Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (20 page)

Psychological Employment Contract

Historically, people have joined large organizations because of the many benefits afforded them. Businesses, the military, and governments offer chances to build a career in one’s area of competence; they provide access to financial and technical resources individuals rarely acquire on their own, and, for those so motivated, there is the opportunity for advancement. The “psychological contract” implied by employment in older (1940s–1970s)-style organizations could include a long, profitable career; job security; good benefits; and employment for life. The “gold watch” received upon retirement was
Darkness and Chaos

151

one of several symbols promised those who worked hard, did a quality job, and did not steal or lie. The implication that one could stay employed as long as the company could sell its product had a powerful effect in building employee loyalty. The psychological contract afforded individuals the feelings of security, trust, and respect they expected, and provided companies the well-trained and experienced workforce they needed to compete successfully.

Loyalty and competence were the foundations of a strong bond between employees and their employers for many years. Both organization and individual profited from this model because of the stability it offered, and because of the focused energy, talent, expertise, and experience available to address day-to-day business issues and minor marketplace fluctuations. The reality was not always so rosy, of course, but in general, this model of stability worked, especially during times of high demand, intense profitability, and limited competition, when manufacturing, engineering, and basic service industries were at their peak.

Employee surveys collected during this period showed that job satisfaction was influenced more by the chance to interact productively with others than by money. While money was, and is, always important, it was rarely first on the list—in fact, money tended to be rated somewhere in the middle, often lower than social interaction, job security, “the chance to do meaningful work,” and “appreciation from the boss.”

Management theories popular at this time focused on building and enhancing individual self-esteem, listening and responding to ideas from employees, and capitalizing on human needs, such as security, social interaction, career advancement, and self-actualization, a term that captured the psychological need to achieve one’s own potential in life. During the late 1970s, teamwork replaced traditional command-and-control hierarchies as employees were en-trusted with decisions affecting their own work, and group decisions about needed business improvements often took precedence. As organizations grew and developed more sophistication, they tended to
152

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

integrate systems and processes into their culture—such as quality circles and participative management—that linked the most important elements of employee satisfaction to company profits.

Normal Change

During the normal course of business operations changes occur regularly, although not always as predictably as one would like. Change was relatively slow but steady during this period and technological changes could be effectively met with management and employee education and training. For example, financial changes, measured in terms of fluctuations in profit and loss, might lead to educating employees on cost structures, and then initiating cost containment, reengineering, and gain-sharing programs to address unfavorable (negative) variances from budget. The financial impact of other changes was more difficult to quantify, especially those affecting the structure of the organization, such as “centralization” or “decentral-ization” of functions, changes in reporting relationships, the size of staff, and the mix of talents required to keep the business profitable.

The processes used to create and sell products also changed as technological innovations took the form of new or upgraded equipment emerging from advances in science and engineering. The employees who comprised the organization routinely changed, although not dramatically—3 to 5 percent turnover was considered normal—due to attrition, hiring, and retirement. Major business changes sometimes required replacing employees with those better educated in the latest technology, but given enough lead time and supporting programs (such as retraining and outplacement assistance), the transi-tions could be made smoothly.

Despite much of the change during this early period, many organizations and most people were able to adapt quite effectively, and the psychological contract, although stretched, helped in this effort.

Darkness and Chaos

153

How We Respond to Change Matters

People respond to changes in many different ways, and how we, as individuals, perceive change often determines how we react to it. In general, any change to the status quo—a new situation, unexpected event, or unmet expectation—is initially met with apprehension and frustration, and is experienced as negative unless accompanied by adequate forewarning and additional, reassuring, information.

Imagine that your company has decided to reorganize and you are told that you will be getting a new boss and you will be asked to perform a new job. How would you feel? You could find yourself going through several emotions. Basic psychology tells us that when our actions toward the things we want (technically called goal-directed behavior) are blocked, interrupted, or delayed, we experience frustration. The feeling of frustration drives a variety of subsequent behaviors, which differ from person to person depending on his or her personality and situational factors. The most prevalent response to frustration, though, is anger or aggression toward those who are changing our plans or getting in our way—yelling and complaining are socially approved ways to express frustration, but overt physical aggression is not unheard of. Other reactions to frustration include the tendency to avoid those who are frustrating us (for example, by calling in sick); the desire to escape the frustrating situation (for example, by fantasizing about leaving the company); “regressive” behaviors, such as feeling hopeless and wanting to cry; and physiological and psychological stress. These initial frustration reactions are quite natural, perhaps hard-wired into the makeup of most of us. Unfortunately, none of these gut reactions really help us deal with the change that caused our frustration in the first place. Instead, they take energy that could be applied to the changed situation (in this example, learning about our new boss and job) rather than dissipating it in somewhat unproductive activities (in this example, anger, complaining, and calling in sick).

154

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

However, once we get over the initial frustration we can get back on track, start to think of the situation as a problem to be solved (rather than a personal attack) and return our focus to the real goal (in this example, getting along with our new boss and doing a good job). During this time, through problem solving and decision making (technically called the increased striving stage), we try to understand what has really happened to us and assess whether and how we can learn to live with it. We analyze and evaluate just how “bad” the situation is and begin to strategize our way out, around, or over the barrier that we now see blocking our path.

Once we figure this out, we can take well-thought-out action and work toward reestablishing our connection to the original goal that was taken away from us. Should this fail—and it may—we are at least better prepared to seek a reasonable substitute. These “try harder,” “get back into the game,” “never give up” feelings and behaviors can be very productive, certainly more so than the frustration we initially felt.

During major organizational change, virtually all affected employees experience frustration at the same time and go through these stages, although at different rates and degrees. Managing the collective emotional state of an organization is not an easy job; inexperienced managers and executives may not even know that it exists, labeling discontent with the changes at hand as simply resistance and skepticism. In fact, resistance is a reasonably good indication of frustration, while skepticism is a good indication that individuals have moved into the problem-solving and decision-making (increased striving) stage. Executives who wish to manage change need to help employees move from the resistance stage, through the skepticism stage, and into the support stage.

A good sign that people have entered the skeptic state is their raising questions about the proposed changes and beginning to look for a rationale that makes sense to them before they can begin to feel comfortable again. Before they lend their support, many skeptics need to be convinced that the proposed changes are good for them
Darkness and Chaos

155

and the long-term survival of the company. Some may offer alternative strategies for dealing with the business issues at hand, once they understand them. They want to be included in the process—a sign to them that they are valued and respected as individuals.

With increased communication from the organization, some individuals will have their skepticism addressed to their satisfaction, and they will become supporters. Supporters are those who ultimately like and agree with the change being proposed, and are willing to exert effort to support it; to them the change is good. Other individuals will find their earlier fears confirmed and decide that they cannot go along with the changes. Some may decide that the changes are not in their best interests and choose to take their talents elsewhere: they may leave the organization or seek a transfer to another department.

One key to overcoming frustration is information. The amount of accurate information you have about the change, in particular, the potential impact of the change on you—answers to the question,

“What’s in it for me?”—can and will affect how long you remain frustrated. Honest and accurate information is the antidote to concerns and fears brought on by impending change. Seeking information is a natural response to disruptions to the status quo; it is an attempt to reestablish stability in a seemingly unstable world.

Managing Change Is a Leader’s Job

Managing change is a difficult business, perhaps one of the greatest tests of effective leadership. It requires the right blend of human resource management and tactical business and financial skills, as well as an excellent sense of timing. Seasoned leaders familiar with normal reactions to changes in the workplace take the necessary action to bring as many individuals on board as soon as possible. The questions and concerns of skeptics are addressed openly, and potential leavers are sometimes offered incentives to remain on staff during the
156

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

transition, especially if they have knowledge, skills, and abilities that will be required by the organization in the future. Unfortunately, there are always some less enlightened leaders who turn a blind eye toward the concerns of affected individuals. Perhaps they believe in their own power to “edict” change, do not care about who leaves and who stays, or are unable to confront the frustration and powerless-ness they themselves feel.

Change professionals, sometimes called organizational development specialists, can help executives manage the many facets of change and help the organization maintain as much stability as possible while the change takes place. This is often done by sharing information in a timely manner, enhancing communications among staff, job retraining, and, when the change necessitates downsizing, instituting useful outplacement services. Not surprisingly, many people will go along with and support changes brought on by competition, declining sales, increased business costs, or other business factors if they are let in on the process and their fears are addressed early on in the process. If the organization’s culture has been one of open communication and trust in management’s ability to manage the business, the task of change is easier, and the number of supporters will reach the critical mass needed to assure success.

Change Is a Fact of Life

If things never changed in our lives, we would be quite bored. From the moment of our birth, things around us are changing. As individuals, we are changing—physically, emotionally, and intellectually—

and as members of various social groups we are faced with change: siblings may be added to our family, parents grow old and eventually die, friends come and go, familiar faces in the neighborhood change, buildings and roads are built where beautiful forests once grew, and companies go in and out of business. Rulers and governments may also change. In an “ideal world,” periods of change will alternate
Darkness and Chaos

157

with periods of stability and calm. Focus will shift back and forth between worrying about the future and getting back to the job we were hired to do.

One might think that with all the changes we have experienced in life we would be quite good at handling change and would have been prepared for the business changes of the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, for many people this was not the case. The rate of change in business—and many other aspects of life—accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and the 1990s; the changes came too quickly and there were too many of them at once. There seemed to be no calm between the storms, and little time to deal with today’s frustration before being hit again. Without time to regroup, extreme stress and fatigue begin to overwhelm the organization and its members; frustration turns to fear, and fear to panic.

New technologies began to advance faster than many organizations’ ability to keep pace. The demand for better-quality and lower-cost products increased beyond the ability to cut costs and still meet demand. Government controls increased in some areas and decreased in others. Advances in computerization, in particular, have accelerated the rate of technological change affecting organizations and have led to dramatic social changes among the workforce as well.