Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (21 page)

Some of this change has had a positive effect. The Internet has opened a whole new world of exploration and study. Commerce in the computer age has advanced to the point where people can shop or do their banking at home at any time of night or day, and small entrepreneurial companies have grown in number as markets opened up that were once thought out of reach. Education—on just about everything—is now available to a greater number of individuals around the globe.

There have also been negative effects of this rapid change. A tremendous burden has been put on large organizations, forcing them to reinvent themselves quickly in order to remain competitive.

As almost a defensive maneuver, some large corporations have needed to merge, acquire other companies, or downsize their own
158

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

staff just to maintain their financial position. A larger number of people were put out of work than in previous times. While many seasoned businesses downsize, knowing that the human impact is often dramatic and the business decision is sometimes precarious, others do so out of fear, placing the human impact lower on the list of issues to be managed. A few companies merge simply for short-term financial gain with little understanding of, or concern for, the fact that their decisions dramatically affect the people who work for them and the long-term viability of their companies.

Clearly, major changes can be successfully implemented if they take place over a reasonable amount of time and the frustrations they create are effectively managed. They can breathe new life into a stag-nant situation, reenergize everyone to work toward a new vision of the future, and create opportunities where none existed before. But during the unstable period of the 1980s and 1990s, too many things changed, seemingly all at once, with little time to build supporting policies, procedures, and systems before the next changes came about. In contrast to old-style bureaucratic organizations that were built on stability, consistency, and predictability, the new transitional organizations were forced to give up these “luxuries,” having to become more fluid in the face of an unstable, inconsistent, and unpredictable future. In order to survive, many management processes had to be dismantled because they were no longer effective (or efficient), and supporting them with time and energy could no longer be justified. Organizations got “flatter” as middle management positions were eliminated in an effort to streamline decision making. Support services were outsourced or moved entirely out of the region to save time and money and reduce the number of headaches. This degree of change did not allow leaders to maintain the same commitments to long-term employment as their predecessors. A dwindling workforce was being asked to do more with less, or else join their colleagues who lost their jobs. At some point along the way, the concept of the “psychological contract” was challenged, and it eventually gave way to a world where the employee-employer relationship was
Darkness and Chaos

159

seen as a transitory one rather than a long-term partnership. This dramatically affected executives, managers, and employees emotionally, psychologically, and socially—causing even the most confident people to feel that they had lost control of their lives.

Are We There Yet?

The rate of technological change has been rapid since the turn of the twentieth century and is growing exponentially every minute. You need only consider how outdated your new computer is barely one month after you take it out of the box. Or the fact that the length of time between the Wright brothers’ lifting off at Kitty Hawk and Neil Armstrong’s first step onto the moon was only sixty-six years—barely one lifetime! When business or industry upheaval overtakes the organization’s ability to respond effectively, a state of chaos is created.

Few of us are ready to handle chaotic change effectively, and evolution has not been very helpful, moving at its own slow pace. When thrust into chaotically changing situations, we experience intense feelings of frustration, stress, loss of control, and anxiety.

Now imagine that rapid change becomes the rule rather than the exception. Yesterday’s change is changing today, and will change again tomorrow; there is seemingly no light at the end of the tunnel.

Companies that once focused on determining the ideal vision of the

“future” organization (and planning the necessary steps to get there) now find themselves in a constant state of transitioning. Furthermore, not everything changes at the same rate, and interrelated elements become unglued, adding confusion to an already unstable time. Organizations in a constant state of transitioning are characterized by unclear, outdated, unenforceable, or nonexistent work rules and policies; inconsistent risk taking; greater tolerance for controversial, perhaps even abusive, behaviors; and antiquated measurement systems and communication networks. At best, the ideal future states of these organizations are fuzzy.

160

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

The leader’s job becomes increasingly complex but far less well defined during these times of change—itself a frustrating thing.

Traditional strategic planning, organizing, and motivating skills are of limited use. While a good deal of this change is perceived to be necessary for the company’s survival, can executives, managers, or employees survive as well?

Who Succeeds?

Who succeeds in this environment, in this new culture of change?

Most management experts agree that in order to survive the chaos, employees, managers, and executives must adopt constant change as a work style and lifestyle—the management term for this is embrace change. They must become faster thinkers, more assertive and persuasive. They must become much more creative, capable of design-ing, developing, building, and selling new products and services to meet ever-changing demands in a world of fierce competition and highly selective buyers. They must learn to feel comfortable making faster decisions with less information, and recover from mistakes more quickly. They must be willing to live with the consequences, even if they risk failure. They must take control of their own careers by reassessing their talents and skills and then repackaging them for the new marketplace. While our parents and grandparents worked for one or two companies for their entire lives, we must be ready to move through six or seven.

Organizations that survive chaotic times are those whose employees not only grow comfortable with uncertainty, but can build systems, processes, and structures capable of anticipating it and flexible enough to respond to it (that is, change again, as necessary). In order to do this, successfully transitioning companies need fewer su-perfluous rules (which hold back progress) and clearer mission-critical rules (which keep the business on track). They need a much more meaningful set of guiding principles that managers can use to
Darkness and Chaos

161

make informed decisions when new problems and unique situations arise. A good example is the business decision made by the Johnson

& Johnson Company, whose executives turned to their founding principles for guidance during the Tylenol tragedy. Their decision—

to remove all Tylenol products from the shelves so no additional con-sumers could be placed in harm’s way—cost a lot of money, loss of market share, and disruption to the company’s operations, but the costs paled against the consequences that were avoided. Those who recall this event may remember that the entire nation was caught in the grip of fear, and other related industries, in particular the product packaging industry, were also affected. J&J, when faced with an unprecedented situation, made a dramatic decision that turned out to be correct, and it is continually held up in management seminars as an example of excellent leadership during a time of uncertainty.

Having clear, shared values and sticking to them unwaveringly is the key; we will say more about this in a subsequent chapter.

Enter Those with Entrepreneurial Spirit
At the top of our “success list” would be individuals with entrepreneurial spirit, those who enjoy change and the challenges it brings and the opportunities it affords. Entrepreneurs, whether in business or science, seem to have very high tolerance for frustration. The definition of an entrepreneur, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “one who organizes a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of the profit.” Contrary to popular belief, not all entrepreneurs start their own companies. In fact, there is evidence that many entrepreneurial types can be very effective working within big companies, particularly those that are willing to make some accommodations for their needs. Entrepreneurial types require access to resources, a continuous stream of challenges to do new and exciting things, personal recognition for success, feedback about failures, and, most of all, freedom to act. While these accommodations are difficult for
162

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

old-style bureaucracies to offer, the transitioning organization—

forced to make changes to its business model, anyway—is in an ideal position to adopt these new approaches. By replacing the long-abandoned employment-for-life psychological contract with the new entrepreneurial psychological contract, transitioning organizations are better able to gain the flexibility needed to survive chaos. This requires treating employees as individual contributors, responsible for their own career advancement, and rewarding them with large salaries for innovative, fast-paced problem solving—as well as the chance to continue to work on new, exciting projects. The symbiosis of employees with entrepreneurial talents and the transitioning organization can lead to the constant reinventing, rebuilding, and reenergizing that both need for survival and growth. If well managed (using new management techniques, of course, not old ones), the results can be impressive.

Unfortunately, this business model is far easier to theorize about than to actually implement. There are several reasons for this, all of them very human. First, it is very difficult to convince current executives, managers, and employees that they should give up their need for safety and security—no longer part of the contract—in exchange for a model in which their skills and abilities may not be worth anything tomorrow, and the company feels no obligation to retain them.

Second, it is difficult to regain employee loyalty, especially once the organization has breached the employment-for-life psychological contract and substituted an entrepreneurial psychological contract.

Management credibility, one of the foundations of employee loyalty, is also open to question—“How come they let the company get into this situation?” and “Didn’t they see this coming?” are recurring challenges those in control must constantly face from the workforce if they expect to attract and retain talented entrepreneurs. Third, those with power and authority rarely give it up willingly, even in service of the greater good of the organization. (President George Washington is one of the few great leaders who rejected “kingship”

and refused to continue as president once he felt his job was done.) These individuals may feel threatened by the erosion of their own
Darkness and Chaos

163

positions, and can sabotage the transition by virtue of their sense of entitlement. Fourth, organizations may look to new employees, often much younger and less experienced, in order to find those with entrepreneurial spirit. This is often easier than converting those already on board because of the opportunities the new hires see and seek.

Current individuals may not want to support the new entrepreneurial employees, who seem to be getting more attention than they ever got themselves. At the very least, this may create envy among the current staff, especially when asked to give up precious resources (such as money and staff) they may have fought long and hard to acquire.

Fifth, all of this assumes that companies can find individuals who truly possess entrepreneurial talents in the marketplace, a task far more difficult than expected—for the competition for them is fierce.

Hiring, retraining, or promoting the right people has never been easy; it is a constant struggle to find candidates who can fit in, even in stable times. During transitioning, the job requirements of an entrepreneur, themselves vague, make the process even more prone to wrong decisions.

But I’m Not as Bad as the Others

A former top executive who had reported directly to the president of a large company had received stellar performance reviews and was considered a role model at the company. Yet he was fired, along with several other executives, after fraudulently billing the company for millions of dollars of unauthorized spending.

In his wrongful dismissal suit brought against the company, the former executive contended that he may have violated the company’s integrity code, but that his behavior was not as bad as that of other miscreants who were treated less harshly by the company. The judge rejected this argument on the grounds that a good work record doesn’t mean that blatant dishonesty should go unpunished.

164

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

The Pretenders

Would someone with a psychopathic personality, turned off by earning an honest living in general, even be interested in joining one of these transitioning companies? Unfortunately, the answer we found is yes, as organizations have become more psychopath friendly in recent years. Rapid business growth, increased downsizing, frequent reorganizations, mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures have inadvertently increased the number of attractive employment opportunities for individuals with psychopathic personalities—without the need for them to correct or change their psychopathic attitudes and behaviors.

What is it about these new organizations that make them so attractive to psychopaths? First, these “entrepreneurial pretenders”

find change personally stimulating. Their thrill-seeking nature draws them to situations where a lot is happening and happening quickly.