwm3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Leaders often don't notice how much they base their idea of leadership on themselves.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/513835603">Dean Drobot/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Few people have many good words to say about our leaders at the moment, it seems, and faced with the absence of leadership we might think that we should heed those frequent calls to <a href="http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0857083910.html">develop our leadership potential</a>. Taking on leadership can sound daunting, as the people who generally come to mind when we think of leaders are heroes, very rare examples of humankind – think of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Boudicca, or Winston Churchill. To say these are tough acts to follow is an understatement. </p>
<p>Very few people want to think of themselves as followers (except on Twitter), so how do we as potential leaders persuade others to follow us? It could be that leaders should be charismatic, the sort of people behind which others should fall in to help them achieve an organisation’s vision. But how do we know if we’re charismatic? Perhaps if we knew what a leader looked like, we could model ourselves on them?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we don’t. Leadership is a very vague concept. It is notoriously difficult to define and very difficult to see in practice. But <a href="https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/8963">our research</a> suggests that in fact the role model we most often follow is much closer to home than we might imagine: graduates of leadership courses tend to unknowingly focus on becoming better versions of themselves. </p>
<h2>The hidden leader within</h2>
<p>We studied people who had been charged with the task of being leaders – everyday, normal, middle-managerial leaders. We started our interviews with some general questions about the person’s working life history, the sort of easy discussion that researchers do when using interviews to gather data. In the formal part of the interview we asked them to describe excellent, average and mediocre leaders they had worked with. We then asked them to choose photos of people they thought looked like excellent, average and mediocre leaders so that we could find out if appearance had any influence on the assessment of leadership qualities. </p>
<p>When we analysed the interview data we were flummoxed by the contradictions between what people said they felt about leadership, and their experiences of working with leaders. They each had clear ideas of what an ideal or a poor leader would look like, but when they drew on leaders from real life, the examples they chose were very different to their earlier descriptions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/161826/original/image-20170321-5401-otvhmu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://imgur.com/gallery/cA5QK5i">imgur</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, someone who thought excellent leaders were stylish had previously worked with an Armani-suited despot. Another who thought leaders should be calm and sober chose a purple-haired extrovert as an example of an excellent leader she had worked with. Someone who thought an ideal leader would be “a good communicator” regardless of looks went on to make judgements based on looks, describing two candidates as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Boring sort of men, who probably vote Conservative and probably think they’re gods. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Someone who thought ideal leaders would be secure in themselves, without needing to proclaim who they were and what they’d done, forgot this when he described what he considered was exemplary, actions that had involved:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Effective delegation where you put the onus on the individual … with a healthy dose of discipline thrown in.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s worth noting – and somewhat worrying – that most people have great difficulty in thinking of excellent leaders they have worked with. </p>
<p>Looking for hints in the data that would explain these contradictions, we pored over the transcripts and found the clue in the casual, opening parts of the interviews. When we looked at how people described themselves and compared it with how they described leaders, we found that their “ideal” or “excellent” leader was actually a mirror image of themselves, and their idea of an appalling leader was their exact opposite. </p>
<p>For the masculine female the ideal leader is masculine; for the feminine wearer of lipstick and nail varnish the ideal leader is feminine; for the androgyne who wore no signifiers of their gender the excellent leader is androgyne; for the enthusiast the ideal leader is enthusiastic; for the person who needs discipline and command the ideal leader is a disciplined commander.</p>
<p>In other words, in the absence of any clear idea of what a leader should look like and what personality they should express, people unknowingly draw on their own self-image as the ideal leader on which they model themselves. So what our research suggests is that the answer to the question of how to become an excellent leader is: be yourself, albeit a well-scrubbed, well-dressed version.</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275743/original/file-20190521-23817-1fnbziu.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header></header>
<p><a href="http://aom.org/">Nancy Harding is a member of the Academy of Management</a></p>
<footer>The academy is a funding partner of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73503/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy Harding is an Academy of Management scholar.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jackie Ford and Sarah Gilmore do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We may often criticise our lack of leaders. But leadership is not easy to define – even by leaders themselves.Nancy Harding, Professor of Organisation Theory, University of BathJackie Ford, Professor of Leadership and Organisation Studies, Durham UniversitySarah Gilmore, Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies, Director of Research Impact, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/891792017-12-26T19:55:30Z2017-12-26T19:55:30ZThe key to a vibrant democracy may well lie in your workplace<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199345/original/file-20171215-26031-l9fpul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Giving workers a 'voice' is easy, and has already been proven effective as a management technique.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When you go to work, does your employer <a href="http://fortune.com/2011/05/06/5-ways-to-manage-your-autocratic-boss/">tell you what to do</a> and expect you to do it? Or do they instead <a href="https://theconversation.com/theyre-the-voice-how-workers-can-be-heard-when-unions-are-on-the-wane-57209">ask you what you think</a> the company should be doing to improve its operations and become more efficient? </p>
<p>It turns out that bosses who take the time to listen to their employees and involve them in organisational decisions may be inadvertently strengthening their country’s democracy.</p>
<p>In a new <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0019793917746619">paper</a>, my colleagues and I show that the key to a vibrant democracy may be as simple as giving employees a “voice” in the workplace. </p>
<p>When workers feel empowered over the decisions that affect them at work, they are more likely to engage in politics outside of work. So, employees can potentially learn about the merits of democracy in the workplace and carry those skills and positive attitudes with them into civil society.</p>
<p>Using a sample of more than 14,000 workers across 27 countries, we found that employees whose bosses give them some discretion over their work tasks are significantly more likely to vote in elections, belong to a political party, sign petitions, boycott products, and contact politicians, among other political behaviours.</p>
<p>In contrast, employees who have no control over their work are much more likely to be politically apathetic outside the workplace.</p>
<h2>Silenced employees can damage the community</h2>
<p>Now more than ever before, democratic societies need to take action to safeguard our political freedoms.</p>
<p>Our research shows that a simple and effective way to instil a love of democracy is to practice what we preach in the workplace. This means a dramatic change in the way the workforce is managed.</p>
<p>Our research’s findings suggest that treating workers like soldiers whose only job is to execute management’s orders without questioning them can have dangerous consequences on the societies and communities in which we live. </p>
<p>Authoritarian managers often stifle debate, silence critics, and devalue the views and opinions of their subordinates. Employees who dare to speak up are silenced quickly and learn not to speak up at all, but rather just to do what they’re told.</p>
<p>Outside work, they feel demoralised and are much less likely to become involved in local, regional or national politics. Such employees, while perhaps easier to manage than engaged ones, do not make good citizens.</p>
<h2>Related benefits of giving workers a ‘voice’</h2>
<p>Giving workers a “voice” is easy and has already been proven effective as a management technique. This might involve, for example, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0969160X.2015.1022196">sharing strategic information with employees</a> and asking for their input or ideas. Or it may mean consulting with employees (or their representatives) about the company’s strategic direction and giving them an opportunity to make suggestions or recommendations. </p>
<p>This may be as simple as allowing them to decide where to hold the staff Christmas party, or perhaps something more complicated like organising production around self-managed teams. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/does-employee-ownership-make-companies-more-successful-20170217-gufro2.html">Employee ownership</a> is another innovative organisational form that encourages worker participation in management decision-making.</p>
<p>Initiatives like these empower workers and make them feel listened to at work. Our research shows they will take this appreciation for the political process and bring it into their communities, resulting in a renewed enthusiasm for electoral politics.</p>
<p>Employee voice can have benefits not only at home, but also abroad. Previous attempts to spread democracy through war have been <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314">expensive</a> and of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/iraq-war-still-casts-a-long-shadow-over-a-dangerous-and-deeply-unstable-region">questionable success</a>. </p>
<p>Perhaps a more efficient way to spread democracy is not from the top-down, but rather through the bottom-up. By promoting participative management practices abroad, we could be sowing the seeds for non-violent change toward freer and more democratic societies.</p>
<p>So, if you’re an employee, share this article with your co-workers and your boss. Your country’s political future might depend on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89179/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Timming has received funding from FINRA, the British Academy and the Scottish Universities Insight Institute.</span></em></p>Employees whose bosses give them some discretion over their work tasks are significantly more likely to engage in political behaviours outside work.Andrew Timming, Associate Professor of Human Resource Management, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/826782017-08-22T01:59:29Z2017-08-22T01:59:29ZCan corporate America afford to walk away from President Trump?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182858/original/file-20170821-4964-mcbfge.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Merck CEO Ken Frazier, seated next to Trump, was first to resign from his manufacturing council.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After campaigning as the candidate <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/does-donald-trumps-business-background-matter">best able to work with business</a>, President Donald Trump has shown he is anything but. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/jj-and-united-tech-ceos-resign-as-trump-dissolves-2-major-business-councils.html">stream of resignations</a> from high-level business counsels hit a crescendo recently when Trump <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-dissolves-business-advisory-councils-after-ceos-depart-n793216">was forced to disband</a> two executive councils. The widespread and public defections were in protest over his unwillingness to unequivocally condemn racism and intolerance over the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html?_r=0">violence in Charlottesville, Virginia</a>. </p>
<p>As an expert in organizational communication and leadership, I saw the dismissal of the councils as a dramatic and important moment in the relationship between top business leaders and the president. But does it spell the demise of the often difficult partnership between President Trump and corporate America? </p>
<h2>A permanent breach?</h2>
<p>CEOs like Merck’s Ken Frazier <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/08/14/what-you-should-know-about-ken-frazier-the-ceo-who-just-resigned-from-trumps-council">rightly voted their conscience</a> when they began to abandon Trump’s American Manufacturing Council and the Strategic and Policy Forum. Frazier, the <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/14/business/merck-executive-resigns-presidents-council-and-trump-lashes-out">first to resign</a>, said he felt “a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.”</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal, however, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-business-advisory-council-to-disband-1502904005">was quick to point out</a> that many companies have stopped short of saying they would refuse to work with the White House in the future. </p>
<p>Indeed, despite the heated rhetoric, one thing is clear: Corporate America wants and needs to work with the administration, while the president benefits from a healthy relationship with America’s CEOs.</p>
<p>So if they both need each other, the question becomes how this increasingly tenuous relationship will play out.</p>
<h2>Managing a tense relationship</h2>
<p>CEOs from companies as diverse as <a href="http://www.timesunion.com/7day-business/article/GE-s-Immelt-others-won-t-have-to-worry-about-11823697.php">General Electric</a> and <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543384974/merck-ceo-resigns-from-a-trump-business-council-citing-his-conscience">Under Armour</a> resigned their positions on the councils and condemned the president. Despite this, their companies will continue to need to press their vast legislative and regulatory agendas with the White House. </p>
<p>Pretty much every U.S. company has a vested interest in economic and global affairs and the policy choices of the U.S. government. In recent days, some CEOs have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-business-advisory-council-to-disband-1502904005">told reporters</a> that they regret – now that the councils have disbanded – not having a direct role to play and a collective voice in policy matters. </p>
<p>Others, such as Apple’s Tim Cook, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/apples-tim-cook-disagrees-with-donald-trumps-take-on-neo-nazi-violence-in-charlottesville.html">show how it’s possible</a> to publicly disagree with the president over some issues, such as equality, immigration and climate change, yet continue to influence the course of areas like tax reform and LGBTQ rights in private.</p>
<p>This may well be the new way of doing business with Washington.</p>
<p>In general, it is generally not in the best interests of the country to have a schism between the president and corporate America. <a href="https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21711500-tradition-politicians-intervening-business-corporatisms-long-history-america">History shows</a> that there have often been tensions between government and business, yet both sides have generally been able to work collaboratively during critical times. </p>
<p>During Barack Obama’s first term, for example, <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/12/15/obama-ceo-white-house/">there was tension</a> between the White House and corporate America over issues such as regulation and his response to the financial crisis. Later in Obama’s presidency, however, business leaders worked closely with him to goad Congress into dealing with fiscal issues like the debt ceiling more responsibly to avoid hurting American’s credit rating or the stock market. </p>
<h2>Learning the value of corporate values</h2>
<p>What Trump – and perhaps his party as well – needs to learn is that values such as diversity and inclusion are very important to companies and their customers. </p>
<p>CNBC’s John Harwood <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/3-ways-trumps-gop-could-be-bad-for-us-business.html">recently identified</a> three issues that hinder the Republican Party’s relationship with U.S businesses: economic policy, GOP competence and values. On the last point, Harwood argues the “GOP’s embrace of cultural conservatism conflicts with corporate America’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-did-che-guevara-become-ceo-the-roots-of-the-new-corporate-activism-64203">embrace of diversity</a> and tolerance.”</p>
<p>American companies <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/12/05/diversity-inclusion-workplaces/">have found that promoting these values</a>, both internally and externally, increases revenue, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/">motivates employees</a> and fosters innovation. </p>
<p>That’s not something companies want to walk away from, nor should they. It is incumbent on this president, who has touted his ability to understand business, to not only face this fact but also to take it to heart. </p>
<p>Americans expect their president to be the moral leader of the United States, and as such, he must stand firmly for American values. When he fails to do so, CEOs have a responsibility to stand up for those values and to call out the president’s failures, as they just did.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182861/original/file-20170821-26863-12wr16n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A notes and flowers form a memorial in Charlottesville, Virigina, where Heather Heyer was killed during a white nationalist rally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Cliff Owen</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is there hope after Charlottesville?</h2>
<p>So how will this historic and dramatic breach between a Republican president and the business community be closed?</p>
<p>In a word: carefully. </p>
<p>Businesses will have little choice but to continue to interact with the White House on some level but in a way that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/08/15/in-trumps-white-house-a-plum-appointment-for-ceos-has-become-a-reputation-risk?utm_term=.c20652ed0621">acknowledges how devastating and dangerous</a> dancing with this administration can be. It won’t be business as usual. In the short term, look for most of the engagement to happen on the staff level and through intermediaries such as lobbyists and lawyers. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the president would be wise to remember that good leaders are often good listeners. Kevin Sharer, the former CEO of Amgen, for example, identified listening as <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/leadership/why-im-a-listener-amgen-ceo-kevin-sharer">the most critical skill</a> for effective leadership, a sentiment I hear echoed continually from business leaders in my ongoing work on identifying the most critical skills for successful leadership.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/03/can-donald-trump-grow-up-in-office/?utm_term=.7273f4df7231">Pundits suggest</a> that Donald Trump will always be Donald Trump, without change. Yet doing so has consequences, as the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-members-of-a-white-house-panel-on-arts-1503065476-htmlstory.html">recent defections</a> of CEOs and members of the Council of Arts and Humanities, established in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan, clearly show. </p>
<p>As these decisions show, principled business (and other) leaders will not turn their back on the values they have embedded into their organizations. They will continue to speak out when those values are challenged. </p>
<p>President Trump must now recognize and embrace the values of diversity, equality and inclusion and work collaboratively with leaders from business and government.</p>
<p>This is imperative if he hopes to be effective. CEOs, lawmakers and the American public – including myself – will be watching with keen interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neal Hartman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump’s reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, prompted business leaders to sever ties with two White House councils.Neal Hartman, Senior Lecturer in Managerial Communication, MIT Sloan School of ManagementLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782652017-05-29T13:59:17Z2017-05-29T13:59:17ZToxic leaders affect companies, and governments. How to deal with them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170939/original/file-20170525-23267-16v1yuh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/ICT-12-2013-0086">Toxic leadership</a> is characterised by a number of familiar traits: unwillingness to take feedback, lying or inconsistency, cliquishness, autocracy, manipulation, intimidation, bullying, and narcissism. The toxic leader can - if allowed to run rampant for long enough – destroy organisational structures over time and bring down an entire organisation. This applies to countries too.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons for this. The most obvious is that a toxic leader can <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Leaders-When-Organizations-Bad/dp/0899309984">influence organisational culture</a> through aversive action. This can include flouting organisational processes, rewarding loyalty over competence, normalising socially unacceptable behaviours like infighting, and by breaking down trust and eroding clear lines of authority.</p>
<p>A toxic leader’s other, more insidious, influence is through what they do to the relationships between people around them. </p>
<p>Psychologists, Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, <a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780061147890/snakes-in-suits">describe</a> how two factions typically develop in an organisation once the deviant leader’s ascent has begun. One faction consists of supporters, pawns and patrons. The other is made out of people who remain true to their principles, realising they have been used and abused, or that the organisation whose ultimate goals they still support is in danger.</p>
<p>If it sounds familiar it’s because South Africans are spectators to exactly this kind of factionalism. In recent months pro and anti President Jacob Zuma factions have been involved in increasingly energetic <a href="https://theconversation.com/zuma-lives-to-fight-another-day-but-fallout-from-latest-revolt-will-live-on-69587">mudslinging matches</a>. </p>
<p>For many, Zuma represents the quintessential toxic leader. Whether one is for or against the president, it remains that he’s at very least a controversial figure, and criticism of him has been known to lead to <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2017/05/24/anc-stalwarts-receive-threats-over-zuma-criticism">reprisals</a>. </p>
<p>The good news is that toxic leadership can be overcome. When it’s understood and challenged, it can be dismantled or reformed.</p>
<h2>The toxic environment</h2>
<p>Where there is toxic leadership, the ethics of the working environment are <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Leaders-When-Organizations-Bad/dp/0899309984">compromised</a>. Typical behaviours are abuse of privileges, theft, violence and verbal abuse. Any number of these can be recognised from news reports around South African politics.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-real-risks-behind-south-africas-social-grant-payment-crisis-73224">Scandals over the awarding of government tenders</a>, the mismanagement of taxpayer funds and the maintenance of <a href="https://www.ujuh.co.za/state-of-capture-public-protectors-report/">corrupt relationships</a> are now an all too familiar reality in South Africa. </p>
<p>But a toxic leader does not absolve employees who choose to engage in deviant conduct. Ministers and private sector supporters who choose personal gain or corrupt relationships remain responsible for their own choices. Of course, it’s much easier to make the wrong decision if it’s the dominant way of doing things in a particular environment. </p>
<p>Such behaviour may be <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.599.654&rep=rep1&type=pdf">rooted</a> in financial gain, or lie within the culture of an organisation. The motivation to achieve results may spark greater numbers of people to either actively harm, or passively ignore, the welfare of others to achieve their desired end. </p>
<p>This is why the removal of a psychopathic leader doesn’t guarantee the eradication of toxicity as it’s likely to be entrenched at lower levels of organisational leadership by the leader’s sycophants.</p>
<h2>Fighting from the bottom up</h2>
<p>The responsibility to move against toxic leadership doesn’t lie with an individual, but <a href="https://works.bepress.com/marcotavanti/32/">concerns</a> the organisation as a whole. </p>
<p>In the public sphere, this responsibility extends to society as a whole. </p>
<p>Crucial to overcoming the toxic leader’s negative impact is for other members of the organisation to remain firm and loyal to their principles, and to take a united stand. </p>
<p>If people are able to stand together against toxic leadership, the leader may leave of their own accord. Once this happens individuals in the rest of the organisation need to cleanse the organisation by distancing themselves from the leader’s negative actions.</p>
<p>Another way of tackling toxic leadership is to find out who they answer to, if it’s not immediately apparent, and appeal to this authority. Bullies are not always swayed by open dialogue or whistleblowing, but may answer to a higher law if this is done formally and armed with the facts. In the case of an errant public servant, this may be achieved through, for example, the judiciary and institutions like the Public Protector.</p>
<p>If all these fail, there are ways to manage the situation with the toxic leader in position. It’s necessary to understand the leader’s history to analyse how they got to this point. Share this with key decision makers. This is vital because a core aspect of the solution is to establish a coalition of like-minded individuals who understand the leader’s negative impact. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://works.bepress.com/marcotavanti/32/">coalition</a> should not take a punitive, antagonistic approach, but rather a supportive one, using appropriate benchmarks and timelines that reflect the goals of all key stakeholders.</p>
<p>Much of what’s observed in the corporate world applies to leadership in the public sector. With proper interventions, a valuable level of accountability can be brought into the workplace and to service delivery. </p>
<p>The accountability of leaders can be increased through forums like townhall meetings to force them to think deeply about their behaviour and decisions. Where politics is concerned, visible performance management like this can do wonders for the well-being of citizens.</p>
<p>It’s also critical to establish mechanisms to protect people speaking up against leaders – the whistleblowers – as their actions should be free of fear, such as loss of income. </p>
<p>With protection mechanisms in place, employees and citizens alike should be able to freely raise issues and protect both themselves and their ideals, whether their concerns relate to a private company or a government department.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78265/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Linda Ronnie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Organisational psychopathy, generally known as toxic leadership, is common in the private sector. It’s emerging more often in the public space too.Linda Ronnie, Senior Lecturer in Organisational Behaviour and People Management, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/738282017-03-14T00:20:18Z2017-03-14T00:20:18ZWhy powerful people fail to stop bad behavior by their underlings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160609/original/image-20170313-9620-9nczny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who you gonna listen to?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ethical dilemma via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you were recently promoted at work. You now command a higher salary, lead more people and control more of the organization’s resources. As such, you have more influence over strategy, more authority to hire and fire and more responsibility for your team’s outcomes. </p>
<p>As you undertake your new role, however, you are also faced with evidence of an unethical business practice that plagues your organization. This practice is harmful, potentially embarrassing at best and possibly illegal at worst. In your new, more powerful position, would you be more or less likely to stop it than in your previous role?</p>
<p>This situation is hardly unheard of and might even be common. Leaders often set goals but delegate responsibility for how they are achieved, providing leeway for unethical practices to creep in. Leaders also inherit business practices from their predecessors and gain visibility only as they achieve higher rank in the hierarchy. Unethical practices <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308503250012">can become routine and taken for granted</a> when embedded in the organization’s structures and processes. </p>
<p>Consider the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-wells-fargos-high-pressure-sales-culture-spiraled-out-of-control-1474053044">salespeople at Wells Fargo</a> who were reaching their goals by opening fake accounts, the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-probe-in-germany-extended-to-chairman-1478429066">engineers at Volkswagen</a> who installed software to cheat on emissions tests or the <a href="https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/sac-capital-agrees-to-plead-guilty-to-insider-trading/">traders at the hedge fund SAC</a> who were using inside information to make investment decisions. In each of these situations, unethical practices emerged on the front line, and higher-ups failed to stop those practices.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">recent research</a>, we asked: Why do powerful people so often fail to stop unethical practices such as these, even after learning of them? </p>
<h2>People in power</h2>
<p>After all, plenty of <a href="http://amj.aom.org/content/56/4/1002.short%22%22">psychological theories</a> say that individuals in a position of power <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1988-12437-001">are situated</a> to respond well to such practices. </p>
<p>After a promotion, people are particularly motivated to ensure the long-term success of the business, and unethical practices might put that success at risk. People in power also command the necessary authority and influence to intervene. They are often seen as more personally responsible when ethical lapses are exposed by whistle-blowers or the press. So you might expect a promotion to increase the likelihood that you would stop such practices in your group or organization.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">our research recently published</a> in <a href="https://www.journals.elsevier.com/organizational-behavior-and-human-decision-processes/">Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</a> suggests the reverse is true: Holding higher rank makes it less likely someone will object to an unethical act. We call this behavior “principled dissent.”</p>
<h2>Taking a stand</h2>
<p>Principled dissent is an effort to protest or change a morally objectionable practice. It challenges the status quo. </p>
<p>For instance, when <a href="https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber">Susan Fowler at Uber</a> protested the refusal to provide jackets to women engineers, she was expressing principled dissent.</p>
<p>This is often the first step toward correcting ethical failures in organizations. It is typically less costly for the organization than alternative forms of correction, such as political pressure from external parties or free market discipline. </p>
<p>For example, as reluctant as some Uber executives might have been to respond respectfully to Fowler’s claims, they probably are finding the public outcry generated by her blog post and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/uber-sexual-harassment-investigation.html">related New York Times article</a> more painful. Worse yet could be free market discipline, whereby unethical practices lead to the company’s demise over the long term.</p>
<p>Sometimes principled dissent is enough to stop an unethical practice completely – such as when the person expressing it holds higher rank. In light of this fact, the relation between hierarchical rank and principled dissent is important to understand.</p>
<h2>How rank affects principled dissent</h2>
<p>To learn more, we conducted a study in which we randomly assigned participants to hold a high- or low-ranking position in a group, or assigned them to a control condition where they had no information about their rank in a group. We then gave participants an ethical dilemma to discuss, asking them to decide whether to lie to another group in a way that would benefit their own team financially but harm the other one.</p>
<p>A key element of our study was that before participants were asked what to do they learned that four of the other five members in their group were apparently willing to lie for monetary gain. We wanted to know whether participants would then openly disagree with this supposed consensus (which we concocted). That is, would they recommend telling the truth even if it goes against what their peers preferred?</p>
<p>We found that almost 40 percent of participants in the low-rank and control conditions disagreed with the group’s dishonest decision. In other words, a sizable number of those people went against the grain and engaged in principled dissent. </p>
<p>However, a paltry 14 percent of participants in the high-rank condition did the same. Very few people who were given high rank were willing to disagree with their group’s unethical choice.</p>
<p>We wondered: Did holding high rank corrupt people somehow? That is, did high-ranking participants simply prefer lying to honesty? </p>
<p>The answer was no. Holding high rank led people to accept the group’s preference more readily, regardless of whether that preference was ethical or not. We included another condition in that study in which participants were told that the rest of their group wanted to be honest, even if it incurred some monetary cost to their group. In these conditions, high-ranking participants were still less likely to go against the grain than participants in low-ranking or control conditions.</p>
<p>We also explored the impact of organizational rank on principled dissent in a study of over 11,000 randomly selected government employees. In that study, holding higher rank was again associated with less principled dissent – specifically reporting illegal or wasteful practices – even after we statistically accounted for a variety of factors such as tenure in the organization, education, knowledge of rules about retaliation for reporting unethical practices and other demographic variables. </p>
<p>This study thus suggested that the patterns we observed in the laboratory extend to the real world, when unethical practices are real and have more severe consequences.</p>
<h2>Group identification</h2>
<p>Although the failure to stop an unethical practice is often attributed to character problems such as greed, sexism or the relentless pursuit of self-interest, our explanation is subtler.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1URkI2gS5NWMA5">our studies</a>, ethical failures like these can also stem from a psychological factor endemic to very successful teams: identification with the group or organization. Identification is a feeling of oneness with the group. When you identify highly with a group or organization, you define yourself in terms of your membership in it. When asked, “Who are you?” your answer will reflect a category (e.g., you might refer to yourself as a man, a Texan, a Yankees fan, an environmentalist, a Christian). You focus on the traits that you and other group members share, rather than on personal traits that distinguish you.</p>
<p>We found that holding higher rank increases identification. People in high-ranking positions feel more connected to their group or organization and value their membership in it to a greater degree than do lower-ranking people. This trend has benefits for the group, as strong identifiers cooperate more readily and contribute more to the group’s goals. </p>
<p>But stronger identification has an ethical cost: It makes it more difficult to perceive ethical problems within the group. </p>
<p>For example, people who identify strongly with a group are more likely to consider unethical acts committed by its members to be more ethical than someone with a weaker connection to it. So one reason high-ranking people might fail to stop unethical practices is that their stronger identification blinds them: They don’t see the act as unethical in the first place. They fail to step in and intervene because they do not see any need to do so.</p>
<p>In another study, we made it easy or difficult for participants to identify highly with their other group members. We randomly assigned them to positions of high or low rank, and then tasked their group with making a decision based on a popular business ethics case study. Participants were led to believe that their group wanted to price-gouge hospitals in the aftermath of a hurricane. High-ranking participants engaged in principled dissent less frequently than low-ranking participants only when they identified strongly with the group.</p>
<h2>Silver lining</h2>
<p>There is some good news. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40575061?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Earlier research</a> found that people who strongly identify with their group are more likely to engage in principled dissent than weak identifiers – as long as they recognize a problem as unethical. That is, while these strong identifiers may have trouble recognizing that certain activities are unethical, when they do realize it, they’re more likely to intervene and try to put a stop to the bad behavior. </p>
<p>This shows just how important it is to instill a strong moral compass in future business leaders, and for companies to find ways for them to maintain it as they climb the corporate ladder. </p>
<p>The other option is to make it easier for managers to leverage the ethical perspectives of lower-ranking employees who, according to our research, have a clearer eye for spotting wrongdoing. In other words, a more democratic approach to management could offer an ethical advantage that could be more profitable in the long run.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Higher-ups at Wells Fargo, Volkswagen and Uber all failed to stop unethical practices that had significant repercussions. New research offers some clues on why.Jessica A. Kennedy, Assistant Professor of Management, Vanderbilt UniversityCameron Anderson, Professor of Leadership and Communication, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/607142016-06-08T14:51:52Z2016-06-08T14:51:52ZHow work can be made meaningful<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125737/original/image-20160608-3492-1nrdl54.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Finding meaning in what you do is key.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gustavo Fraza/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While most people spend a good proportion of their life at work, few will ever stop to consider whether their work is meaningful. “Meaningfulness” is not something that tends to feature in our daily thoughts, preoccupied as we often are by more mundane matters like rent, bills and lunch.</p>
<p>But when conversation with friends turns to complaints about work, we might fantasise giving it all up and living somewhere warm and sunny with no boss demanding round-the-clock attention. In fact, research often finds that when respondents are asked what they’d do if they to win the lottery, <a href="http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/32_inwardness_final.pdf">most would choose to carry on working</a>. Despite our tendency to grumble about it, clearly something about work meets some of our basic human needs as laid down by Maslow’s famous <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html">hierarchy of needs</a>, notably for belonging and achievement and, beyond this, for purpose and meaning.</p>
<p>We have known for many years that humans are <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/mans-search-meaning">driven by an innate desire</a> to find or foster meaning in what we do, even under the most extreme of conditions. Given how central work is to most people’s lives, it is a key place to seek meaningfulness. In my <a href="http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-makes-work-meaningful-or-meaningless/?utm_medium=pr&utm_source=release&utm_campaign=featjune16">recent research</a> with Adrian Madden we interviewed 135 people in a wide range of jobs to discover what they considered meaningful work, how work can be made meaningful, and how this sense of meaningfulness can be erased or destroyed.</p>
<h2>The meaning in meaningfulness</h2>
<p>What marks meaningfulness out as distinctive from other attitudes such as feeling satisfied or engaged? These and other positive attitudes are linked, but meaningfulness is distinctive in several ways.</p>
<p>First, it is almost invariably associated with other people – work tends to be found meaningful if people can see it has a positive impact on others. These need not necessarily be people the worker comes into contact with, such as clients or customers. Some of our respondents were bin men, and they spoke of the benefits their recycling work would bring to future generations in the form of a cleaner, greener planet.</p>
<p>Second, meaningfulness may not necessarily be a positive experience - meaningful moments can be tinged with sadness, such as the priests who told us that they found their work most meaningful when they were able to help and support people who were ill or bereaved.</p>
<p>Third, meaningfulness is associated with specific episodes or moments in time – it is not a continuous state but rather arises in peaks and troughs. People tend to become aware that their work has a profound significance for them at unexpected moments. One example from our study was an actor tasked to get inmates at a high-security prison involved in the arts. Although terrified at the thought of performing in front of prisoners she knew had committed violent crimes, she managed to connect with them and draw them into the performance. She described this experience as emotional, challenging and highly meaningful.</p>
<p>Fourth, people do not generally tend to go home and announce, “Hey, I found my work really meaningful today!”. The meaningfulness of work doesn’t always make itself known at the time at a conscious level. We need time to pause and think through what happened.</p>
<p>And finally, a key difference of meaningfulness is that it is not just related to work. Job satisfaction is described in terms of the job. But the meaningfulness of work is described through reflection on the link between individuals’ jobs and their personal lives. One entrepreneur told us that she had set up her bakery business to make her grandfather proud.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fD1512_XJEw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Making and losing meaning</h2>
<p>It’s easy to assume that only certain types of jobs, such as doctors or nurses, might offer meaning to those that do them, but we actually found the overwhelming majority of respondents found meaning in what they did – whether they worked as retail assistants, bin men, priests, stonemasons, solicitors, or entrepreneurs. But no one found their work meaningful all the time, and it seems unrealistic to suggest that would be achievable, or desirable.</p>
<p>But while people are adept at finding meaningfulness in what they do, managers are as skilled in destroying this meaning through their actions. By failing to involve employees in important decisions, not thanking or acknowledging them, using isolating or bullying tactics, and failing to protect employees from physical or mental harm, the worker’s sense of meaningful work is eroded, leaving only the feeling of “why do I bother?”. Meaningfulness is all too easily destroyed by bad management – for example through focusing on costs rather than quality. We found that treatment by managers frequently came up in our study when our respondents discussed times they felt their work lacked meaning.</p>
<p>If employers want their staff to find their work meaningful, they need to tread carefully. People like to find their own meaning, by reference to what matters most to them as individuals, and organisational efforts to force the issue can lead to cynicism. However, organisations can nurture an environment that helps people to find meaning in their work through adopting authentic values, ensuring workers are in jobs that suit their skills and personalities, fostering a positive and respectful working climate, and helping workers see how their work has a positive effect on others. </p>
<p>Knowing that our work has improved the life of someone, somewhere – even just a little bit – makes the job worthwhile.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katie Bailey is a Non-Executive Director at the Involvement and Participation Association (IPA). </span></em></p>People find meaning in their work for different reasons, but bad management can easily destroy it.Katie Bailey, Professor Of Management, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/559422016-03-10T03:25:35Z2016-03-10T03:25:35ZEmotionally intelligent employees may come with a dark side – manipulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114396/original/image-20160309-22143-g3y956.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Employees who chose to be emotionally manipulative may also have high emotional intelligence.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">From www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Employees who may seem emotionally intelligent and an asset to the workplace may also be emotionally manipulative and this may be detrimental to workplaces in the long run, preliminary findings of a survey show. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297538481_Uncovering_the_Construct_and_Predictors_of_Emotional_Manipulation_in_the_Workplace">The study</a> has surveyed 351 people so far from different organisations, 81 who were managers.</p>
<p>Employees in <a href="https://surveys.utas.edu.au/index.php/195918?lang=en">the survey</a> admitted to using either malicious techniques such as making a colleague feel guilty or anxious or they turned on fake charm, for example giving compliments, to get what they want.</p>
<p>Some research shows that people who have the ability to be <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910000966">emotionally manipulative</a>, have high levels of emotional intelligence, which can be seen as a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Natasha_Loi/publication/261716540_Connections_between_emotional_intelligence_and_workplace_flourishing/links/0c960535ee6ab79a64000000.pdf">positive asset to the workplace</a>.</p>
<p>Emotional manipulation <a href="http://teamvdf.free.fr/TER%20M1/Emotional%20intelligence%20does%20EI%20have%20a%20dark%20side.pdf">is defined as</a> the act of influencing another person’s feelings and behaviours for one’s own interest. People who are good at emotional manipulation also show signs of what is called the ‘<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260914241_Able_and_willing_Refining_the_measurement_of_emotional_manipulation">dark triad</a>’ which includes psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism.</p>
<p>People who are labelled as psychopaths tend to lack empathy, just as narcissists have a strong sense of entitlement <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12018/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=">and Machiavellians manipulate others.</a></p>
<p>In the study people who admitted to manipulating others maliciously scored higher on measurements of Machiavellianism and narcissism. People who admitted to faking things to get what they want, scored higher on measurements of Machiavellianism, narcissism and emotional intelligence. </p>
<p>Lots of people can figure out ways to manipulate others, but whether or not they choose to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260914241_Able_and_willing_Refining_the_measurement_of_emotional_manipulation">depends on kind of person they are</a>. For example, if you are not as sensitive towards others, as is the case for narcissists, you will probably would find it quite easy to manipulate others at work.</p>
<p>Some of the traits of those within the 'dark triad’ can seem desirable in the workplace- at least at first. For example, it can be difficult to spot a narcissist because they can <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208324101">seem agreeable and appear well adjusted</a>. </p>
<p>These people also tend to desire (and feel entitled to) leadership positions, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208324101">and come across as good leaders</a>. Employees with these personalities usually are very confident and their ability to remain cool under pressure tends <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1943">to make people feel more secure</a>. </p>
<p>However, in the workplace, the performance of people who focus on themselves a lot <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762">is generally poor</a> and they are usually <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.390">not as committed to the organisation</a>. Interestingly these people are also not likely to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762">recognise that they may be a problem in the workplace</a>.</p>
<p>Being fake may seem less harmful than being malicious. However, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297538486_Effects_of_emotional_manipulation_on_employees_in_the_workplace">the study</a> found that employees are distressed by the thought of being manipulated. In the survey five to 14% of people report feeling manipulated in a malicious way on a weekly basis, and 13-15% in a fake way. </p>
<p>Employees could be just perceiving that they are being manipulated, without actually being manipulated. The study tried to achieve a more objective view by asking participants if they believed their co-workers were being manipulated the same way. </p>
<p>Surveyed employees thought that both they and their co-workers were being manipulated in a similar way. This does suggest that behaviour is probably real, and that manipulators may target more than one person at work. </p>
<p>The research presents a challenge for organisations to consider how necessary excellent emotional and social skills are when recruiting or promoting individuals, because it is possible that these people are also manipulative. </p>
<p>Fair Work trade commissioner, Anna Lee Crib, said that in 2014, of the 701 applications made to the commission, 241 cases were withdrawn and not one case of <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/workplace-bullying-violence-harassment-and-bullying-fact-sheet">bullying</a> was found. In her opinion some people may be confusing bullying with “personality conflicts”.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, targets of workplace bullying <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030987">can react emotionally</a>. Because of this, it may seem like two people just butting heads. This, coupled with the fact that manipulation is very subtle, means that when people report the behaviour there is a high chance of it being put down to a personality conflict when in fact it could be defined as bullying. </p>
<p>This is something very important for organisations to be aware of because interventions that do not acknowledge or address the behaviours of the instigator will not be effective, and could harm employees even more.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Employees who admitted to being emotionally manipulative in a survey may also be perceived as being emotionally intelligent in their workplaces, a study has found.Jane Hyde, PhD in Clinical Psychology Candidate and Psychologist, University of TasmaniaRachel Grieve, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/516542016-01-26T19:19:17Z2016-01-26T19:19:17ZPromoted to manager? Here are three things you should never forget<p>Researchers at the London School of Economics have for many years been <a href="http://worldmanagementsurvey.org/">tracking the performance of managers</a>, as rated by the people they manage. And the <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21679215-business-gets-serious-about-running-business-end-accidental-boss">results are poor</a>, particularly for managers in the UK, France and Australia.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is why bad management is such a comedic goldmine. An entire genre of television and films celebrates managerial incompetence and ineptitude, providing a rich context for cringe comedy. The best known exemplar of this is The Office, the British comedy starring Ricky Gervais as David Brent, a dim-witted yet ingratiating supervisor. The formula was successfully remade in the US starring Steve Carell and indeed has been further extended to France, Germany, Quebec, Israel and Sweden. The lead character at heart of The Office seems familiar globally.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AZ3v7V2CZu8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Seem familiar?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Managers are a diverse group, but they tend to share one trait – ambition. The fact that <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02621710910987665">ambition, competence and interpersonal skills</a> are not well correlated tells us much about why so many managers struggle in their roles.</p>
<p>Appointment to a managerial role is a <a href="https://hbr.org/2007/01/when-a-new-manager-takes-charge">challenging career transition for many</a>. For some, the title creates a sense of superiority that negatively impacts longstanding professional and personal relationships. Problematically, the focus for many relationships moves upwards and outwards of the organisation and dissent is often seen as a <a href="http://amj.aom.org/content/57/4/1013.short">personal and professional affront</a>.</p>
<p>The outcomes of such behaviours are entirely predictable – social and personal isolation emerges that can weigh heavily on the manager. The burden is especially great for those who return to normal duties after a limited managerial tenure – for those people the pleasures of management were fleeting, but the consequences can be long-lasting and profoundly negative.</p>
<p>How can managers escape from these negatives? There are a few steps that all should take to buffer themselves from the negative personal and professional consequences of the managerial role.</p>
<h2>Pay attention</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/MD-12-2014-0693">First, managers should listen as well as talk.</a> Valuing open discussion among your immediate team and encouraging a diversity of views will create better decisions and also improve the quality of your relationships within the organisation. When subordinates respectfully challenge managerial decisions, managers should see that as a vote of confidence in their approachability and rapport – not as a challenge to their position. </p>
<p>Managers should maintain the activities that they undertook before their promotion – they should find time to have lunch with subordinates and former colleagues. This will be a powerful signal that these relationships continue to matter.</p>
<h2>Be flexible</h2>
<p>Second, be prepared to change your views and decisions. Managers who change their position on the basis of new evidence and reasoned discussion are especially well respected. The noted economist <a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/paul-samuelson/">Paul Samuelson once quipped</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a rich academic literature on the <a href="http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/%7Ekmilkman/2011_10_23_escalation_FINAL.pdf">escalation of commitment to poor decisions among senior managerial teams.</a> Groupthink is an inevitable outcome of failing to value diverse views and failing to be open to new evidence as it emerges. </p>
<h2>Share the pain</h2>
<p>Third, <a href="http://ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/authority/authority.pdf">beware of having to exercise administrative authority over referent authority.</a> Referent authority comes from displaying fairness and respect to others and is the basis for improving organisational culture and performance.</p>
<p>In the leadership literature there is a classical divergence between <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Antonakis/publication/262227540_Instrumental_leadership_Measurement_and_extension_of_transformationaltransactional_leadership_theory/links/0a85e53731a3792793000000.pdf">transactional and transformational approaches</a>. Transactional leadership is focused on trading behaviours for rewards, while transformational leadership focuses on creating shared values and rapport. Increasingly these approaches are seen as complementary of one another – few managers succeed if they are able to only do one and not the other.</p>
<p>In summary, management is not about being “one of the guys”, or forgetting your past relationships. Social and professional isolation is a warning sign that managers should be well attuned to – its eventual consequence will be damaging both for the organisation and the person involved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rice is affiliated with the ALP and NTEU.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The fact that ambition, competence and interpersonal skills are not well correlated could explain why many managers struggle.John Rice, Professor of Management, University of New EnglandNigel Martin, Lecturer, College of Business and Economics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519512016-01-14T04:40:03Z2016-01-14T04:40:03ZHow toxic leaders destroy people as well as organisations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106619/original/image-20151218-27875-xj8c8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Toxic leaders make for exploitative, destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a growing incidence of toxic leadership in organisations across the world. This is clear from anecdotal evidence as well as <a href="http://www.humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp?Article_ID=1338">research</a> which suggests that one out of every five leaders is toxic. My own <a href="http://www.humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp?Article_ID=1338">research</a> shows that closer to three out of every ten leaders are toxic.</p>
<p>This cancer of toxicity threatens the well being of both individuals and organisations. It also affects the performance of a society and country. That’s why there is a pressing need for leaders to understand the nature, dynamics and evolution of toxic leadership and organisations. </p>
<p>The word “toxic” comes from the Greek “toxikon” which means “arrow poison”. In a literal sense, the term in its original form thus means to kill (poison) in a targeted way (arrow). Toxic organisations and leaders therefore are those who deliberately destroy the fabric of the institution. </p>
<h2>What makes a toxic leader?</h2>
<p>Toxic leadership represents the “dark” side of leadership. It affects individuals as well as organisations.</p>
<p>In the case of individuals toxic leadership refers to ongoing, deliberate, intentional actions - the “arrow” - by a leader to undermine the sense of dignity, self-worth and efficacy of an individual - the “poison”. This results in exploitative, destructive, devaluing and demeaning work experiences. These destructive actions may be physical, psychosocial or even spiritual when they diminish a person’s meaning and purpose.</p>
<p>A toxic organisation is one that erodes, disables and destroys the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of the people who work in it in permanent and deliberate ways. In other words, an organisation becomes metaphorically a “poison pill” for employees.</p>
<p>Workplace bullying is similar to toxic leadership, but is just one form of it. Bullying is more centred on individual, one-on-one, physical or emotional abuse by any one individual, including a leader, on another person. </p>
<p>In contrast to toxic leadership, healthy, authentic leadership nurtures and affirms the dignity, worth and efficacy of an individual. It creates enabling, empowering and meaningful work experiences.</p>
<p>And a healthy, authentic organisation is one that nurtures and grows the physiological, psychosocial and spiritual well being of its organisational members.</p>
<h2>Can toxic leaders be competent?</h2>
<p>Leadership toxicity and incompetence are not directly related. Both competent – getting the desired results - and incompetent leadership can be toxic. </p>
<p>If a narrower definition of competence is used - only focusing on technical and professional competencies - a toxic leader may still be seen as competent because they are “delivering the goods”. This is particularly true if a short term view is taken. But over the longer term their short term success is unsustainable. This is because they are destroying their teams, departments or organisations in the process.</p>
<p>If a comprehensive, long term view is taken toxic leaders are incompetent because they are not competent across all domains of a well-rounded leader. Taking a comprehensive view, leadership qualities include personal attributes, technical and professional competencies, values and attitudes, and conduct.</p>
<p>I believe that toxic leaders, regardless of their level of technical and professional competence, are incompetent. After all, competent leadership is all about getting things done with people.</p>
<h2>Typical toxic leaders</h2>
<p>Five typical toxic leaders exist:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The Cold Fish: the ends justifies the means. So any decision and action is justifiable in terms of the results desired. </p></li>
<li><p>The Snake: the world serves me in the endeavour to satisfy my personal needs like greed, status and power. </p></li>
<li><p>Glory Seeker: personal glory and public visibility at any cost, regardless of whether I have made any real and meaningful contribution. </p></li>
<li><p>Puppet Master: absolute, centralised control over everything and anyone, under all circumstances. </p></li>
<li><p>Monarch: ruling the organisation as if it is my kingdom. All of its assets are available for my personal use.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The more prolific these toxic leaders are in an organisation, the more toxic the organisation. The table below profiles these toxic leaders.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/106457/original/image-20151217-8073-10dmfsx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Typical toxic organisations</h2>
<p>The typical manifestations of a toxic organisation resulting from toxic leadership are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Negative emotional moods and mood swings: anger, despair, despondency, frustration, pessimism and aggression. </p></li>
<li><p>Unproductive and meaningless work.</p></li>
<li><p>Destructive and counterproductive conduct. </p></li>
<li><p>Employee physical and emotional disengagement and withdrawal such as absenteeism, lack of contribution, and turnover. </p></li>
<li><p>Unethical, deviant conduct: theft, fraud and sabotage. </p></li>
<li><p>Poor well-being and health. </p></li>
<li><p>Low (team) morale and work satisfaction. </p></li>
<li><p>Organisational dis-identification and low organisational commitment. </p></li>
<li><p>General life dissatisfaction. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>But organisations can be toxic in their own right through the organisational culture they have. Organisational culture refers to shared ways of seeing, interpreting and acting upon the world that becomes ingrained in an organisation’s DNA. It’s the glue holding it together and provides an organisation with a way of looking at and relating to the world.</p>
<p>When toxic patterns become ingrained into the DNA of an organisation the following patterns emerge:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Paranoid: the defensive, afraid, suspicious, trusting no-one or nobody organisation. </p></li>
<li><p>Compulsive: the over-planned and over-programmed organisation. </p></li>
<li><p>Hyperactive: the impulsive, unfocused organisation, acting like an adolescent. </p></li>
<li><p>Deflated: the energyless, depressed and impotent organisation.</p></li>
<li><p>Delusional: the reality estranged, make-believe organisation, living in a world of its own. </p></li>
<li><p>Conscienceless: the unethical, amoral organisation.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There appears to be a growing incidence of the cancer of toxic leadership and organisations. This is in no uncertain terms endangering the well being of organisational members, compromising future sustainable organisational, community and societal performance and success, as well as the very continued existence of them.</p>
<p><em>This article is based on a longer, more comprehensive academic <a href="http://www.humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp?Article_ID=1338">paper</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51951/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Theo Veldsman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Three in ten leaders across the world are toxic. Toxic leaders destroy individuals as well as organisations, and affect the performance of a society and country.Theo Veldsman, Professor and Head, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/453652015-07-30T20:16:00Z2015-07-30T20:16:00ZThe five most common mistakes a growing company makes - and how to fix them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90095/original/image-20150729-30867-1ybig4h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many people look at high-growth companies worth millions or billions of dollars and think “Wow, how did they do that?” There is an air of mysticism attached to breakthrough business growth, and many executives wonder if there is a secret formula behind scaling a business into a high-growth company. </p>
<p>The answer is “Yes” - and what’s even better - CEOs can learn the art and science of business growth.</p>
<p>For 20 years, I’ve worked with hundreds of CEOs of growth companies in Australia, US, Europe, China, India, Singapore, and New Zealand. Last year I was recruited by UniSA to establish the Centre for Business Growth to help CEOs and their executive teams learn how to lead and manage growth. Since then, we have worked with over 75 companies across Australia with revenues between $5 million and $50 million, helping the executive teams understand what they need to do, or stop doing, to grow.</p>
<p>From my experience, there are several reasons why companies don’t grow or have stopped growing. Here are the five most common mistakes CEOs and executive teams make growing a company and how they can overcome them.</p>
<h2>1: Not defining the company’s mission, vision and values</h2>
<p>It sounds simple, but having a clearly defined mission, vision and set of values can help achieve alignment in a company. The mission statement is the core of the company’s purpose – the raison d’etre for the organisation. Leaders need to keep the mission simple and make sure it defines what the company does, for whom, and the desired outcome. The values are the common principles and behaviours that describe how the organisation does business and how the CEO wants employees to interact with each other, customers, suppliers and vendors. </p>
<p>Creating a shared vision for the company is powerful – it is incredibly important for engaging staff, it keeps people motivated, provides meaning and makes each person’s job significant. It is the CEOs role to create the vision of where the company is going, engage the team in estimating what it will take to get there, and then make sure employees really understand how what they do contributes to the achievement of that vision.</p>
<h2>2: Not understanding the roles and responsibilities as CEO</h2>
<p>Too many business leaders think their job is to make all the decisions and be at the centre of everything. They feel that they need to show their employees that they can do the “real work” by involving themselves in the day-to-day operations of their company. The fact is, too many CEOs find themselves working “in the business” rather than “on the business”.</p>
<p>CEOs need to understand how their roles and responsibilities change during the various stages of growth and how their behaviour impacts their company’s growth from one stage to the next. It’s important for CEOs to delegate, communicate effectively and plan ahead in order to prevent themselves from becoming the bottleneck to their company’s growth.</p>
<h2>3. Super-sizing is not the best path to growth</h2>
<p>Many executives choose a “super-size” growth strategy; to sell more of their current products or to ramp up the value of existing customers. If executives are serious about growth, they need to think about identifying new customer segments, developing new products or selling new products to new customer segments. As Steve Jobs and Apple implored people: “think different” – CEOs need to create a culture that encourages trying new things, learning from failures and being willing to experiment in order to grow.</p>
<h2>4. Relying on “luck”</h2>
<p>It’s too easy in times of plenty, when the market is sending business your way, to turn into an order taker not a business builder. Some companies are in the right place, at the right time and experience growth because the economy was growing, the executives had good networks and business came their way without having to do much. If executives are going to keep their business moving up the growth curve, they need to be prepared for a market change and have a growth strategy that targets various customer segments. Executives need to plan for the future, develop the infrastructure to their support growth and take advantage of today’s momentum to build the solid foundations to overcome tomorrow’s challenges.</p>
<h2>5. Failing to keep the hunger and think big</h2>
<p>When companies get to a certain point, some CEOs and leaders put on the cruise control. They have enough money to lead a comfortable lifestyle, own a beach house and take nice holidays. A lot of CEOs think “why should I put everything I worked so hard for on the line? Why not just be satisfied with what I have?”</p>
<p>CEOs who talk like this have reached the ceiling of complexity. They don’t know what to do to take the company to the next level and aren’t thinking big. They pull up the drawbridge and want to protect their castle.</p>
<p>One of the most important changes executives need to make to build a high-growth business is their mindset. As soon as business leaders start to open their mind and think about how their company could be a $100 million business rather than a $10 million business, they start to challenge themselves and their team and set the company on the path to success.</p>
<p>For CEOs and executives who are ready to make change, growth requires vision, courage, knowledge, teamwork and execution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Centre for Business Growth receives funding from ANZ. ANZ Sponsor the ANZ Business Growth Programs, Sponsor the ANZ Chair in Business Growth appointed to Professor Jana Matthews and are the Foundation Partners of the Centre for Business Growth. Professor Jana Matthews is affiliated with StartupAus as a Board Member and Club Kidpreneur as an Advisory Board Member.</span></em></p>There is an air of mysticism attached to high-growth companies: but in the main, they followed five golden rules.Jana Matthews, ANZ Chair in Business Growth, Director, Centre for Business Growth, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/400012015-07-22T01:03:47Z2015-07-22T01:03:47ZEQ versus IQ: what’s the perfect management mix?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77596/original/image-20150410-6857-75tena.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Higher levels of EI have been linked with ethical behaviour - but it also takes some degree of interpersonal skill to manipulate others. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a way to measure the level of potential ability of people, and as such has links to education and work performance, as well as personal survival.</p>
<p>Most people have an average IQ, (by definition, <a href="http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/f/average-iq.htm">“average” is 100</a>). If most people also have an average level of <a href="http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-emotional-intelligence-eq/">Emotional Intelligence</a> (referred to as EI or EQ), when does it become important to have higher levels of either of these sets of skills?</p>
<p>People with a high IQ tend to be good problem solvers and when faced with new situations may often be smart enough to be able to figure out the best solution. When a person with a high IQ also has a high level of knowledge, which can be gained from experience as well as formal education qualifications, then they are likely to have a wide range of skills. So people with a high IQ who have qualifications and experience may often be seen as most suited to lead teams and organisations, and the best people to recruit, reward and retain.</p>
<h2>What is emotional intelligence?</h2>
<p>But in recent years we have been hearing more about the need for emotional intelligence in addition to IQ. EI includes the ability to pay attention to and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085406">accurately perceive, understand and regulate emotions</a>.</p>
<p>There are a number of instruments that seek to “measure” emotional intelligence, including the <a href="http://eiconsortium.org/measures/measures.html">Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test</a> or MSCEIT.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/minds-business/it-pays-to-have-an-eye-for-emotions.html">Researchers point out</a> that an important component of EI is emotion recognition ability (ERA) which has strong links with the use of “political” skills.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.1975/epdf">A study of 322 employees</a> with a range of work roles in Germany suggest that ERA is associated with financial success and annual income. They argue that the abilities of politically skilled people to recognise and manage emotions allows them to appear to be sincere and trustworthy, whether or not this may be genuine.</p>
<h2>Dark side of EQ</h2>
<p>While people who have a high level of ERA may employ these skills for the greater good, they could also use these to achieve personal gain, including at the expense of others. </p>
<p>Higher levels of EI have been <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-1158-5#page-1">linked with ethical behaviour</a> however it also takes some degree of interpersonal skill to manipulate others. Narcissists can be very charming, until those around them suffer the consequences of betrayal.</p>
<p>So while EI and interpersonal skills can enhance performance, it can also have a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/05/when-emotional-intelligence-goes-wrong/389546/">“dark side”</a>. The nature of the relationship between EI and ethical behaviour at work is still in need of further research.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00251740610690658">In my research</a>, I classified five approaches to management decision-making about ethical issues: “Narcissistic”, “Legalistic”, “Worried”, “Entrepreneurial”, or “Navigation”, with the ability to choose to use “Navigation” seen as optimal. The use of each approach was linked to individual preferences and differing levels of four sets of skills: judgement, integrity, courage, and also humanity. </p>
<p>Humanity involves a capacity for understanding and forgiveness, and an appreciation that we can’t control everything, that odd, absurd and unintended things can happen, and therefore it is important to have a sense of humour. While having judgement and integrity and the courage to act on these is good, adding a sense of humour as well can elevate actions that are legal to behaviour that is ethical. </p>
<p><a href="http://econpapers.repec.org/article/raiijares/doi_5f10.1688_2f1861-9916_5fijar_5f2013_5f03_5fcoghlan.htm">David Coghlan</a> recommends a useful general approach to deciding what to do which involves four steps: be Attentive, be Intelligent, be Reasonable, and be Responsible.</p>
<p>Many of us would be aware of examples of people who may be “task smart” or technically highly competent, but not “people smart” as they lack interpersonal skills and are poor communicators. </p>
<p>While cognitive skills are important <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227503533_The_relation_between_emotional_intelligence_and_job_performance_A_metaanalysis">EI may also be needed to establish and maintain good working relationships</a> and may be particularly important in team work and for roles which involve a high level of “emotional labour” including jobs in service industries, caring professions, and peace keeping or social control. </p>
<p>To be able to perform well, people need to be able to draw on cognitive and emotional skills at the right time to be able to survive, but preferably to thrive. People with a high IQ may generally be good at learning new skills related to EI. <a>Managers can be taught</a> how to pay attention to emotional cues and come to understand and behave in ways that help them, teams, and organisations perform better. </p>
<h2>The “best” mix of IQ and EI</h2>
<p>So, in the end, there is no defined “perfect mix”: it depends on who you are, who else you are with at the time, and what you want to achieve. </p>
<p>How others perceive you is based on their assessment of your IQ and EI, and these perceptions impact on how they behave towards you – and how they portray their impression of working with you to others. If others see you differently to how you see yourself or how you want to appear - knowing this may help you learn how to change your behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40001/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosalie Holian is an Organisational Psychologist and an Associate Professor in the School of Management at RMIT University.</span></em></p>It’s assumed good managers are intelligent, but do they also need emotional intelligence? And if that’s missing, can they learn?Rosalie Holian, Associate Professor, College of Business, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/394982015-04-24T03:29:28Z2015-04-24T03:29:28ZCodes of conduct: making things clear is better than ‘keeping it real’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78314/original/image-20150417-14527-18z1ioo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Cotton On Group's code of conduct reflects a misunderstanding of what they should be used for. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/5291340175/in/photolist-523GJk-oBL1AD-7N66pQ-94zv62-5jurCd-9uzufB-dtomgt-akPyZJ-dx6rUB-dxbUTU-dyJGBq-dyDeqD-dyDeRB-pb43i5-dxbUPL-dyJJdJ-dyJJ5A-dyJH45-52m3pP-885g1U-dyDfgp-dx6rXx-dxbV4f-dycN2q-dycMPd-dBDj1c-dycLyQ-dycLqW-dx6s7v-dx6s4K-8BeT7z-dyJHUq-dyDf7z-dyJHd1-dyDeiX-dBJJiN-dBJHXj-dBJHzf-dBDi3V-dBDhXi-dycMEN-dy7j3K-dy7iG4-dy7iA6-dx6rGT-dBJJv1-dBDiP2-dBJJ2J-dBDim2-dBJHDL">Flickr/Alpha</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To work for retailer Cotton On, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/cotton-on-tells-staff-to-keep-it-real-or-face-the-sack-20150318-1m1t2t.html">employees must “keep it real” and “be fun”</a>, with the potential for disciplinary action if they don’t adhere to these policies.</p>
<p>At first glance, this might seem one of those management curiosities that pops up from time to time as a way of management trying to drive a certain type of organisational culture. However, this is the second code of conduct I have seen recently where the focus is on trying to individualise behaviour within the code of conduct. If this is a growing trend, then it is of concern.</p>
<p>While the sentiment of “keeping it real and fun” may have been added with good intentions, introducing such vague and subjective criteria into a policy statement that is there to provide clear and objective statements of standards can cause more harm than good. </p>
<p>I suspect that, as with the other policies I have seen, that these policies are increasingly being developed by people with little understanding of the role of codes of conduct and the knowledge to develop them appropriately.</p>
<h2>So what is a code of conduct?</h2>
<p>In its simplest form, codes of conduct are policies that stipulate acceptable standards of behaviour by employees at work and when representing their organisation. It can also relate to a set of professional standards or practices. </p>
<p>The code of conduct provides rules and boundaries that all employees are bound by (including management) and that employers can refer to for appropriate or accepted ethical, professional or disciplinary behaviours.</p>
<p>Following a story in Fairfax Media about its code of conduct, Cotton On Group issued a statement claiming it to be “inaccurate and a misrepresentation of our culture, values and employment practices”, going on to say: “To clarify, our values and the referenced Code of Conduct are not conditions of employment, as was clearly expressed to the journalist.” There still appears to me to be a confusion on what a code of conduct is.</p>
<h2>Good versus bad</h2>
<p>The most recent high-profile enactment of a code of conduct was the termination of the BBC presenter Jeremy Clarkson for verbal and physical abuse of a colleague. While this was just the last in a series of indiscretions by the presenter, there are certain actions within a code of conduct that can guide an employer in making a decision. </p>
<p>In this particular case, and despite the overt pressure of a public petition with more than one million signatures, Clarkson was sacked because he had clearly breached the code of conduct.</p>
<p>A well-structured and thought-through code of conduct can provide a fair, consistent and valuable signal to all in the organisation (employers and employees) of the core values of an organisation, particularly when it comes to what have often been described as these “moments of truth”, such as Clarkson’s situation.</p>
<p>It is clear therefore that a code of conduct needs to be ethical and underpinned by integrity. While these are basically subjective, it does provide guidelines on how to act in the workplace. In such a context you would not expect such policies to breach employment law. </p>
<p>I am aware of another code of conduct for an independent school which asks staff to act professionally, respectfully and with integrity at all time. However, the code also states that staff should never make a negative comment about any aspect of the school. </p>
<p>So, if an issue or concern is raised by a parent that may reflect badly on the school, do staff at this school act professionally, respectfully and with integrity and attempt to resolve an issue which may then reflect negatively on their employer - or refuse to engage with it for fear of being disciplined? Staff are rightly confused with a contradictory policy that could see someone at risk of being sacked for breaching one part of the code while upholding the other.</p>
<h2>Guidelines</h2>
<p>So what guidelines can we suggest for those looking to develop a set of quality codes of conduct? Firstly, involve all stakeholders, especially employees, in the process. </p>
<p>Secondly, identify areas that need codes of conduct - for example discipline, attendance or dress standards. Thirdly, communicate a draft to the organisation for comment and fourthly, review regularly. Finally, let a human resources expert and employment lawyer sign off on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39498/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Holland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Codes of conduct can be useful and strategic for employers, but too many are contradictory and vague.Peter Holland, Associate Professor in Human Resource Management and Employee Relations, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/403072015-04-22T19:45:46Z2015-04-22T19:45:46ZLessons from an oil spill: how BP gained - then lost - our trust<p>The Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is one of the most exhaustively analysed environmental and management crises in recent history. And BP‘s response will probably be remembered for a generation as the perfect example of how not to manage a crisis.</p>
<p>But it wasn’t always that way. This year marks the 25th anniversary of another BP oil spill which is now virtually forgotten, but was regarded at the time as a gold standard in how to respond effectively and protect reputation.</p>
<p>Although it is eclipsed by a litany of subsequent high profile oil spill disasters – such as the Erika breaking up off Brittany in 1999 and the Montara oil rig fire off northwest Australia in 2009 – there is much to be learned from what happened 25 years ago on the coast of Southern California.</p>
<p>In February 1990, less than a year after the debacle of the Exxon Valdez running aground in Alaska, the BP-chartered tanker American Trader accidentally ran over its own anchor off Huntington Beach in Orange County, spilling 400,000 gallons of crude oil, which came ashore on the prestigious surfing strip.</p>
<p>BP’s response was prompt and unequivocal. In just over two hours, oil skimming vessels were on the scene and the company’s crisis team was in the air. And within 24 hours there were 36 BP specialists on-site.</p>
<p>Even more impressive was the leadership of BP America Chairman James Ross, who flew straight to the scene. In a memorable press conference on the polluted breach Ross told reporters: “Our lawyers tell us it’s not our fault. But we feel like it’s our fault and we are going to act like it’s our own fault.”</p>
<p>Contrast this statesmanlike approach with the denial and blame-shifting which blighted BP’s response in 2010 when fire destroyed the oil rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and starting a torrent of oil onto a massive swathe of coastline. Then-BP CEO Tony Hayward commented that the amount of oil was “relatively tiny in a very big ocean.” His now infamous comment to the media that he would “like his life back”, was dubbed by the New York Times as “the sound bite from hell”.</p>
<p>The clean-up at Huntington Beach was swift and efficient. More than 100 people from other big oil companies took part on the spill response, and BP trained and equipped volunteer bird rescuers, who became some of the company’s strongest supporters in the community. And they worked very closely with government agencies, and the parade of political figures who wanted to be photographed on the beach. Ross later commented: “We are convinced that by working with them, we avoided jurisdictional disputes and a ton of controversy.”</p>
<p>The outcome is strikingly evident. The Los Angeles Times ran a story praising the company’s efforts under the headline “After spill, BP soaks up oil and good press.” It later ran a front-page photograph of the company’s crisis manager fulfilling his pledge to be the first to swim at the cleaned-up beach.</p>
<p>When BP America President James Ross was summoned to Washington he found himself praised by lawmakers. Compare that with the concerted attack by American politicians on BP after the Deepwater Horizon spill. President Barack Obama himself called for Hayward to be sacked. </p>
<p>Of course the volume of the Deepwater Horizon spill was much greater. But the lesson for today is not about the challenges of clean-up. It’s about the response at a management level, and what it teaches us about crisis leadership.
Just like the Huntington Beach spill, James Ross too was quickly forgotten by the media and he went on to a successful career as CEO of Cable and Wireless and company Director. </p>
<p>By contrast British-born Hayward was famously pilloried by a headline in the New York Times - “BP’s CEO Tony Hayward: The most hated – and most clueless – man in America.” And when he was appointed to a role in a small oil company two years later the New York Times observed that for bewildered Americans who saw oil plumes rising, livelihoods crumbling and seabirds dying in the viscous crude, Hayward came to personify the catastrophe.</p>
<p>The starkly different outcomes of the two incidents could be put down to failure of corporate memory. To a rigidly hierarchical executive style which was acknowledged to exist at BP Headquarters. Or to over-dependence on a single spokesperson who was ill-suited to the task of conveying compassion and conviction. Whatever the cause, BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill has well and truly earned its place in the pantheon of bona fide PR disasters. And it’s a brutal warning that the impact of bad management can persist for decades. </p>
<p>But perhaps most importantly, it’s a reminder that individual managers set the tone in a crisis. Even after 25 years, there is much more to be learned from the little-known success of James Ross of BP in 1990 than can ever be gained from raking over the much studied disaster of BP and Tony Hayward in 2010.</p>
<p><em>This is part of an ongoing series on ‘bad’ management. Read more in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/bad-management">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Jaques does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Before the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP had previously gained high praise for its treatment of a similar spill.Tony Jaques, Senior Research Associate, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399132015-04-17T00:17:04Z2015-04-17T00:17:04ZWhat Jeremy Clarkson taught us about incivility in the workplace<p>The BBC had little choice: they could hardly renew Jeremy Clarkson’s contract after he’d biffed a producer into the emergency department. The BBC’s internal investigation reveals that the hapless producer, Oisin Tymon, suffered a swollen and bloodied lip due to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/jeremy-clarkson-dg-statement">“a physical altercation accompanied by sustained and prolonged verbal abuse of an extreme nature”</a>. As far as workplace incivility goes, the incident was clearly on the serious side, and it is reassuring to see that the BBC has acted on principle. Clarkson will go and Tymon will stay. </p>
<p>Quite apart from all the scandal and excitement, this sort of incident highlights a genuinely important issue. The prevalence and costs associated with anti-social workplace conduct are of real concern to all of us, so what practical steps can be taken against it? </p>
<p>We could go down the track of creating greater awareness of the problem, encouraging greater vigilance, emphasising that it can be a workplace health and safety issue, establishing new regulatory agencies and imposing harsher penalties. </p>
<p>Intuitively, such structured measures may sound helpful, and they are undoubtedly well-intentioned. But the evidence suggests that a more nuanced approach concentrating on individual communication skills is more likely to yield results.</p>
<h2>The link between incivility and bullying</h2>
<p>No-one imagines that a relatively minor problem of workplace incivility will <em>always</em> escalate into one of workplace bullying. We’ve all been irritated by a colleague’s rude or brusque behaviour, but if this can be largely attributed to the individual’s temporary stress or anxiety, serious escalation is unlikely. Understanding and forgiveness can go a long way, as can an apology.</p>
<p>But although workplace incivility often doesn’t escalate into workplace bullying, the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/259136">research</a> shows that when problems of bullying <em>do</em> arise, they are preceded by problems of incivility. </p>
<p>So there may be some remarkably important benefits in equipping workers with the skills necessary to deal calmly, assertively and successfully with interpersonal conflicts, tensions and challenges in the workplace as they arise. </p>
<p>If workers can deal with more of the relatively minor forms of incivility for themselves, this will invariably create happier and more harmonious workplaces. This in itself would be a very substantial achievement. </p>
<p>But it should also result in a major reduction in complaints, and this in turn would help to “unclog” the various systems through which complaints are heard, investigated, and remedied. At present, although complaints about anti-social conduct in the workforce are incredibly frequent, the number of cases of incivility that are <em>both serious and formally substantiated</em>, is far smaller than the problem’s prevalence as indicated through surveys and complaints. </p>
<h2>Being able to tell the difference</h2>
<p>A report by Australia’s <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/regulation-benchmarking-ohs/report/ohs-report.pdf">Productivity Commission</a> found that while as many as 20% of Australian employees tell researchers that they have experienced workplace bullying during the previous 12 months, only around 0.03% of all such employees are formally found to have a legitimate claim for having experienced bullying, harassment or occupational violence in any given year (see p. 285 of the report). </p>
<p>Nadine Flood, the Australian National Secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, has acknowledged that her union is <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274701961_Simon_Burgess_and_Dale_Trott_Combating_workplace_bullying_by_focusing_on_workplace_incivility_Journal_of_Health_Safety_and_Environment_Vol._28_No._3_December_2012_pp._339-349">now forced to deal with hundreds of calls</a> from public servants who mistake petty disputes and arguments about workload for bullying. </p>
<p>Importantly, given that those rare but very serious forms of incivility tend to be preceded by relatively minor forms of it, a widespread ability to deal effectively with those relatively minor difficulties is also likely to prevent many of those more serious forms of the problem. </p>
<h2>Being unable to talk about it</h2>
<p>So there is much to be gained from assisting employees to develop ways to recognise - and then resolve - issues of incivility. This sounds simple, but the figures suggest that many people lack the basic skills to ‘de-escalate’ tension and to re-establish a calm and respectful conversational tone. Not enough of us are confident about opening up a blame-free discussion of an interpersonal problem. </p>
<p>Most workers struggle to express concerns about the conduct or attitude of a manager or colleague. There is an important difference between expressing yourself aggressively and assertively - yet many struggle to do the latter without the former. </p>
<p>Leading management experts <a href="http://www.taoleadership.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/The-Price-of-Incivility.pdf">Christine Pearson and Christine Porath</a>, recognise the importance of teaching civility and creating respectful norms. They have also emphasised that managers need to model civility in their own behaviour, seek feedback, reward good behaviour, penalise bad behaviour, consider civility in recruitment decisions, and to conduct post-departure interviews. </p>
<p>When such interviews are held a good six months or so after departure, former employees have generally gained a clearer perspective on the reasons for their departure, and their feedback tends to be far more accurate and helpful as a result.</p>
<p>A somewhat deeper point to appreciate, however, is that we need to move away from an exclusive focus on workplace bullying, and to focus more on the broader notion of workplace incivility. The problem with focusing exclusively on workplace bullying is that it tends to unintentionally perpetuate certain reasons to avoid acknowledging or discussing the behaviour at issue. This is because talk of bullying implies that the target is powerless; and to admit that one is powerless can be confronting, discomforting, even humiliating. </p>
<p>To some people, much of this may seem obvious. Yet even following <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/tor.htm">the 2012 Australian Parliamentary inquiry into workplace bullying</a>, the basic points involved are not well appreciated.</p>
<p>Following that inquiry, the first and most prominent recommendation made was to define workplace bullying as “repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety.” In and of itself this is unobjectionable, and even in the dissenting report tabled by the coalition members no objection to it was made. </p>
<p>But to focus exclusively on workplace bullying is to ignore the fact that such risks to health and safety are often preventable; they tend to arise only after a period of uncivil behaviour that is allowed to get worse and worse. And again, any unnecessary talk of bullying can perpetuate an understandable disincentive to acknowledge or discuss the behaviour at issue. </p>
<p>Would greater communication, assertiveness or conflict resolution skills have saved Tymon from his fracas with Clarkson? Of course we can’t always be sure about every particular incident. In so many of these sorts of cases, however, the relevance and value of these skills is beyond doubt. </p>
<p><em>This is part of an ongoing series on ‘bad’ management. Read more in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/bad-management">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39913/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Burgess does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Bullying is widely talked about, but what about incivility in the workplace? It’s a wider scourge and linked to bullying, but the solutions can be simple.Simon Burgess, Lecturer in Management (Business Ethics, Professional Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility), University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/395592015-04-10T02:02:42Z2015-04-10T02:02:42ZSix effective ways to have that difficult conversation at work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76710/original/image-20150401-1274-1rqp0zw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">That difficult conversation can be made much worse if the strategy is poor. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Employees want more feedback. Gen Y employees in particular, <a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=827313740004284;res=IELBUS">want constant feedback</a>. Managers however are often reluctant to give feedback if they fear that what starts as a rational conversation may <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12083/epdf">degenerate into an emotional one</a>. Even managers trained in coaching have admitted to being reluctant to tackle employees seen as <a href="http://ijebcm.brookes.ac.uk/documents/vol13issue1-paper-01.pdf">abrasive or aggressive</a>. </p>
<p>Some simple guidelines can help managers to achieve positive outcomes from difficult conversations:</p>
<h2>1. Stick to the facts</h2>
<p>State what you believe to be the facts, without any interpretation. For example, instead of suggesting that an employee isn’t motivated, outline the actions or lack of action which lead you to believe this. If deadlines have not been met or you have seen an employee shout at a colleague, say what you have seen. Keep your tone neutral.</p>
<h2>2. Don’t judge</h2>
<p>Ask the employee in a non-judgemental way about what happened. Listen to their answer. When managers fail to listen, employees become <a href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/gsbpapers/390/">defensive</a>. Acknowledge the employee’s view of the situation. Better understanding of an event may change how we interpret the facts we have witnessed and our ideas of how they may be best addressed. </p>
<p>For example, if the employee who hasn’t met deadlines is stressed because they are coping at home with an ageing parent who has Alzheimer’s disease, training in project management or time management is unlikely to lead to improvements. The employee shouting at a colleague may come from a culture where such behaviour is seen as a sign of authority or strong leadership. The employee needs to understand the expectations and values of the context in which they are now operating. </p>
<p>Treat the information which employees give you as confidential unless you both agree it should be shared. It is very easy to lose trust if you pass on information gleaned in a conversation with an employee.</p>
<h2>3. Allow time out</h2>
<p>When people are given feedback, no matter how constructive the intent, they need time to process it. Constructive feedback suggests that there is some element of their performance which is unsatisfactory. Whether they were previously aware of it or not, they have to integrate this feedback into their self-image before they can start thinking rationally about how they might address it.</p>
<h2>4. Ask the employee what THEY think</h2>
<p>After a break (may be next day or even later), ask the employee to summarise the situation and what options they can think of to address. Employees are more familiar with the detailed processes they follow than are their managers. They can therefore often come up with good ideas for improvement. When managers regularly listen to their employees and take their ideas on board, employees are likely to come <a href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/gsbpapers/414/">forward with more ideas</a>. </p>
<p>Managers can add value by being familiar with the big picture and with other teams. This may help identify alternatives outside the employee’s immediate scope so that the employee is aware of the full range of options before choosing the way forward. When employees take ownership of a solution, they are more committed to implementing it than if they are told what to do by their manager. Agree what will be done by when and what evidence both manager and employee will accept to show that the situation has been resolved or improved.</p>
<h2>5. Offer support</h2>
<p>This may take the form of training, coaching, time or other resources identified as useful for implementing the option chosen. For an employee with an ageing parent, the employer may be able to offer more flexible working arrangements or compassionate leave while the employee is making different care arrangements. The employee seen shouting at another employee must accept that they need to change before any counselling or training will be effective. </p>
<p>It is important for each employee to understand what the organisation and their immediate manager expect and to meet those expectations every day. Framing the conversation positively and highlighting the support available motivate the employee to achieve the improvements agreed.</p>
<h2>6. Acknowledge improvements</h2>
<p>Follow up and acknowledge when improvements are made. If no improvement is noticeable by the agreed timeline, have another conversation to hold the person to account. It takes time to achieve a sustainable change which becomes part of the employee’s natural everyday behaviour rather than something they have to <a href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/gsbpapers/414/">think about consciously</a>.</p>
<p>Noticing when employees implement the new behaviour motivates them to continue their efforts until the change becomes an integral part of their work pattern.</p>
<p>While difficult conversations are indeed difficult, listening to the other person, allowing them time to process and giving them some autonomy helps to defuse emotional tension and leads to more positive outcomes for the employee, their manager and their organisation.</p>
<p><em>This is part of an ongoing series on ‘bad’ management. Read more in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/bad-management">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grace McCarthy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Managers often avoid difficult conversations, but here are six ways to deliver the message effectively.Grace McCarthy, Associate Dean Education - leadership and coaching, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392392015-04-01T03:31:49Z2015-04-01T03:31:49ZFrom rooster to feather duster: why leaders can’t change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/76209/original/image-20150327-4780-m0zdb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It can be hard - maybe impossible - to develop a significantly different leadership style.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. In the modern world of business, that’s not quite true. Increasingly, when things go wrong, CEOs depart, with failure’s paternity quickly ascribed to the boss in the big office.</p>
<p>Is firing the CEO the right thing to do when things go wrong? There is something to be said for this approach. The senior managers of our largest listed firms are well paid - and should be responsible for their organisations’ performance. In an age when no-one takes responsibility for anything, firing the boss might send a good signal. </p>
<p>We have recently seen two high profile departures - Bernie Brookes from Myer and Ian Smith from Orica. While the circumstances leading up to their respective departures differ, both were moved on by boards keen to see significant organisational change. </p>
<p>For these two boards, there was no teaching old dogs new tricks.</p>
<h2>Can a leopard change its spots?</h2>
<p>This begs a question - can people in senior management change their ways as the circumstances require - or are they captive to their peculiar traits and organisational histories?</p>
<p>Recent research has quite a bit to say about the personality traits of CEOs, the impact these traits have on organisational culture and hence, organisational performance. A recent exemplar of this research <a href="http://www.stybelpeabody.com/newsite/pdf/ceopersonalitycultureandfinancialperformance.pdf">suggests strong links</a>. While many of their findings are intuitive (for example, should you seek to grow revenues, you would be best served by a gregarious, assertive and active CEO who would likely engender a more results-orientated culture), they are careful to note that it may be that CEOs’ manifestation of their personality are just as important as their actual personality - in other words, CEOs don’t really need to be agreeable, if they can pretend to be! </p>
<p>Pretending to be something that you are not, as CEO, is probably not a good way to engender confidence among the troops, however. Furthermore, it is the antithesis of another buzzword - <em><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201401/what-is-authentic-leadership-do-you-have-it">authenticity</a></em>. Indeed plenty of evidence exists to suggest that humans’ behaviour eventually reverts to personality type. As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXvmSaE0JXA">Ke$ha notes so succinctly</a> - “we r who we r”.</p>
<p>So, can managers keep their personality, and change their ways? Can they successfully reinvent themselves and distance themselves from past errors? Sadly, the answer is probably not.</p>
<p>There are many reasons for this, but first we can look again at personality. One of the main personality traits of CEOs - successful or otherwise - is conscientiousness. Breaking this down, those who make it to the big office tend to tenaciously pursue their goals. They exhibit single-mindedness and persistence and are, by definition, ambitious.</p>
<p>All of these traits tend to limit the capacity of CEOs to change tack, even when the circumstances require. Indeed, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/258647?sid=21106221217303&uid=3737536&uid=4&uid=2">a classic piece</a> by Joel Brockner suggests that CEOs escalate commitment to failing strategies rather admitting that they may have made mistakes. This is exacerbated when <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.2291/abstract">CEOs exhibit over-confidence</a>, heavily investing their ego and self esteem in perpetuating decisions that have gone awry.</p>
<h2>To err is human, to forgive divine</h2>
<p>The above discussion emerges out of a view where organisational success comes from the success of one person - the CEO. This, of course, is far too simplistic and probably provides a spurious explanation of why firms succeed and fail. </p>
<p>As is the case with people, organisations are products of their histories and operational environments. CEOs are simply members - albeit important members - of organisations. They should neither shoulder all the blame when things go wrong, nor all the glory when they go right.</p>
<p>A better way for CEOs to operate would tend to rely more on <a href="http://michael-roberto.blogspot.com.au/">consultation and consensus building</a>. A fundamentally important benefit of consensus building is that organisations as a whole tend to take ownership of decisions - for better or worse. This ownership also builds commitment to strategic decisions - something rare when decisions are imposed by an isolated executive.</p>
<p>The real danger in attributing too much organisational success or failure to the CEO’s personality is that it leads to an abrogation, by those who matter, of their responsibilities. Organisations improve at the coal face - not in the Boardroom.</p>
<p>Organisations who seek a personality type, rather than a leader with wisdom, intellect and a capacity to communicate, are destined to fail. Worse, the search for the next <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch">Jack Welch</a> to turn around the company’s problems will lead at best to a pretender - and will preclude many great candidates with real depth and character.</p>
<p>Others would point to the reductionism innate in such an approach. Humans are unique and complex beings - trying to reduce them to certain traits is a recipe for disaster. You might find a hard-nosed change agent - but don’t be surprised if they are also a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlB1pFwGhA4">psychopath</a>.</p>
<p>Finally - appointing a personality rather than a person is a recipe for homogenous organisational leadership in an increasingly diverse world. The “crash through or crash” CEO you think you need will invariably be white, male and out of touch.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is part of an ongoing series on ‘bad’ management. Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/bad-management">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39239/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rice receives funding from the Centre for Work Life. He is a member of the ALP and the NTEU.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nigel Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An aggressive CEO delivers for their board - but then circumstances change. Can that leader follow?John Rice, Professor of Management, University of New EnglandNigel Martin, Lecturer, College of Business and Economics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/389762015-03-25T00:24:36Z2015-03-25T00:24:36ZWhy the days of performance appraisals should be numbered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75760/original/image-20150324-17709-d62j0y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The feeling is mutual.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We know the perils of performance appraisal almost instinctively. Parodies of the process are common – think UK comedy series, The Office. Now serious questions are being asked about its real value, as high-profile companies review their practices.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/adobe/2014/05/29/why-businesses-should-rethink-the-annual-performance-review/">Adobe</a> and <a href="https://hbr.org/2013/11/dont-rate-your-employees-on-a-curve/">Microsoft</a> are well-known corporate examples of organisations that have overhauled their approach to performance management, eschewing backward-looking, form-filling processes in favour of real-time feedback. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08959285.2014.974756#abstract">recent article</a> in the journal Human Performance assessing variance of job performance ratings lays bare the subjective nature of performance evaluations and in particular points to the idiosyncracies of supervisors as the reason why job performance ratings vary widely.</p>
<p>This is particularly concerning when performance ratings are used to rank employees and decide on pay rises. The article explains that these results are not surprising given the ambiguity and complexity that characterises many performance-rating processes. It suggests that asking a supervisor to store, recall, and appraise behaviours of numerous workers over the course of a long period (typically between six months and one year), is unrealistic. </p>
<p>Other challenges with supervisor/line management involvement in performance evaluation are easy to identify and include efforts to juggle competing work priorities, and the absence of skills and knowledge. Supervisors often lack motivation and commitment to undertake people management activities, exacerbating an already fraught process. </p>
<p>These challenges give pause for thought. Add to them the hard costs associated with the performance management processes, as highlighted in <a href="https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management">this month’s Harvard Business Review</a> and serious questions start to emerge about the business case for traditional performance management approaches. </p>
<p>The HBR article considers the case of Deloitte, in which it is estimated that 2 million hours were spent on filling in forms, holding meetings and collating data for ratings. While that figure reflects the scale of Deloitte’s global operations, it does bring into sharp relief the opportunity cost of performance management procedures. It also begs for a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much a focus on past performance contributes to future outcomes.</p>
<p>So do we need to re-evaluate the way we evaluate? Despite <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/best-buy-ends-work-from-home-policy_n_2818422.html">mixed success</a>, the growing interest in various versions of “results only work environments” (ROWEs) demonstrates an increasing focus on outcomes over processes. </p>
<p>This seems to make intuitive sense in the context of our changing workforce, with around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6310.0">25% of the Australian workforce</a> in casual work and a significant proportion in contract or project-based work (or classified as <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Chapter8052009%E2%80%9310">independent contractors</a>). </p>
<p>With companies needing to be more agile, the key to success is now focused on not just having the right strategy, but aligning people to that strategy (see Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank’s book <a href="http://www.hrinz.org.nz/archive/conference05/papers/Keynote-DUlrich.pdf">The HR Value Proposition</a>). We need to strip out unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy of performance evaluation. </p>
<p>The lessons from Adobe and Deloitte point to a need to disrupt the process and consider new and innovative ways to evaluate performance. Although there is no silver bullet to the complexities faced, these examples suggest that developing a culture that is rich on feedback and providing regular and ongoing commentary, would be a good start. </p>
<p>Organisations would also be well placed to remember that most employees do not purposefully set out to be poor performers. Establishing why employees are not performing or why they are not achieving specified outcomes is central to performance evaluation. Furthermore, organisations should seek to eliminate, or at least be mindful of, mechanisms that may promote perverse behaviour by encouraging employees to focus on their own goals at the expense of the organisation - such as pay for performance plans. </p>
<p>This is something to be kept in mind, even with seemingly progressive approaches like ROWE. Further, a pure emphasis on outcomes could encourage unethical behaviours, distort risk preferences, corrode organisational culture and <a href="http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6114.html">reduce intrinsic motivation</a>.</p>
<p>While the global financial crisis graphically illustrated the importance of good governance, compliance with internal or external governance mechanisms should not be confused with effectively measuring performance for better organisational outcomes. Such confusion presents another danger for organisations. Namely, the ossification of bureaucratic processes that serve no positive organisational end but instead run the risk of alienating that most elusive of HR commodities – talent.</p>
<p><em>This is part of an ongoing series on ‘bad management’. Read more <a href="https://theconversation.com/toxic-boss-at-work-here-are-some-tips-for-coping-38778">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The performance appraisal is often perceived cynically by staff and executed poorly by managers. It’s time to re-appraise.Sarah Kaine, Associate professor in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, University of Technology SydneyRobyn Johns, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/367802015-03-23T19:16:25Z2015-03-23T19:16:25ZExplainer: what are personality disorders and how are they treated?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75327/original/image-20150319-1572-fx7wrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C63%2C640%2C416&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Narcissism is a key trait in the subset of 'dramatic, emotional and erratic' personality disorders.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shellysblogger/2444973188/in/photolist-4J48m9-5yGWfW-qVPfN-6aFL5J-7mgvzk-4cCMaF-2QCHxC-7JKLt-4yCNvz-dZTe8P-76AeMd-5w9Kz-6htQfp-mdn2z-eCUtvR-7nmbBt-48oiUx-f9FzCh-mdqGU-3VkLs-3VkLv-2GHXN-aokpd-7FiNE6-mdmx7-hjkcyS-4xKw-g9mrA-ogDr6A-apr1FT-pwpkWy-5Ky7GE-6Z4RTF-7D9k8c-6cDxG4-oHcsx3-6mQMA2-amSiMy-8zXrV-pehEzB-4Pp4-HcKT-g9YLw-qvn7Z-7DEe5Q-PLeE-2qkDt-2kcgA-dRpyHF-Qps5">ShellyS/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Filmmakers know personality disorders make for compelling viewing. Think of attention-seeking Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind (1939). Or the manipulation and callous disregard for others in Silence of the Lambs (1991), The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) and Chopper (2000). Then there are the fears of abandonment and emotional instability in Fatal Attraction (1987) and Girl, Interrupted (1999).</p>
<p>Cinema is less adept, however, at showing the ordinary joys, heartache and sometimes suicidal despair of the friends, workers or relatives we might know with personality disorders.</p>
<h2>What makes a personality ‘disordered’?</h2>
<p>Personality describes individual characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. A personality disorder is a class of mental disorders that are diagnosed when these patterns are repeatedly and seriously inflexible and dysfunctional, over an extended period of time. </p>
<p>Personality disturbances have long been recognised through history. Narcissism takes its name from the Greek myth of 50BC. Beautiful Narcissus was transfixed by his reflection in a pool of water. The longer he stared, the more he was driven by both passion and heartache. Over time he died in this state of self-absorbed despair.</p>
<p>People with personality disorders behave and perceive themselves, and others, in a markedly different way to most in their culture. These ideas and behaviours tend to develop in adolescence or early adulthood and are enduring. This can cause significant distress and impairment in all facets of life. </p>
<h2>How common are they?</h2>
<p>Personality disorders represent one of the most prevalent and severe mental health conditions. Around <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001270050276#page-1">6.5% of Australian adults</a> will have a personality disorder over their lifetime. Data samples of more than 21,000 people worldwide, including Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia, show a similar prevalence of <a href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/195/1/46.long">6.1%</a>. </p>
<p>About <a href="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.149.2.213">40% to 60% of psychiatric patients</a> have a personality disorder, with similar rates in drug and alcohol units and prisons. </p>
<p>Personality disorders account for about <a href="https://ihmri.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@ihmri/documents/doc/uow177533.pdf">one in four</a> mental health emergency visits and inpatient hospitalisations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=439&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75053/original/image-20150317-11980-mvse0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=552&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scarlett in Gone with the Wind is a classic illustration of histrionic personality disorder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/marysolra/12990592524/in/photolist-34D8Yw-bys4k1-nvZrLd-9cXNF6-7ofDdv-bMmKuR-9d1VsC-9d1SDJ-94WHhV-qCEUjM-nvZWVT-nQgqYp-nvZXpt-nLrjx5-nNqTy3-nvZgcW-nvZXDB-bys4os-kMWbzb-7HSegc-nK6enP-qnpjir-poLNBR-9d1Jso-9cXi1r-9d1y9d-9d1xnS-9d1FyY-9d1Ted-9cXN9D-9cXPui-9cXPPZ-4hPBzv-kMWbBL-nNqUdE-nvZrwA-5z4Avj-nvZgHA-nNbMNk-6ZLKvo-bys4sJ-nNtTwz-kMUNsr-bys4mS-nNjhQ5-nQgqoX-qnnXpX-5z4Jqs-nvZqx1-5yZwq2">Razi Marysol Machay/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How are they diagnosed?</h2>
<p>Personality disorder is a diagnosed mental illness included in both the World Health Organization’s <a href="http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/">International Classification of Diseases</a> (ICD-10, 1994) and the American Psychiatric Association’s <a href="http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm">Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</a> (DSM-5, 2013). </p>
<p>Although there is considerable individual variation, four broad areas of difficulty are common:</p>
<ul>
<li>regulating emotions, such as sudden surges of anger or despair</li>
<li>disturbed relationships, such as being aloof or overly familiar</li>
<li>confused thinking: difficulty understanding the self and misperceiving others’ intentions</li>
<li>associated problem behaviours, such as impulsiveness with drug use, promiscuous sexual behaviour, or self-harm. </li>
</ul>
<h2>What are the causes?</h2>
<p>Personality disorders appear to have both genetic and environmental causes. Individual genetic differences in temperament and attachment patterns early in life seem to play a role, as some people appear pre-wired to be more hypersensitive or ambivalent about bonding with others. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.psyn-journal.com/article/S0925-4927%2812%2900040-6/abstract">Imaging studies</a> of brain functioning report reductions in amygdala and hippocampal regions, perhaps reflecting the difficulties in regulating emotions and integrating autobiographical memories. </p>
<p>Compounding these difficulties is environmental trauma, including experiences of neglect or abuse during childhood or young adulthood, often found in the histories of those with severe personality dysfunction. </p>
<h2>What are the sub-types?</h2>
<p>There is little consensus among experts about personality disorder subtypes. DSM-5 lists ten, clustered into three groups: </p>
<ul>
<li>the “odd and eccentric” (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal)</li>
<li>the “dramatic, emotional and erratic” (antisocial, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-borderline-personality-disorder-12523">borderline</a>, histrionic, narcissistic)</li>
<li>the “anxious and fearful” (avoidant, dependent and obsessive-compulsive).<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Yet a section at the back of DSM-5 proposes to reduce the subtypes to six: antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, schizotypal. This was meant to replace the current ten, but deep divisions in the DSM-5 personality disorder working group (two members resigned) forced the DSM committee to move this proposal into an “emerging measures and models” section. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75048/original/image-20150317-13671-pssz1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Personality patterns are difficult to change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/genista/699082840">Kai Schreiber/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ICD-11 system due 2017 will likely replace all subtypes with a single disorder – personality disorder – rated on severity: mild, moderate, severe. </p>
<p>This will help overcome the lack of consensus, as subtypes tend to significantly overlap, and will align the ICD system with <a href="http://health.vic.gov.au/abf/history.htm">activity-based or casemix</a> health funding models. Therefore, a diagnosis of severe personality disorder – whatever subtype – will justify funding longer-term and more intense treatments over those with milder severity. </p>
<p>ICD-11 has not altogether abandoned individual differences, allowing four descriptors, likely to be named dissocial (similar to antisocial), negative affective (similar to borderline), anankastic (similar to obsessive compulsive), and detached (similar to schizoid or schizotypal). </p>
<h2>How are they treated?</h2>
<p>Research over the past 20 years shows that psychological therapies work for many people with personality disorders. The <a href="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09010039">two-thirds</a> who remain in treatment for a year achieve significant benefits. </p>
<p>But personality patterns are difficult to change. The median duration of evidence-based therapy for adults is about one year – at least 32 sessions – but many require longer programs. </p>
<p>There is little evidence that medications are an effective treatment. </p>
<p>Recently published <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2013/198/9/improved-prognosis-borderline-personality-disorder">clinical practice guidelines</a> emphasise the importance of intervening early with adolescents. A diagnosis can be made in young people from about age 13 to 15 if problems persist for more than a year. </p>
<p>New models of care are being implemented, including our own <a href="https://ihmri.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@ihmri/documents/doc/uow177533.pdf">step down model</a> to better manage this disorder. This involves offering a brief personality disorders-friendly psychological <a href="https://ihmri.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@ihmri/documents/doc/uow188404.pdf">intervention</a> within one to three days of crisis, followed by assessment and care planning for <a href="https://ihmri.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@ihmri/documents/doc/uow189005.pdf">appropriate</a> longer-term support. </p>
<p>This model is based on the findings from recent randomised controlled trials that weekly <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673614613945">generalist psychological therapies</a> can be as effective as more intensive specialist programs, and are easier to learn and implement.</p>
<p>Psychotherapy can be hard for those involved, especially during the early months, as developing a secure trusting relationship with a psychologist is difficult because of the nature of the disorder. </p>
<p><a href="http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_108">Research</a> from our team has demonstrated how ordinary therapists go into consultations with borderline and depressed patients with the same desire to help, but with the former they leave the consultation room more depleted and distressed – even if they are very trained and experienced. </p>
<p>Similarly, family, relatives and carers of people with the disorder <a href="http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_136">also report</a> significant emotional burden in their caring role. </p>
<p>Maintaining compassion, hopefulness and patience despite setbacks is important, and better treatments and the experiences of people who have recovered, are now challenging the stigma surrounding personality disorder.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36780/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brin F.S. Grenyer receives funding from NSW Health to direct the Project Air Strategy for Personality Disorders.</span></em></p>Personality disorders have been richly illustrated by filmmakers. Think of attention-seeking Scarlett in Gone with the Wind. Or the villains in Silence of the Lambs and The Talented Mr. Ripley.Brin F.S. Grenyer, Professor of Psychology, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387782015-03-22T19:16:00Z2015-03-22T19:16:00ZToxic boss at work? Here are some tips for coping<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74756/original/image-20150313-7070-n7wzqk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If your manager's behaviour leaves you feeling anxious, angry or unwell, you're not alone. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Australia, workplace health and safety legislation effectively holds employers responsible for ensuring the emotional, psychological and physical wellbeing of employees. </p>
<p>Mental stress claims lodged by affected employees against their employer <a href="http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/workers-compensation-claims-for-mental-stress-in-australia">increased by 25%</a> from 2001 to 2011. Although the proportion of stress claims specifically relating to “poor relationships with superiors” was not reported, a Medibank Private commissioned study reported that in 2007 the total cost of work related stress to the Australian economy was A$14.8 billion; the direct cost to employers alone in stress-related <a href="http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/06/why-presenteeism-is-worse-than-absenteeism/">presenteeism</a> and absenteeism was A$10.11 billion. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25470138">study</a> into the impact of systemic toxic behaviours exhibited by managers found that even one or two toxic behaviours, such as manipulating and intimidating, was enough to cause significant harm to employees’ mental and physical health. </p>
<p>The most common toxic behaviours exhibited by managers include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Constantly seeks and needs praise</li>
<li>Has to win at all costs</li>
<li>Lapses into time consuming, self-praising anecdotes</li>
<li>Charms, cultivates and manipulates</li>
<li>Plays favourites</li>
<li>Takes credit for others’ work</li>
<li>Lies</li>
<li>Bullies and abuses others</li>
<li>Incessantly criticises others publicly</li>
<li>Has mood swings and temper tantrums</li>
<li>Treats all workplace interactions as a fault-finding exercise</li>
<li>Takes all decision making authority away</li>
<li>Micro manages everything you do</li>
<li>Promises to take action but later reneges</li>
<li>Ignores requests</li>
</ul>
<h2>Impact on wellbeing</h2>
<p>Negative consequences for wellbeing reported by participants in the study included:</p>
<p><strong>Psychological</strong></p>
<p>Anxiety, depression, burnout, cynicism, helplessness, social isolation, loss of confidence, feeling undervalued.</p>
<p><strong>Emotional</strong></p>
<p>Anger, disappointment, distress, fear, frustration, mistrust, resentment, humiliation.</p>
<p><strong>Physical</strong></p>
<p>Insomnia, hair loss, weight loss/gain, headaches, stomach upsets, viruses and colds.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74755/original/image-20150313-7087-3vgbya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One way to deal with toxic managers is to escalate the risk and report it to senior management. However, a common theme in the study was frustration felt by participants when no action was taken after reporting the leaders’ toxic behaviours. Sometimes organisations are reluctant to take action against the offender, perhaps because they hold important relationships, bring in significant revenue, or for fear they will become litigious if challenged. Organisations that choose to ignore toxic leadership behaviours are likely to incur increased stress claims and litigation costs.</p>
<p>How can employee wellbeing be preserved? First, it is necessary to understand whether the offending leader is well intentioned, but unaware of their dysfunctional behaviours. If so, one strategy is to outline the specific behaviours that are causing distress to the leader in question, to let them know the impact of their behaviour through performance management processes. However, if it is felt there is deliberate intent on their part to get their own way at the expense of those around them, other options should be considered, such as commencing disciplinary action.</p>
<h2>Individual coping strategies</h2>
<p>If you are experiencing toxic leadership, and feel you are not in a position to report it, or leave the organisation, coping strategies reported in the study as helpful were:</p>
<ul>
<li>Seeking social support from colleagues, mentor, friends and family</li>
<li>Seeking professional support, i.e. Employee Assistance Program, counsellor, psychologist, general practitioner</li>
<li>Seeking advice from Human Resources</li>
<li>Undertaking health and well-being activities, i.e. diet, exercise, meditation, yoga, breathing exercises</li>
<li>Restructuring your thoughts about the incidents in question to maintain a sense of calm and manage your state of mind.</li>
</ul>
<h2>What not to do</h2>
<p>Coping strategies that were reported as having negative consequences or prolonging stress and fear of their leader were:</p>
<ul>
<li>Confronting the leader</li>
<li>Avoiding, ignoring or bypassing the leader</li>
<li>Whistle blowing</li>
<li>Ruminating on the wrongs done and reliving the feelings of anger and frustration</li>
<li>Focusing on work</li>
<li>Taking sick leave (short-term relief only).</li>
</ul>
<p>Individuals regularly on the receiving end of toxic behaviours commonly start questioning themselves, doubting their capabilities and feeling locked into their current situation/role/organisation.</p>
<p>To protect against such frustration, ensure you have an up-to-date career plan, clearly outlining your strengths, achievements, personal values, work preferences, development opportunities, and employability. Keep your resume and online profile up to date and ensure you are well networked in your occupation and industry - all part of a contingency plan to exit the toxic workplace situation should it become untenable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38778/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Brough receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Vicki Webster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research has found even one or two toxic behaviours by a manager can significantly harm the mental health of employees.Dr Vicki Webster, PhD Candidate, Griffith UniversityPaula Brough, Professor and Director, Social & Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.