PUTTIN' COLOGNE ON THE RICKSHAW

“I wanted to know the difference between Heaven and Hell so I decided to visit them both. I first went to Hell. There I found people sitting at long tables filled with sumptuous food, but they were all emaciated and starving. They had spoons that were 6 feet long and could not bend their arms in such a way to feed themselves.

“I then went to Heaven and saw a slightly different situation. The people there were also sitting around long tables piled with food. They too had 6 feet long spoons, but they were all well-nourished and happy because they were feeding each other across the table.

“I then understood. Heaven and Hell offer the same circumstances and conditions. The critical difference is in the way people treat each other.”

This story is an adaptation from a parable called “The Allegory of the Long Spoons.” The allegory depicts the difference between heaven and hell by means of people forced to eat with long spoons. It’s credited to Rabbi Haim of Romshishok, Lithuania who supposedly once told this story to his congregation. The story suggests that people have the opportunity to use what they are given (the long spoons in this case) to help each other, but the problem, as Haim points out, lies in how people treat each other and fail to help each other. Nowhere is the problem of how people treat each other more noticeable than every day in workplaces all over the world.

Given the same level playing field one group of people who treat each other well will create a pleasant environment–Heaven. Whereas, another group of people, given exactly the same tools to work with, can create unpleasant conditions–Hell–simply by how they treat each other. Of course the operative words are: level playing field and we all know the workplace is not always a level playing field. This is a simple truth about the workplace which can be easily forgotten by people unable to see their situation clearly or are in denial. A dysfunctional workplace culture can cloud even the most intelligent people’s judgment and morals, i.e., they begin to mimic the prevailing dysfunction. In the end your particular workplace can be either Heaven or Hell depending on your perspective–or more appropriately on whether you’re a victim or a perpetrator.

One day while walking down the street a highly successful business person was tragically hit by a bus and died. Upon arrival in heaven he was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter. “Welcome to Heaven,” said St. Peter. “Before you get settled in though, we have an offer for you to make sure you’ll be happy.” “No problem,” said the man.

St. Peter then told him, “What we’re going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in.” “Actually, I think I’ve made up my mind, I prefer to stay in Heaven”, said the man.

“Sorry, we have rules,” said St. Peter. And with that St. Peter put the executive in an elevator and it went down to hell. The doors opened and he found himself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a country club and standing in front of him were all his friends–fellow executives that he had worked with and they were all dressed in nice suits and cheering for him. They ran up and shook his hand and they talked about old times. They played an excellent round of golf and at night went to the country club where he enjoyed an excellent steak and lobster dinner. He met the Devil who seemed to be a really nice guy and he had a great time telling jokes and socializing. He was having such a good time that before he knew it, it was time to leave. Everybody shook his hand and waved goodbye as he got on the elevator. The elevator went up and opened back up at the Pearly Gates where he found St. Peter waiting for him.

“Now it’s time to spend a day in heaven,” he said. So he spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing the harp. He had a great time and before he knew it his 24 hours were up and St. Peter came and got him. “So, you’ve spent a day in hell and you’ve spent a day in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity,” he said.

The man paused for a second and then replied, “Well, I never thought I’d say this, I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell.” So St. Peter escorted him to the elevator and again se went down to Hell.

When the doors of the elevator opened he found himself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in garbage and filth. He saw his colleagues were dressed in rags and were picking up the garbage and putting it in sacks. The Devil came up to him and put his arm around him.

“I don’t understand,” stammered the man, “yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate steak and lobster and had a great time. Now all there is is a wasteland of garbage and all my friends look miserable.” The Devil looked at him and smiled. “Yesterday we were recruiting you, today you’re staff.”

This story dramatizes how a workplace can look perfectly fine when you’re interviewing but once you’ve started work it turns into a Hell very quickly. Even the most dysfunctional organizations that I’ve worked for in the past always came across as Heaven during the interview process. Why? Misery loves company–just like the folks the man saw in Hell–fellow executives that he had worked with and they were all dressed in nice suits and cheering for him. In an interview people will expound on how great their company is to a new prospective all the while knowing it’s a Hell on Earth.

The Marriage of Heaven and Hell is a book by the English poet William Blake. It was composed around 1793, in the period of radical upheaval and political conflict immediately after the French Revolution. It is a series of texts written to express Blake’s own intensely personal and revolutionary beliefs.

All of us are led to believe that Heaven is good, and Hell is bad. Countless stories, books, movies and anecdotes equate Heaven with all that is good and Hell with all that is evil and that these are diametrically opposed and in different locations. Unlike that of Dante, according to Blake, both good and bad are necessary, coexist, and are interwoven parts of existence. Blake tells us that good and evil aren’t what we think they are–they’re different states of being or thinking–they are the result of how we function every day in the workplace toward our colleagues. Blake’s assertion is that both are needed to keep the world (workplace) going.

Such is the average workplace–a marriage of Heaven and Hell. Which it is for you personally will depend on your situation and it’s different for each member of an organization. For sociopathic bullies, the dysfunctional, dog-eat-dog workplace they create is their Heaven but, for the poor souls that are the target of their wrath the same workplace can be a living Hell. And the distance between the two isn’t very far at all.

I just discovered the 1998 article “Tenth Circle Added to Rapidly Growing Hell” on the website the Onion.com humorously detailing the addition of a 10th level to Dante’s Inferno. While a bit dated it’s timely to my blog post of a couple weeks ago on Dante’s version of what Hell must be like. The article was written in the form of a humorous press release that reads as such:

“CITY OF DIS, NETHER HELL–After nearly four years of construction at an estimated cost of 750 million souls, Corpadverticus, the new 10th circle of Hell, finally opened its doors Monday. Located in Nether Hell between the former eighth and ninth levels it is expected to greatly alleviate the overcrowding problems that have plagued the infernal underworld in recent years. The circle is the first added to Hell in its countless-millennia history.

“A nightmarishly large glut of condemned spirits in recent years necessitated the expansion of Hell, inferno spokesperson Antedeus said. ‘The traditional nine-tiered system had grown insufficient to accommodate the exponentially rising numbers of Hellbound.’ Adding to the need for expansion, Antedeus said, was the fact that ‘a majority of the new arrivals possessed souls far more evil than the original nine circles were equipped to handle [and] these new arrivals represent a wave of spiritual decay and horror the likes of which Hell has never before seen,’ Antedeus said.”

Interestingly the Onion article also tells us, “Prior to the construction of the tenth circle, many among the new wave of sinners had been placed in such circles as Hoarders and Squanderers, Sowers of Discord, Flatterers and Seducers, and Hypocrites. Hell authorities, however, say that the new level, the Circle of Total Bastards, located at the site of the former Well of Giants just above the Frozen Lake at Hell’s center, better suits their insidious brand of evil. In the past, the underworld was ill-equipped to handle the new breed of sinners flooding our gates but now, we’ve finally got the sort of top-notch Pits of Doom necessary to give such repellent abominations the quality boilings they deserve.”

Sounds like the perfect final resting place for the Machiavellian sociopathic type personalities found in today’s typical workplace.

The article calls this new level of Hell: “Corpadverticus,” or the Circle of Total Bastards, which from the makeup of the word appears perfect for the sinners coming from the “vertical corporate” structures we see today. I always though Dante missed a place for all the bullies and cut-throat type personalities found in today’s corporate world. Thus, this level is for the new kind of sinner…sociopaths from everyday life in the workplace who screw over their co-workers or subordinates and make the workplace the Hell that it can many times be. This new level is necessary in today’s world as it probably wasn’t the same type work environment back when Dante wrote The Inferno in the late 1200 and early 1300s–which explains why he didn’t include them as sinners in his Hell hierarchy.

However, by the time of Machiavelli things were different. Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance diplomat who lived in the late 1400s and early 1500s and wrote Il Principe (The Prince), among other works. The descriptions within The Prince have the general theme that the aims of princes (those who lead modern organizations) are glory and survival and the achievement of these can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends. Il Principe is the most remembered of Machiavelli’s works and the one most responsible for bringing the word “Machiavellian” into usage as a pejorative. It also is the perfect buzzword describing the personalities found in the workplace.

Machiavellian describes the kind of sinners we see in the workplace today. Thus the term for this type of evil workplace behavior is called Machiavellianism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Machiavellianism is, “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”

Cunning means showing skill in achieving one’s ends by deceit or evasion. Cunning sociopaths are artists in their crafty use of wiliness and trickery to get what they want. Duplicity is a contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially, the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action. Sound familiar? Sociopaths are masters at fooling people.

These two Machiavellian traits lend themselves nicely to the other typical traits of a sociopath. Machiavellian managers have an excessive and exaggerated feeling of self-importance, i.e., they’re thoroughly convinced of their own importance. Another dangerous trait (for everyone around them) is that they firmly believe that the ends justify the means. To them the workplace is a game–their career, all the way down to every personal interaction, is all part of the “game.”

Another key aspect of the Machiavellian mind is that they subscribe to the mentality that they must have absolute control and they accomplish this through manipulation. They know just the buttons to push and have no problems pushing them. They accomplish this through the “games” that I’ve talked about many times. If you’re not doing what they want–don’t worry–you will be soon and you won’t even know how it happened.

Another, almost comical, aspect is that Machiavellians love to be loved–after all they’re narcissists and figure if they love themselves then they think everybody else should love them. But that’s not quite the reaction they’re really looking for–they really love to be feared. I’ve written about fear in the workplace before–it’s the prime tool of sociopathic management to maintain control.

All these behaviors conspire to make the typical workplace a living Hell. So now if you’re unlucky enough to work in an organization run by these Machiavellian sociopaths at least you’ll have the pleasure of knowing that there’s a special place in Hell for their breed–Corpadverticus, the Circle of Total Bastards. Unfortunately if you’re in an organization run by these ilk, you’re kind of stuck in a “Hell on Earth” right along with them.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was a 1937 American animated film produced by Walt Disney based on the 1812 German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. The Brothers Grimm, Jacob (1785–1863) and Wilhelm (1786–1859), were German academics and authors who together collected and published folklore. We’re all familiar with the story line so I won’t take the space to repeat it here except to say that there are numerous popular ideas as to the presence of occult significance or symbolism within the story, that’s mostly centered on the Dwarves themselves.

For example, one theory holds that the seven dwarves correspond to the seven chakras (in Indian thought each of the seven centers of spiritual power in the human body), and that Snow White represents consciousness moving through them. Other ideas are less philosophically complex, such as each dwarf correspondences to an altered state of consciousness inherent in the use of certain drugs. In one theory, Snow White is cocaine, which causes exhaustion (Sleepy), mood swings (Happy, Grumpy), allergies (Sneezy) and alteration of personality (Bashful, Dopey) eventually resulting in a trip to the doctor (Doc).

These theories may be true as it’s hard to tell what the Brothers Grimm actually had in mind, or what drug they were on, when they wrote the fairy tale. That said, I do think there’s some symbolism in the form of the dwarfs that may prove very profound for all us delegated to the working world. Last week I provided an exposé contrasting the average modern worker to the different sinners in the Hell as envisioned by Dante in his Divine Comedy. This week we’ll take a look at workplace personalities for another perspective–that workers mimic the dwarves in this famous children’s story.

Everyone knows the dwarf’s names: Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey, all named for their distinguishing character traits. The names given the dwarfs are quite innocuous from a child’s perspective but if you dig a bit deeper they have distinct meaning when equating them to the typical characters roaming the halls of the modern workplace.

Let’s start with the leader (term used loosely): Doc. Doc is somewhat true to form to those found in upper management in business−a bit pompous, self-important and from a relationship perspective: bumbling. In the movie Doc is seen often getting his words confused. This is much like the typical business sociopath who displays little interpersonal skills and most often, through his/her own words makes matters worse–mostly because people have begun to not believe a word he/she says. Priding himself as a self-styled natural born leader, this makes Doc highly opinionated and bossy. In a business environment he would undoubtedly try to take over control of a meeting. Like all good narcissists he wants everyone to know he’s an expert and although he feigns interest in obtaining consensus from others he can be intimidating–thus he usually gets his way. Doc is like most management types suffering from a superiority complex which negates any innate skills they may truly have.

Happy represents the typical workplace optimist who’s always disgustingly happy. He’s the type who sees the glass as half full. Despite any and all adverse circumstance he is the epitome of positive attitude. People like this can be very likable, warm, and energetic; however, they get on your nerves after a while and you just want to strangle them−much like some of the hopeless optimists in the workplace. In meetings you’ll find them sitting at the leader’s proverbial (and literal) right, nodding affirmatively, and expressing positive interest in anything the sociopathic leader says. These type people will generally agree with the leader on anything and everything. Happy is your perfect sycophantic personality that will always crowd around a leader, despite whether the leader is really a “leader,” or not. These are your typical “sociopath in training” types who gravitate to middle management.

Grumpy is the consummate cynic found in all organizations−he sees the glass as half empty. Grumpy type workers like to see things running smoothly and systematically but because of the reality of the workplace spend most of their days disgruntled. They value competence, efficiency and will go out of their way to make sure they finish any assignment if for no other reason than their own satisfaction. Grumpy types will however, often disagree with what’s going on–using sarcasm as a method to get their point across. They may say “No” when asked to do something they deem a waste of time. These types are critical, or judgmental, of whatever is being discussed−they pride themselves on being the devil’s advocate and as such are naturally suspicious and distrustful. They may be argumentative and seem hard to control unless they are recognized as a valuable voice of sanity. Most organizations don’t recognize the value of this type personality and will deem them as drama-queens. They are eventually relegated to the top of the lay-off list despite their positive contributions to the organization.

Bashful is shy and does well in a focused and structured environment where the task at hand is clear. Bashful types seem compelled to help others in need and are usually very sensitive to other people’s feelings. They are hard-working, warm, and generous and empathetic–accepting of other people’s viewpoints. They are good at remembering facts and details and do well in a team environment. In a meeting they will avoid looking at the group leader, hoping not to be called on and thus receive some useless “action item.” They try to hide in the middle of the group; are generally quiet and wait to hear others’ views before expressing theirs. In fact, in a dysfunctional organization led by sociopathic management, most employees will eventually develop these bashful traits. Why? It’s a survival technique. Why? When you’ve been beat-down enough you begin to not care–which is how these types appear to others–uncaring. They are the typical workplace introvert and should be celebrated. These are the people who actually keep the organization humming along and without them little would probably be accomplished. This is the type personality that should be groomed for management but seldom is.

Sneezy type personalities, aside from their hypochondriac personality–always complaining about some malady, or personal problem, they’re fighting–can prove to be very valuable employees. They are typically well organized and methodical and have a strong sense of duty. This type personality will follow through on tasks assigned and they take pride in their loyalty. They are honest and respect the rules of the workplace. These are the types that always try to sit to the leader’s proverbial left. These workers are at the cusp of the intersection between introverts and extroverts. However, this is another personality that can easily succumb to sycophancy.

Sleepy types don’t usually talk very much, but when they do, it is straight forward and no-nonsense. They are very rational and logical and understand things literally and concretely. They are very “hands on” type workers. They develop strong technical skills in their area of expertise. They value their privacy and may well be caught daydreaming about being somewhere else other than work. They become bored rather quickly, will stare out the window or sit back from the table and try to hide in the middle of the group. These are the solid “individual contributors” to the organization’s goals.

Dopey people are very much child-like and naive about the cruel realities of the workplace. They are very likable and as such they get along with everyone. This is mostly because they never tackle the controversial. But unlike the sociopath who just flat out can’t handle controversy, Dopey types avoid it because they never want to offend anyone. They come across as being carefree and lighthearted, but actually take life very seriously–living their lives in frustration for that reason. That said these types have a good sense of humor which they will use in tense situations. They have no desire to lead or control others. While they will appear attentive they only speak when called upon and try to hide in the middle of the group. They are the type most easy to sway to groupthink.

In her 2007 American Management Association article, “Taking a Meeting with Doc, Happy, Grumpy, et al,” psychologist Sharon Livingston, Ph.D., an expert in qualitative market research, gives us some valuable insight into the significance of understanding the dwarf personalities. She says that by identifying which of the seven dwarfs each employee most closely resembles, leaders can maximize creativity, cooperation, and enthusiasm in group meetings.

As Livingston tells us: “Years ago after conducting hundreds of focus groups, it struck me that the personality types described in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were the same personality types I encountered in my groups, day in and day out. Each dwarf personality represented one of the seven protective postures identified in the psychology literature—the ways that people defend themselves when they feel vulnerable,” she observes. “An astute leader who recognizes these personality traits can use this knowledge to great advantage in managing and advancing the team.”

Livingston further tells us: “There’s no one dwarf personality that’s better or worse than another. Each has his strengths and weaknesses, which can be enhanced or tamped down, depending on where the person sits in the [hierarchy] and the leader’s ability to leverage the best characteristics of each type.”

This is useful guidance for the managers who want-to-be leaders out there as that’s what leadership is all about−leveraging the best out of everyone in the organization. To do that you have to tailor your approach to each individual based on his/her personality style.

The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by Dante Alighieri somewhere between 1308 and his death in 1321 and it is widely considered the preeminent work of Italian literature and one of the greatest works of world literature. The poem tells of Dante’s journey through Hell being guided by the Roman poet Virgil. It’s an allegorical vision of the afterlife as representative of the medieval world-view. It is divided into three parts: Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. In the Divine Comedy, Dante depicts Hell (the Inferno) as having nine circles of suffering. As Dante follows Virgil lower and lower into the depths of Hell, he’s shown people who have committed greater and greater evil in their life. In this post we’re going to take a close look at the Inferno, or Hell, as a metaphor for the modern workplace.

Allegorically, the Inferno represents the Christian soul seeing sin for what it really is. In the story there are three beasts representing three types of sin: self-indulgence, violence, and maliciousness. These three types of sin also provide the three main divisions of Dante’s Hell: Upper Hell (the first 5 Circles) for the self-indulgent sins, Circles 6 and 7 for the violent sins, and Circles 8 and 9 for the malicious sins. Dante called the 6th through the 9th circles “The City of Dis.” Throughout the city are Dark Priests who worship their dark god−Satan. Reminds me of the typical workplace where loyal sycophants worship the head sociopath. In fact, the whole theme of layered circles in Dante’s Hell mimics the typical layered workplace organizational chart. You may think that Dante’s nine layers is a bit of an exaggeration however, from my own experience I’ve worked in organizations with that many layers from top to bottom.

Dante and Virgil’s trip through Hell begins when they come to the gates of Hell where the inscription reads: “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.” There’s a lesson for modern times here as those words should be the disclaimer added to the end of every job offer warning new hires of their impending doom.

After having read this dreadful warning Dante and Virgil enter the first level of Hell−the Vestibule. Here, as Virgil explains, are those being punished who had passed their time in a state of apathy and indifference both to good and evil. These are the Opportunist referred to in a previous post.

This first circle is “Limbo” where the residents are the pagans, who, technically not sinful, are guilty of not accepting Christ. Limbo is neither heaven nor hell and thus shares many characteristics with the workplace–most people in the workplace feel themselves in some sort of limbo during their career. Metaphorically you could say these are the folks that haven’t drunk the organizational Kool Aid, with Christ being the metaphor for upper management.

After passing through the first circle, Dante and Virgil reach the ferry that will take them across the river Acheron and to Hell proper. From here on down through Hell in each circle we find all of those condemned for active, deliberately willed sin and as such are sentenced to one of the lower eight circles.

In the second circle of Hell the damned are those overcome by lust. You may not think that Dante’s circle where the lustful reside could be a metaphor for the workplace however; we need to look at it not from the strict sense of the definition, but the lustfulness to better oneself–most often at the expense of others. We all have this “leaning” to a degree–even if subconscious. It’s one of the prime motivations for all the games people play in the workplace.

The third circle is where the gluttons are forced to “lie in a vile slush produced by ceaseless foul, icy rain.” In the workplace, gluttony is closely akin to lust: we always want more–more money, more praise, more promotions–we never can have enough.

The fourth circle holds the greedy, those whose attitude toward material goods was all consuming. Just like gluttony and lust we all are greedy to some extent and greed is an integral part of modern business. This also represents the organizational bullies who lack empathy and whose prime motivation is narcissistic.

The fifth circle holds the angry, where in the swampy waters of the river Styx, those that still resist their fate fight each other on the surface, and those who have given up to their fate lie gurgling beneath the water, withdrawn “into a black sulkiness which can find no joy in God or man or the universe.” The angry represent the typical disenchanted workers in a dysfunctional organization; bullied, overworked, disrespected and abused−pushed to fighting with each other for position by design of the sociopaths at the top. Those who have given up join what I called “the working dead.”

In the sixth circle we find the heretics trapped in flaming tombs. They suffer for their beliefs or opinions contrary to the orthodox (i.e., management) doctrine. This represents those who have the guts to voice opinions contrary to the organization’s pseudo leaders and will ultimately end up relegated, like those in circle five, to the working dead.

Circle seven holds the violent. Here we find a representation of the bullies found in the workplace; the more obnoxious ones who have transcended all decency and become either physically or psychologically violent with their subordinates or colleagues.

The last two circles of Hell hold those that performed conscious fraud or treachery. Certainly fraud and treachery are synonymous with the top management found in the modern business environment. In the eighth circle we find the fraudulent. This is where all those guilty of deliberate, knowing evil are damned. The ninth circle holds the treacherous, which are distinguished from the fraudulent in that their acts involve betraying their relationships with others. Again we find the organizational bullies–the bosses who knowingly do not support their subordinates, or actively undermine their careers.

Just like the typical workplace organization, the Inferno is a highly structured, tiered system of torments with everyone having his, or her, proper place. As I noted above, the lower levels of Hell−the sixth through the ninth circles−are called “The City of Dis.” As we’ve learned, the most serious sinners are here. Here it is extremely hot, and contains areas more closely resembling the common modern conception of Hell (or could it be the workplace?) than the upper levels.

Dante emphasizes the character of the City of Dis by describing its architectural features: towers, gates, walls, ramparts, bridges, and moats. This provides a perfect analogy to the modern workplace of fiefdoms, and the impediments to those who wish to navigate through it. As Dante described his journey through the city with Virgil, “We moved toward the city, secure in our holy cause, and beheld such a fortress. And on every hand I saw a great plain of woe and cruel torment. Bitter tombs were scattered with flame made to glow all over, hotter than iron need be for any craft. And such dire laments issued forth as come only from those who are truly wretched, suffering and forever lost!”

In a previous post I wrote about the applicability to the modern workplace of C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters. Written in 1942, The Screwtape Letters is an epistolary novel, containing the letters written by expert demon Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood−a devil in training. An important point presented in Lewis’s work is that he portrays Hell as some kind of demonic bureaucracy, with endless paperwork, criticism, and micromanagement. Sound familiar?

While C.S. Lewis may have heard tales of the then modern workplace and fashioned his novel around them, in Dante Alighieri’s time there probably wasn’t the type of workplace organizations we see today. In that sense Alighieri proves to be like Nostradamus in predicting the future of the workplace.

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World put it perfectly; “One of the many reasons for the bewildering and tragic character of human existence is the fact that social organization is at once necessary and fatal. Men are forever creating such organizations for their own convenience and forever finding themselves the victims of their home-made monsters.” In other words we, ourselves, create the Hell that is the workplace.

Hakuna Matata; what a wonderful phrase
Hakuna Matata; It ain’t no passing craze
It means no worries, for the rest of your days
It’s our problem free, philosophy

So goes the words from the signature song Hakuna Matata from the 1994 Walt Disney movie The Lion King. The movie helped bring the phrase “Hakuna Matata” into public recognition, featuring it prominently in the plot. In the movie a meerkat and a warthog, named Timon and Pumbaa respectively, teach the main character, a lion cub named Simba, that he should forget his troubled past and live in the present. The song, Hakuna Matata was written by Elton John (music) and Tim Rice (lyrics), who found the term in a Swahili phrase book. The term “Hakuna Matata” can be translated literally as “no worries” or “no problem” and is akin to “don’t worry, be happy.”

And for those of us old enough to remember the Hogan’s Heroes TV series, which ran from 1965 to 1971, a catch-phrase was born that I still sometimes hear today. Hogan’s Heroes takes place in a World War II German prison camp–a Stalag. In the show, Sergeant Hans Georg Schultz, was Commandant Col. Klink’s bumbling, inept and a bit dimwitted, Sergeant of the Guard who was forever being overly friendly with the inmates. Due to the inept oversight by Klink and Schultz, Hogan and his fellow inmates virtually got away with anything. When the prisoners did something that was prohibited, Schultz, not wanting to deal with the situation, would simply look the other way, repeating “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!” Hogan’s Heroes provides a good metaphor for some modern management teams.

The past few weeks I’ve written about optimistic, pessimistic, realistic and opportunistic (aka proactive) people and the differences between them. The optimists and pessimists are the foxes, and the realists and opportunists hedgehogs. However, in the corporate management environment they all have one thing in common. Just about everyone, whether optimistic, pessimistic, realist or opportunist, have a tendency to believe that when something negative happens it’s not their fault but caused by some external force, or person. We’re all like that to a certain extent−its human nature−it’s the path our society is on−nobody likes to take personal responsibility for their actions. We just can’t internalize fault. Everything is someone else’s screw up or negligence. We all have a little Sergeant Schultz in us.

This leads us to the concept of “plausible deniability,” a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities of the agency became public knowledge. Plausible deniability is how the societal norm of “nothing is my own fault” takes shape in the workplace environment.

The term most often refers to the tendency of senior management to deny knowledge of and/or responsibility for any screw-ups committed by the lower ranks. Management will tend to deny culpability for problems and screw-ups because typically there’s no hard path of evidence leading to them. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. Because of this lack of evidence that proves their direct participation, management can claim full ignorance of the cause of any problems, i.e., it’s not their problem−Hakuna Matata. It’s “no worries,” or “I know nothing” to them but all hell will unleash for those who will ultimately be blamed. That’s because, despite it being acceptable for management to deny responsibility, the typical management mentality, i.e., command and control, still requires that someone take the responsibility−that’s human nature also. This is why the buzzword: “accountability” is so popular these days.

This happens in all hierarchical organizations−when the stuff hits the fan high-ranking management types deny any awareness of the causes of the particular screw up and insulate themselves from responsibility. They then go on a witch-hunt to find the culprit(s).

That said, plausible deniability, in and of itself, really isn’t that bad. We all do it–point a finger toward someone else when something doesn’t go according to plan. However, it’s that “search for the guilty and punishment of the innocent” phase what necessarily happens after management denies culpability that makes it such a dastardly and cowardly deed. Typically management will shift blame progressively down the management pyramid until it ultimately lays at the feet of the people in the trenches−those who were closest to the problem. A typical damnation is that they weren’t proactive enough to see the problem coming and do something about it beforehand.

The key to successful plausible deniability is the fact that doubters will be unable to prove otherwise and people who are blamed will have no defense as all the evidence will point to them. Plausible deniability only works when a screw up leaves little or no physical evidence of wrongdoing.

Management teams will work hard to ensure that’s always the case, which leads us to the aspect of plausible deniability which implies there is forethought, i.e., management intentionally has set up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for their actions or knowledge. That’s the active form of plausible deniability. In some organizations, the command and control culture exists solely to hold subordinates responsible for the actions of management. Thus plausible deniability is active in these type organizations. That’s one of the prime purposes for having an entourage of sycophants–to take the blame. As I noted above, it’s management’s job to search for the guilty and punish the innocent.

However, many times the use of plausible deniability is passive, i.e., just dumb luck on the part of management, because management really has no clue what’s going on in the organization and thus can accurately claim ignorance. Col. Klink and his bumbling sycophantic Sergeant are the perfect metaphor for management with no clue. Actually Sergeant Schultz knew full well what was going on just elected to ignore the situation. However, the end result is the same–the ability to not have to answer for any screw-up. I firmly believe that the passive management style is more prevalent than you might think.

Plausible deniability also exists outside the corporate environment. In politics, deniability refers to the ability of a powerful person, or organization, to avoid the finger being pointed at them by arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. Political Action Committees that run all those “dirty” politics TV ads are an example. This allows the candidates to stay “clean.” It doesn’t stop there either. Congress is a perfect example. Critical issues to the American people never get solved yet both parties in Congress will plead that it’s not their fault.

Unfortunately in today’s business environment plausible deniability will not go away−the stakes for upper management types are just too high. The only time that plausible deniability does not work and the truly guilty may be punished is when it reaches the criminal level. Recently the head of the VA Health System claimed plausible deniability in regard to the recent scandalous treatment of veterans needing health care. It wasn’t until the news media and of course Congress beat the issue to death did Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki finally resign. Resigning is the typical way that culpability is admitted without ever having to really say, “I screwed up.” Up until the end he pleaded he knew nothing about how vets were truly being treated−Hakuna Matata–He knew nothing.

The old proverb “strike while the iron is hot,” means don’t hesitate–do it now–don’t leave until tomorrow what you can do today. In other words, when opportunity knocks, answer the door. Its origin comes from the imagery of the blacksmith at his forge. If he delays in shaping the iron when it is hot and pliable the metal soon cools and hardens and the opportunity is lost. Striking while the iron is hot is all about being an opportunist.

Remember, “While the optimist, pessimist and realist are arguing over whether the glass is half empty or half full, the opportunist drank the water.”

We’ve all probably used the phrase, strike while the iron is hot, and even lived by these words at one time or the other. However, you typically don’t hear it in the workplace–it’s not one of the over-used buzz-phrases found in the workplace lexicon. I wonder why that it?

The definition of an opportunist is a person who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage−someone who acts on opportunities in a self-interested, biased or one-sided manner that conflicts or contrasts in some way with a societal norms, or principles. Hence opportunistic behavior is usually regarded as questionable or dubious behavior, because it is seen as making selfish use of opportunities at the expense of others. All my research on the subject presents opportunism in that same negative context.

Even as far back as 14th-century, when Dante Alighieri wrote the Divine Comedy, opportunists were frowned upon. In Canto III, The Vestibule of Hell, Virgil leads Dante up to the Gates of Hell, and upon entering, Dante hears innumerable cries of torment and suffering. Virgil explains to Dante that these cries emanate from the souls of the Opportunists−those souls who in life were only for themselves. They are neither in Hell nor out of it. Eternally in limbo, they race round on ground covered by worms and maggots pursuing a blank banner, pursued by swarms of wasps and hornets, which sting them repeatedly. Sounds like your average day at the office.

The British Conservative statesman Stanley Baldwin is supposed to have quipped: “I would rather be an opportunist and float than go to the bottom with my principles around my neck.” Again the connotation is that to be an opportunist you must jettison your principles.

When talking about human behavior, opportunism has the connotation of a lack of integrity, or doing something that is out of the norm. The underlying thought is that the price of the unrestrained pursuit of selfishness is behavioral deviancy. This implies that opportunism involves compromising some or all of the principles normally held by the person or organization to which the person belongs–assuming the organization actually has a norm of positive values. However, the boundary between “legitimate self-interest” and “undesirable selfishness” can be difficult to determine. It depends on one’s point of view.

Since opportunism concerns the relationship between what people do, and how those actions relate to their personal principles, opportunist can also be a positive personality trait. In that light opportunists are people who don’t wait for a grand opportunity to come about before taking action−they simply transform events to advantageous situations. Why is that necessarily bad?

I’d like to look at it from a positive angle–not from the angle of those who would torpedo their co-workers to advance themselves. You see, they shouldn’t be called opportunists; they should simply be called bullies. An opportunist sees all current events, or situations, as an opportunity and will seize the moment. They are decisive and proactive−both traits that are idolized in modern business. With a mind open to everything, there’s no room for narrow thinking–they think outside–and inside–the box, unlike their colleagues the optimists and pessimists−or even the realists.

Opportunists come in many forms, but the workplace opportunist is believed to be the worse. However, the truth is that in the workplace environment opportunism can be either benign or malignant. Benign opportunism is the conscious striving of the individual to better their career–to learn more−to hone their skills. There’s nothing wrong with that.

However, opportunism becomes malignant when it crosses the line into organizational dysfunctional behaviors and the playing of games such as divide and conquer; stump the dummy, and the practice of throwing each other under the bus. The malignant opportunist tries to improve their position in the organization at the expense of others. Malignant workplace opportunists wield a virtual club when they want someone else to do their work for them, when they steal credit, or when they want essential resources for themselves. They leave a wake of virtual dead bodies.

In game theory, opportunism concerns the contradictory relationships between altruistic and self-interested behavior. Here opportunism deals with how the different kinds of public and personal interests that exist in any situation are used mainly to make gains for oneself. Two classic cases discussed in game theory where opportunism is often involved are the free rider problem and the prisoner’s dilemma.

A “free rider” is really an economic term which refers to someone who benefits from resources, goods, or services without paying for them. The workplace can be rife with free riders and the normal response to these people is that other individuals may actually reduce their contributions, or performance, if they believe that one, or more, other members of the group may be riding free. This is the mechanism at play when a team has a bad apple that brings the whole team performance down by free riding.

The “prisoners’ dilemma” is a situation where two rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it’s really in their best interest to do so. The prisoner’s dilemma exists because betraying a coworker offers a greater monetary reward and possibly greater status than cooperating with them. All self-interested, opportunistic workers will betray each other−it’s the sad fact of life in all organizations including the workplace.

Malignant workplace opportunists don’t stop with just torpedoing their colleagues. They will attempt to divert everything from office space to staff because they cannot stop taking from others. Workload opportunists include the members of the “team” who are the first in line to take credit when everything goes well. When problems develop, they are the first to point fingers or slip out of sight and out of mind. If your boss is a workaholic or micromanager then he’s a malignant opportunist.

These are the people who give opportunists a bad name. However, I make the case that opportunism is the most misunderstand yet highest-impact approach to decision-making–being opportunistic can really be a virtue.

I ask: What is the difference between being an opportunist and being proactive? Taking advantage of opportunities as they arise is the essence of being proactive AND the essence of being opportunistic. There’s no difference–being opportunistic and being proactive are one and the same. That is, you take no action until a compelling opportunity comes to your attention. The only difference is that in a proactive approach you would commit time and resources to finding and qualifying opportunities–not just waiting for them to happen. In other words you’re a workaholic opportunist.

That all said, whether you’re an optimist, pessimist, realist or opportunist, we should remember that there are really only two relevant mindsets in the workplace: reactivity and proactivity. Despite what you may think, the two modes are not mutually exclusive−they complement each other. In today’s work environment it’s critical to develop both our ability to be reactive and proactive. Reactive behavior enables us to accomplish our daily job tasks. The proactive part of us is oriented toward the future and the unknown. It is a creative mindset which departs from the beaten track of reactivity. Imagination and intuition are its main tools because everything cannot be planned. Creativity cannot simply be mandated, nor can it be scheduled. Proactivity is the art of imagining new situations and taking control of them–being opportunistic.

Being proactive is about organizing yourself in a flexible way in order to jump on new events and, above all, to initiate change. To me that’s a lot like being an opportunist. So the question is why is being proactive preached so much in modern business yet being opportunistic is frowned upon? What is wrong with making the best of any situation you find yourself in whether planned or stumbled upon? The dividing line of course is when jumping on an opportunity involves taking advantage of, or torpedoing, a co-worker.

Richie Norton, author of The Power of Starting Something Stupid: How to Crush Fear, Make Dreams Happen, and Live without Regret tells us, “Opportunities will come and go, but if you do nothing about them, so will you.”

In 1953 Isaiah Berlin wrote an essay called “The Hedgehog and The Fox.” The story is based upon the ancient Greek poem believed to have been written by Archilochus. The essence of the essay is that: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” In Berlin’s story, a cunning and brilliant fox sets his mind on eating a hedgehog. He spends hours plotting the perfect attack, always devising complex strategies for sneak attacks upon the hedgehog. Reminds you of Wile E. Coyote don’t it? Day in and day out, the fox cases out the hedgehog’s den waiting for the perfect moment to pounce. Fast and crafty, one would think the fox the odds-on favorite to win. The hedgehog, on the other hand, looks like a cross between a porcupine and a small armadillo. He waddles along, going about his day, single-mindedly searching for food and taking care of his den.

Every day, the fox waits in cunning silence to intercept the hedgehog as he goes about his business. The hedgehog−who has an amazing grasp for the obvious−has the fox all figured out. Minding his own business, he wanders right into the path of the fox. “Aha, I’ve got you now!” thinks the fox. As the fox strikes out, the hedgehog, sensing danger looks up and thinks, “Here we go again.” Rolling up into a perfect little ball, the hedgehog becomes a sphere of sharp spikes, pointing outward in all directions. The fox, bounding toward his prey, sees the hedgehog defense and calls off the attack. Retreating back to the forest, the fox begins to calculate a new line of attack. Each day, some version of this battle between the hedgehog and the fox takes place, and despite the greater cunning of the fox, the hedgehog always wins.

The take-away from this story is that Berlin believes people can be divided into two basic groups: foxes and hedgehogs. Foxes draw on a wide variety of experiences and pursue many ends at the same time, i.e., they believe themselves to be good multitaskers. Berlin would describe them as, “scattered or diffused, moving on many levels.” In other words they never really unify their thinking into one overall concept or vision. Hedgehogs, on the other hand, view the world through a magnifying lens, simplifying a complex world into a single organizing idea, a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything they do. It doesn’t matter how complex the world, a hedgehog reduces all challenges and dilemmas to simple—indeed almost simplistic—hedgehog ideas. For a hedgehog, anything that does not somehow relate to the hedgehog idea holds no relevance.

To succeed in modern business−to survive actually−you need to be both a hedgehog and a fox. The hedgehog thinks inside the box, the fox outside the box. At times you need to be single-minded, focused and tireless to fight through the stupidity and moronic behaviors of co-workers and bosses however; you also need to be insatiably curious, fast-moving and open to new ideas and approaches to everyday issues that arise.

Good-to-Great author, Jim Collins advises us that organizations need to build their culture on self-disciplined people−hedgehogs. As Collins would tell us, great leaders first get the right people on the bus and then they figure out where to drive the bus. And they do this without throwing anyone under the bus. They focus first on “Who” and then on “What.” Jim Collins calls this the “Hedgehog Concept,” doing one thing and doing it well.

I’m sure you’ve heard this before. Companies will talk about their “core competency” and how they need to focus their attention on that single thing they do well however, the problem with most modern organizations is that they are being run by foxes when they should be run by hedgehogs. They try to do too many things and as a result are not really outstanding in any one thing.

Princeton professor Marvin Bressler points out the power of being a hedgehog: “You want to know what separates those who make the biggest impact from all the others who are just as smart? They’re hedgehogs. Freud and the unconscious, Darwin and natural selection, Marx and class struggle, Einstein and relativity, Adam Smith and the division of labor—they were all hedgehogs. Hedgehogs understand that the essence of profound insight is simplicity. What could be more simple than e = mc2, [or F=ma]? What could be simpler than the idea of the unconscious, organized into an id, ego, and superego? What could be more elegant than Adam Smith’s pin factory and “invisible hand?” Hedgehogs have a piercing insight that allows them to see through complexity and discern underlying patterns. Hedgehogs see what is essential, and ignore the rest.”

Admiral Jim Stockdale was a United States military officer held captive for eight years during the Vietnam War. Stockdale was repeatedly tortured and as such one would think he never had much reason to believe he would survive and someday get to see his family again. However, Stockdale never lost faith during his ordeal: “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.”

Stockdale had remarkable faith in the notion that he’d get out alive however, he admitted that he wasn’t the most optimistic of his prison-mates−many of who failed to make it out alive. As he tells it, “They were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.”

This then is what’s called the “Stockdale Paradox.” Stockdale was a hedgehog and his prison-mates were foxes. What the foxes failed to do was confront the reality of their situation. They preferred the optimists’ approach, ignoring the harsh reality of the situation and hoping the difficulties would go away. While the self-delusion made it easier on them in the short-term, when they were eventually forced to face reality, it became too much and they couldn’t handle it.

This bring me to a subject I’ve written about before; the clash between the optimist, the pessimist and the realist. From Stockdale’s story it appears obvious the best approach is to be a realist. Realists see things relatively clearly, but most of us aren’t realists. Most of us, to varying degrees, view the events in our lives either optimistically or pessimistically.

Both optimists and pessimist are foxes−they tend to overthink everything. Realists are hedgehogs. The key to success is to moderate the optimistic and pessimistic views one has with the reality of a given situation−we need to be both a fox and a hedgehog.

William Arthur Ward, one of America’s most quoted writers of inspirational maxims and author of Fountains of Faith, puts it in perspective: “The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”

In her April 7, 2014 INC Magazine article, “Hiring? Personality Trumps Skills,” Jessica Stillman digs into what qualities you need to succeed in your job and to the surprise of many it’s all about your personality not your hard technical wizardry.

From an international survey of 500 professionals conducted by Hyper Island titled “Tomorrow’s Most Wanted,” Stillman tells us, “What we found most compelling about this research is how clearly it highlights that personality, not competence, is the determining factor of who’s going to get the most attractive jobs among tomorrow’s recruits, Also, there is a growing desire for talent with a unique combination of skill and flexibility−people who can collaborate, adapt quickly and are enjoyable company, but also have the drive to get things done. The research into what’s impressing employers at the moment found that personality far outweighed technical chops, even for higher-skilled roles. A whopping 78 percent of those surveyed said ‘personality’ was the most desirable quality in employees, beating out ‘cultural alignment’ (53 percent) and ‘skill-set’ (39 percent) by considerable margins.”

Of course the question in my mind is how a hiring manager can glean whether a candidate has a good “personality” from a cover letter or resume or even an interview? While we all believe that we’re excellent judges of a person’s personality−myself included−I’ve hired folks that I thought would be a good fit and it turned out disastrous.

Screening for a person’s “skill-set” can be objectively evaluated however, “personality” just doesn’t seem determinable during an interview no matter how many idiotic questions are asked like “what is your biggest weakness?” Most people who have interviewed a few times in their career have learned how to put on a pretty good façade during an interview. In fact the longer you’re in the workforce the better the bull-shitter you become. It seems to me that truly assessing someone’s personality can’t happen until they’re actually part of the organization and your can observe how they fit in and, more importantly, how they react to all the cultural idiosyncrasies that a particular workplace presents. In other words I don’t see how you can judge a person’s personality until you’ve seen how they react when truly under fire not just put on the spot with tough questions during an interview.

In his book Subliminal – How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior, ©2012, Leonard Mlodinow provides research into some of the underlying factors that drive how people are chosen during the hiring process. The results may surprise you. Mlodinow tells us, “To explore why some people get the job and others don’t, and whether those doing the hiring are aware of what drove their choices, researchers recruited 128 volunteer. Each subject–all of them female–were asked to study and assess an in-depth portfolio describing a woman applying for a job as councilor in a crisis intervention center. After studying the portfolio, subjects were asked several questions regarding the applicant’s qualifications, including:

• How intelligent do you think she is?
• How flexible?
• How sympathetic would she be toward client’s problems?
• How much do you like her?

“The key to the study was that the information given to different subjects differed in a number of details. For example, some subjects read portfolios showing that the applicant had finished second in her class in high school and was now an honor student in college, while others read that she has not yet decided whether to go to college; some saw a mention of the fact that the applicant was quite attractive, others learned nothing about her appearance; some read in the center’s director’s report that the applicant had spilled a cup of coffee on the director’s desk, while others saw no mention of the incident, and some portfolios indicated that the applicant had been in a serious automobile accident, while others didn’t. Some subjects were told they’d later meet the applicant, while others were not.

“These variable elements were shuffled in all possible combinations to create dozens of distinct scenarios. By studying the correlation of the facts the subjects were exposed to, and the judgments they made, researchers could compute mathematically the influence of each piece of information on the subject’s assessments.

“Some, such as the applicant’s high grades, were factors that social norms dictate ought to exert a positive influence on those assessing the job applicant. Other factors, such as the coffee-spilling incident and the anticipation of later meeting the applicant, were factors that social norms say nothing about in this regard.

“However the researchers had chosen those factors because studies show that, contrary to the expectations dictated by norms, they do have an effect on our judgment of people: an isolated pratfall such as the coffee-spilling incident tends to increase the likability of a generally competent-seeming person, and the anticipation of meeting an individual tends to improve your assessment of that individual’s personality.

“When the researchers examined the subjects’ answers they found that they showed impressive agreement. They drew their conclusions about which factors were influential from the social-norms explanation. For example they said the coffee-spilling incident would not affect their liking of the applicant, yet it had the greatest effect of all the factors. The expectation was that the academic factor would have a significant effect on their liking the applicant, but its effect was nil.”

In her Forbes October, 2013 article, “The 10 Skills Employers Most Want In 20-Something Employees” Susan Adams cites a survey by The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), a Bethlehem, Pa. non-profit group that links college career placement offices with employers. In the survey they asked hiring managers what skills they prioritize when they hire college grads. The results showed that despite all the emphasis in job descriptions on the need for technical skills, the most important qualities employers seek are basic teamwork, problem-solving and the ability to plan and prioritize.

Here are the 10 skills employers seek, in order of importance:

• Ability to work in a team
• Ability to make decisions and solve problems
• Ability to plan, organize and prioritize work
• Ability to communicate verbally with people inside and outside an organization
• Ability to obtain and process information
• Ability to analyze quantitative data
• Technical knowledge related to the job
• Proficiency with computer software programs
• Ability to create and/or edit written reports
• Ability to sell and influence others

Note the top six “skills” (which are more talents than skills) are directly related to how the job candidate interacts with others. Despite that the survey made it clear that employers want talents related to “working with others” and secondarily “job skills.”

Clearly your resume needs to focus on the job hard skills you can bring to the table−that’s what gets you through the door to the face-to-face interview. However, what we’ve just learned is that whether you get the job or not is more dependent on how you present yourself during the interview. If you really want a particular job the trick during an interview is to somehow convince the interviewers that you have a personality that will fit into that organization. While the interviewer will be grilling you to assess your personality you need to also be evaluating his/her personality to try to emulate it as best you can. That’s because it’s also been proven that people tend to hire those most like themselves.

The problem however, is that the personality you exude in the interview and one you’ll exude once hired might necessarily be different. Your personality once hired will be greatly influenced by the culture in place in the organization. My point being that you’re being evaluated on whether you possess certain personality traits that are very hard to verify until you’ve actually been hired. This is where all those years of refining your bull-shitting skills will finally pay off. Oh and don’t forget to spill your coffee on the interviewer’s desk.

In this blog and in my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw, I’ve talked many times about workplace bullying. That’s because bullying is an epidemic no matter how you cut it. According to a 2014 Workplace Bullying Institute survey, 68% of employers deny, discount, rationalize, defend or encourage bullying. I personally find the stat deplorable, yet it’s not a surprise as it’s confirmed by my own experience. The above statistic covers all forms of bullying and many of the common forms of bullying tactics you’ve undoubtedly heard of before like: shouting, intimidation, insulting−and there are many others. Those types of bullying behaviors are easy to witness and document, but there are other forms of bullying that are much more subtle. One of those subtle methods is simply ostracism. Ostracism is an insidious, silent and pervasive form of workplace bullying that can cause immediate and long-term psychological injury to the recipient.

Ostracism is a simple form of punishment however, it’s more a case of social control that bullies use to undermine the victim’s core need for a sense of belonging as well as self-esteem. When people are ostracized, it affects their perceptions, physiological condition, attitudes and their behavior. The morale of the excluded employee plummets as they perceive a lack of respect for their position, their knowledge or their contributions. They become members of a small group of people called the “working dead.”

Ostracism is a gradual “wearing down” process in which the targeted employee begins to see their place on the organizational team as valueless and only a matter of time before they see themselves on the chopping block. To make matters worse, the ostracized employee will typically disengage as a functioning team member, isolate themselves and become distrustful toward their supervisor and coworkers.

In simple terms, this type of bullying occurs when an individual is purposefully ignored by coworkers or supervisors. These individuals may be excluded from conversations or social activities, denied information necessary for their job performance, left off email distribution lists, shunned by colleagues during meetings or not even notified of meetings in which they can clearly make a contribution. In some instances, an individual may be physically removed from an active or comfortable work location and relocated to an area that is hostile, indifferent or of low visibility, e.g., moved from an office to a cubicle. Remember, if you’re not invited to the table then you’re probably on the menu.

Unlike verbal or written insults or threatening physical gestures, ostracism is mostly invisible because the victim has little to no hard evidence to document unfairness or harassment. Complaints to human resources about their treatment often lead to the employee being typecast as a “drama queen,” which further serves to brand the victim as “the problem,” instead of a victim. If the victim actually takes the bull by the horns and confronts the bully, the bully, who is usually adept at making it appear as if the victim is the cause of their treatment, will only tighten the screws more as they now have confirmation that their strategy to get rid of this employee is working.

The victim of ostracism is really in a no win situation. Legitimate complaints are viewed with suspicion and do nothing but make matters worse. It’s really a Catch-22 situation.

If being ostracized by one’s colleagues isn’t bad enough, if the ostracism involves the employee’s supervisor, then the situation is worsened. The entire situation takes on a domino effect, where the ostracized employee disengages and the perpetrators turn up the heat because they know they are making an impact.

If the ostracism continues, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the isolated individual becomes a low functioning, low valued employee, who may then legitimately be dismissed. What’s alarming is that many times this is exactly the strategy used by management teams to set an unwanted employee up so that they can be given a “bad” performance review thus setting the stage for their dismissal.

If you’ve ever been the target of ostracism what I describe above will be all too familiar. Ostracized individuals can be found in most, if not all, sociopathic organizations and usually in an alarming number. Like all people who are the target of bullying they seek support from others in the organization who are the target of bullying and ostracism. It’s the old saying: “Misery loves company.”

These victims actually form an informal clique allowing them to commiserate with one another. This is the group of people in the organization who are considered to be inferior or lower in social status, or have fallen out of grace with the sociopaths or sycophants. These are the people who populate the next lay-off list. They go through the daily motions of doing their jobs but other than that are virtually of no use to the organization−they are the working dead−the organizational losers.

The members of this clique of working dead can come from all layers of the organization from senior management to the factory floor. These are the poor souls who feel contempt or disapproval for the sociopathic regime in power most often because they have been the target of the sociopath’s bullying wrath. As such they are targeted for exclusion by the sociopaths and sycophants. Therefore, as you can imagine, they must meet secretively. Their meetings are in secret because the members have to constantly protect themselves from exposure, because if the sociopaths got wind of the group’s existence there would be hell to pay. Sociopaths do not tolerate anyone conspiring behind their backs.

As I noted the group’s sole reason for existence is to form a support group for those suffering the effects of ostracism and bullying in general. One might call their meetings bitch sessions; however, they do serve a purpose in helping the members survive their captivity. Think of their meetings more as group therapy sessions for the down-trodden in which they get to commiserate their situations at the hands of the sociopaths and bullies.

If you don’t believe they exist in your organization, look around you. You’ll see this clique meeting at company social events or in clandestine groups in the workplace. That group of people you catch standing in the corner and whispering to each other is a dead giveaway. The closed door sessions of just two or three people in which only muffled mumbling can be overheard is another sign that there’s a clique of the ostracized. If you’re living in an organization steeped in sociopathy and sycophancy, you’ll probably know who the people are because they have targets on their backs. These are the poor souls you can see being openly ridiculed by the sociopaths even in public venues.

Ostracism is often the strategy chosen by management for two reasons. First, it is powerful, and second, you can get away with it. It’s pretty hard to make a case for bullying because someone ignores you. Also, even if you were to confront that person about their behavior, they will deny it.

According the Workplace Bullying Institute, targets are chosen for ostracism by bullies, more often than not, because they are conscientious workers, ethical and stand their ground. In other words the more competent you are, and the better you do your job, the more likely it is that you’ll eventually fall prey to this type treatment. Why? Because when compared to hard working employees bullies worry that their own level of incompetency will be exposed. You become a threat. Thus it is usually the most talented, able and hard-working employees that become the target of workplace bullying.

So when you fall from grace in the eyes of the sociopathic elite, as you surely will, look up the local loser-clique in your organization and join. They may even recruit you once word gets around that you’re not the apple of the sociopath’s eye any longer. If nothing else, you can all connect on LinkedIn and serve as references for each other.

So if you find yourself in a situation like this my advice is to find another job quickly−it’s virtually impossible to redeem yourself once cast into the clique of the working dead. All roads lead in that direction, so you might as well take the shortest route.

“He’d strangle you with his own halo and then put it back on as if nothing happened.”

I can’t find who authored this quote but it’s always been one of my favorites−perfectly describes some of the narcissistic, sociopathic bosses I’ve worked for in my career. These are the kind of management types that when settled in at the top of an organization are truly the key to whether the organization will become dysfunctional, or not. As Peter Drucker once said, “Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done.”

In his April 30, 2014 LinkedIn article, “Nothing Fixes a Bad Manager,” Jim Clifton talks about the biggest problem facing most organizations: bad management. Or, more appropriately, the leadership void. As Clifton tells us, “Companies seem to try everything imaginable to fix their workplaces, except the only thing that matters: Naming the right person manager. Leaders go to seminars, hire consultants, and employ a long list of interventions−competencies, 360s, and so forth. I don’t think any of them work. What’s worse, nobody really cares that they don’t work.”

While you might think the question is: why don’t these fads work, it is also: why do companies have to engage those fads in the first place? Stated another way: Why do the sociopaths always rise to the top?

The answer to why management needs to embrace the fads is because, at some level, they do recognize that they need help however, they don’t believe that they are necessarily the problem. Once sociopaths become entrenched in an organization they embrace these fad solutions because dysfunctional leadership is incapable of the introspection required to change on their own. Of course, when I say embrace I really mean “give lip service.” And lip service is the answer to the first question: why don’t the fads work? The answer to the last question lies in the fact that the underlying philosophy of modern management/leadership is flawed and not consistent with the path our culture is taking.

Management of most all modern day organizations remains stuck in the 20th century mentality of top-down, “command and control,” position-based authority. Command and control is based on establishing and maintaining power over, and control of, people and organizational processes. Business history has left us with a legacy of workplace patriarchy and hierarchy, based on the superiority of those in charge. The consequence of this is that we all have been brainwashed into believing that “to manage” means we need to be completely in control and dominant. All the fad leadership literature pays lip service to the notion that people and relationships are important, and that leaders can be created by following some simple steps. However, contrary to this, our society believes that the real work of managers is with quantitative data, money, and bottom line performance−and of course the bottom line must be met at all costs.

Another myth that has grown up in managerial circles is what’s called the “divine rights of managers.” Management assumes that it has certain prerogatives and obligations that are intrinsic and that are, in a sense, the reward for having worked oneself up into management. This theory of leadership is owed to Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher of the 19th century. Nietzsche distinguishes between two types of morality: the “master morality” and the “slave morality.” The first is applicable to the leaders of society (and business), who create their own values for themselves. The “slave morality” is applicable to the herd−the rest of us working fools. Interestingly Nietzsche perceived that the “herd” sees the behavior of the masters as evil. Note: I’ve made that case before in blog posts and in the subtitle of my book, Puttin’ Cologne on the Rickshaw – A Guide to Dysfunctional Management and the Evil Workplace Environments They Create. Despite that, according to Nietzsche, the Masters stand “beyond good and evil” and are subject to their own principles, different from the norms of the herd. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

The social structure of today’s society feeds this problem in emphasizing achievement at work over social status outside of work−people are defined by their careers. Hence we must rely on earned position, title and visible status symbols like corner offices, reserved parking spots, etc. Given this it is not surprising that once one has been promoted into a managerial position one wants to use one’s authority−to act like a boss. Anyone reaching the top rung of the corporate ladder should take heed from Peter F. Drucker who pointed out, “Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility.”

The pyramid organizational hierarchy and the competition-based methods that must be used to work one’s way up the “ladder” creates the sense of status, and the higher level managers thus are expected to act in a way commensurate with that status, i.e., in a more controlling manner to express that status. The emperor must act like an emperor despite not wearing any clothes. In other words, the power that is earned or achieved through the individual competition necessary to get to the top corrupts those who attain that power.

Our collective problem is that we live in a society that does not provide a way, outside of work, for the individual to achieve an alternate source of status. Being a good parent or upstanding citizen isn’t enough. We must strive for that next position up the corporate ladder so that we can feel like we’ve accomplished something in life.

Within the work context we have the further problem that our jobs and daily tasks, i.e., our “results,” are always given priority over personal relationships with others in the workplace. In many respects no one cares how well we get along with others thus we automatically pay more attention to whatever are the demands of our job even if that forces us to sacrifice relationships. Teamwork is really just a practical necessity, not an intrinsically desirable condition. If teamwork were more natural, “team building exercises” would not be a popular topic in the corporate lexicon. Within the workplace environment, we build personal relationships if they are pragmatically necessary, i.e., they help us on our journey to the top. However, in the context of the “individual competition” that occurs, we reach the top on the pile of dead bodies we leave in our wake.

Most managers honestly don’t care about employees or take an interest in employee personal needs. All they know is who their stars are−those that can make them look good−or the ones that suck-up to them, i.e., their loyal sycophants. The result of this indifference to the majority of the workers is a significant issue and leads to the belief that if the boss doesn’t care why should the employees?

Gallup reported in two large-scale studies that only 30% of U.S. employees are engaged (care) at work, and a staggeringly low 13% worldwide are engaged. Worse, over the past 12 years, these low numbers haven’t budged, meaning that the vast majority of employees worldwide are failing to really care about their work. So the question is what causes this? What are the problems keeping people from being engaged, contributing and enjoying their work? Answer: the people at the top.

In support of this, Gallup also estimates that managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement scores. When managers have real management/leadership talent, teamwork develops and the organization thrives. However, when managers don’t have that talent, the exact opposite is true. In other words, “the neck of every bottle is at the top.”

Even more profound, Gallup also uncovered: Companies fail to choose the candidate with the right leadership talent 82% of the time. There’s a reason for this−authentic leadership talent is very rare. Gallup research shows that just 1 in 10 have the natural, innate talent to lead. This explains how a charismatic sociopath can make everyone think he/she is a great leader. Thus they are promoted over those who can truly “lead” and don’t have dead bodies in their wake.

Because of this most companies are wasting time and resources attempting to train bad managers to be leaders when they’re simply not capable. It’s the old story of the terrific engineer who gets promoted to manager yet has absolutely zero leadership skills. Thus the organization will attempt to train into the person leadership skills. And recall what Jim Clifton alluded to above: No amount of seminars, consultants, 360 performance reviews, and so forth can fix a person who’s not leadership material.

Those few “gifted” leaders (the 1 in 10) know how to motivate every individual (not just the sycophants) on their team, review strengths-based performance (without the archaic, demotivating performance review process), build relationships (true teamwork), overcome adversity, and make decisions based on facts, not the politics of advancement. Thus 1 organization in 10 is probably led by a true leader−no wonder it’s a crap-shoot in finding one of these type organizations when job hunting.

And speaking of the ability to overcome adversity: The true “neck of the bottle” is displayed for all to see when a manager−with no real talent for leadership−deals with workplace problems. They rely on manipulation, divide and conquer techniques, interpersonal games, and office politics, all reinforced by their lack of communication skills and empathy required to lead people effectively. In a crisis they’re first reaction is to run around yelling “off with his head” all the while looking for someone to blame. For these type managers, the employees, in the end, are nothing more than another resource that can be manipulated−a tool to get the job done. I think it was Henry Ford who quipped that his factory workers were nothing but “a tool with a voice.”

If you have any doubts about the reality of all that I present here consider how many performance appraisals you’ve sat through in your career that reduce both your performance and career potential into quantitative measures (on a scale of 1 to 5) of your weaknesses, rather than qualitative review of, and emphasis on, your strengths or your leadership potential. If more attention was paid to strengths maybe more true leaders would find their way to the top. Right now the whole focus on “results” almost guarantees the sociopaths will rise to the top.

In his June 14, 2012 HBR Blog article “How to Get Senior Leaders to Change,” Scott Keller tells us, “Most executives don’t see themselves as ‘part of the problem.’ Therefore, deep down, they do not believe that it is they who need to change, even though in principle they agree that leaders must model the desired changes. Take, for example, a team that reports that, as a group and as an organization, they are low in trust, not customer-focused and bureaucratic. How many executives when asked privately will say “no” to the questions “Do you consider yourself to be trustworthy?” and “Are you customer-focused?” and “yes” to the question “Are you a bureaucrat?” None, of course.”

If you’re a manager, the buck must stop with you−you are the neck of the bottle.