Theory: "Troublemaker" Position
For every sick organization out there, there must be at least one person designated as the "troublemaker." The position is needed so the staff can direct their anger at the "troublemaker" rather than at the administration, and so the administration can have a person to use as an example for the rest of the staff on what will happen if you cross them plus have the "troublemaker" as the "blame" guy (all sorts of things can be blamed on the "troublemaker" so the other staff is intimidated into complying to administration wishes, and directing their anger at the "troublemaker," etc.)
.
The "troublemaker" must rear his/her head (like a snake) every once in a while so the administration can beat him/her back down to "save" the rest of the staff, or to keep him/her/them in line. He/she rears head by asking a question, putting forth an idea not generated by the administration, questioning a wrong act done by a senior staff member, or any number of things to "bother" the administration, etc.
A good "troublemaker" plays a very important role for the sick organization in getting the rest of the staff to focus on his/her supposed wrongdoings rather than on those of the administration. The staff can then spend hours talking about the "troublemaker" rather than thinking about how the administration is also screwing them. A smart sick organization will keep a good "troublemaker" around for years to help keep the others in line.
But once he/she is no longer useful, or some political demands require one of their buddies to be supplied with a job (i.e., the "troublemaker's" job), or he/she leaves of his/her own decision, then a new "troublemaker" must be chosen. Usually the new one has been tested by the administration by previous blame games, etc., so the administration easily shifts the blame game to another, and they have a new "troublemaker."
If you think my theory is crazy, talk to various present, and former, "troublemakers" at sick organizations all around you ............ They are also called whistleblowers, free-thinkers, rebels, independents, etc.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Theory: Troublemaker Must Decide
Theory: Troublemaker Must Decide
Any chosen for the "troublemaker" position at a sick organization must make a life-altering decision when he/she realizes he/she has been made the organization "troublemaker."
One theory: Sometimes the "troublemaker" likes his/her work, but not the nasty politics. He/she knows if he/she leaves he/she will have to start all over, and he/she will probably not get a good and honest letter of recommendation from his/her bosses at the sick organization. He/she is only about 10 years from retirement and thinks he/she can make it, having withstood their best shots thus far. And he/she knows from past experience that he/she can outwork them, and can mostly out-think them, so he/she decides to stick it out. This may or may not be a good decision. There are also other theories/paths the "troublemaker" can follow.
Things any "troublemaker" should consider in making a decision to stay or leave a sick organization:
---How many years are left to retirement? Is the retirement plan good?
---Will retirement mean anything, i.e., any concern about politicians/owners stealing the money before one can get a retirement?
---Any concern about tormenters getting him/her terminated before retirement to save parent organization money?
---Is physical health good enough to stand years of torment?
---Can "troublemaker" do the work that will be required by tormenters?
---Can one get a truthful letter of recommendation from boss or organization?
--- Does "troublemaker" have enough information on their wrongdoings to hold them at bay for several years? (To outlast the tormenters one must be able to keep them at bay for a long time. They must think it is safer to keep you under their thumb rather than cut you loose to possibly "spill the beans.")
---Can "troublemaker" stand a hostile work place for 10 + years?
---Can "troublemaker" stand no, or little, advancement in pay or position for years?
---Can "troublemaker's" family stand the stress and long hours of work that will occur over the next 10 + years?
---Can "troublemaker" easily sell his/her house, and move?
---Can "troublemaker" mentally stand years more of torture?
---Can "troublemaker" keep sanity while others get credit and pictures for his/her work?
There are probably many more questions one should consider before making a final decision, and the questions will vary per situation, "troublemaker," and type of sick organization (private, religious, charity, foundation, education, government, etc.). Every "troublemaker" should think long and hard before making a decision on what to do.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Any chosen for the "troublemaker" position at a sick organization must make a life-altering decision when he/she realizes he/she has been made the organization "troublemaker."
One theory: Sometimes the "troublemaker" likes his/her work, but not the nasty politics. He/she knows if he/she leaves he/she will have to start all over, and he/she will probably not get a good and honest letter of recommendation from his/her bosses at the sick organization. He/she is only about 10 years from retirement and thinks he/she can make it, having withstood their best shots thus far. And he/she knows from past experience that he/she can outwork them, and can mostly out-think them, so he/she decides to stick it out. This may or may not be a good decision. There are also other theories/paths the "troublemaker" can follow.
Things any "troublemaker" should consider in making a decision to stay or leave a sick organization:
---How many years are left to retirement? Is the retirement plan good?
---Will retirement mean anything, i.e., any concern about politicians/owners stealing the money before one can get a retirement?
---Any concern about tormenters getting him/her terminated before retirement to save parent organization money?
---Is physical health good enough to stand years of torment?
---Can "troublemaker" do the work that will be required by tormenters?
---Can one get a truthful letter of recommendation from boss or organization?
--- Does "troublemaker" have enough information on their wrongdoings to hold them at bay for several years? (To outlast the tormenters one must be able to keep them at bay for a long time. They must think it is safer to keep you under their thumb rather than cut you loose to possibly "spill the beans.")
---Can "troublemaker" stand a hostile work place for 10 + years?
---Can "troublemaker" stand no, or little, advancement in pay or position for years?
---Can "troublemaker's" family stand the stress and long hours of work that will occur over the next 10 + years?
---Can "troublemaker" easily sell his/her house, and move?
---Can "troublemaker" mentally stand years more of torture?
---Can "troublemaker" keep sanity while others get credit and pictures for his/her work?
There are probably many more questions one should consider before making a final decision, and the questions will vary per situation, "troublemaker," and type of sick organization (private, religious, charity, foundation, education, government, etc.). Every "troublemaker" should think long and hard before making a decision on what to do.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Theory: Never Admit
Theory: Never Admit
Over time the "troublemaker" has figured out the sick organization will never admit that any of its chosen ones did anything wrong (because that would mean they made an error in selecting or keeping their chosen ones), and will never admit that anything he/she says pertains to their sick organization, because that would be an admission of their guilt and complicity in the torture and slander of someone that worked very hard for them.
Since they can never admit any wrongdoing, they can never even fully recognize their being sick and thus do the work to be cured of being sick, so the sick organization continues being SICK .............
And the sick organization can stay sick for many, many years ..................
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Over time the "troublemaker" has figured out the sick organization will never admit that any of its chosen ones did anything wrong (because that would mean they made an error in selecting or keeping their chosen ones), and will never admit that anything he/she says pertains to their sick organization, because that would be an admission of their guilt and complicity in the torture and slander of someone that worked very hard for them.
Since they can never admit any wrongdoing, they can never even fully recognize their being sick and thus do the work to be cured of being sick, so the sick organization continues being SICK .............
And the sick organization can stay sick for many, many years ..................
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Theory: Family Reward
Theory: Family Reward
There are several ways the "troublemaker" could be treated, out of many possible ways, by his/her family. The "troublemaker" could be considered a hero by his/her spouse and children for standing up for his/her beliefs and supporting the family, and trying to protect them, while undergoing various attacks, as a loving spouse and parent should do. The family could stand by their leader, and help make him/her stronger, or, at the least, feel stronger. ..........
Or if the "troublemaker" has a spouse that is merely along for the free food and shelter and benefits as long as he/she is having fun, there can be a much different outcome. The spouse, unknown to him/her, could be a great actor. Maybe he/she married him/her for a free ride, not for love, so he/she would not have to work. ............. He/she does not believe the "troublemaker" or in his/her character to try to do the right thing, and decides to leave because he/she believes the "troublemaker" "is going down the tubes" politically and professionally, and he/she can no longer count on an easy free ride. The "troublemaker" works too much to keep his/her job and now is boring to the spouse. The spouse has apparently been warned by the spouse of the chief tormenter that they are going to eliminate the "troublemaker," or "get him/her." ........ The spouse takes everything that can be hauled off while the "troublemaker" is at work, demands almost everything the "troublemaker" has, starts a line of younger lovers, and expands his/her search for more fun. .......... The "troublemaker" is devastated. But no one cares.
The kids, who have mostly bonded with the leaving spouse, may not believe the "troublemaker" either, but may believe the words of the person they bonded to, no matter what that person does. ......... It may take years for them to see the truth, if ever. Except for a faithful friend or two, he/she is essentially alone.
He/she relishes his/her triumphs alone, but he/she has always really been alone (even though he/she did not realize it at the time), so it does not matter anymore. He/she becomes resigned to being really alone, and fighting alone for things believed to be right.
If you fill the "troublemaker" position at your organization, better hope you have a good and faithful spouse who believes in you .........
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
There are several ways the "troublemaker" could be treated, out of many possible ways, by his/her family. The "troublemaker" could be considered a hero by his/her spouse and children for standing up for his/her beliefs and supporting the family, and trying to protect them, while undergoing various attacks, as a loving spouse and parent should do. The family could stand by their leader, and help make him/her stronger, or, at the least, feel stronger. ..........
Or if the "troublemaker" has a spouse that is merely along for the free food and shelter and benefits as long as he/she is having fun, there can be a much different outcome. The spouse, unknown to him/her, could be a great actor. Maybe he/she married him/her for a free ride, not for love, so he/she would not have to work. ............. He/she does not believe the "troublemaker" or in his/her character to try to do the right thing, and decides to leave because he/she believes the "troublemaker" "is going down the tubes" politically and professionally, and he/she can no longer count on an easy free ride. The "troublemaker" works too much to keep his/her job and now is boring to the spouse. The spouse has apparently been warned by the spouse of the chief tormenter that they are going to eliminate the "troublemaker," or "get him/her." ........ The spouse takes everything that can be hauled off while the "troublemaker" is at work, demands almost everything the "troublemaker" has, starts a line of younger lovers, and expands his/her search for more fun. .......... The "troublemaker" is devastated. But no one cares.
The kids, who have mostly bonded with the leaving spouse, may not believe the "troublemaker" either, but may believe the words of the person they bonded to, no matter what that person does. ......... It may take years for them to see the truth, if ever. Except for a faithful friend or two, he/she is essentially alone.
He/she relishes his/her triumphs alone, but he/she has always really been alone (even though he/she did not realize it at the time), so it does not matter anymore. He/she becomes resigned to being really alone, and fighting alone for things believed to be right.
If you fill the "troublemaker" position at your organization, better hope you have a good and faithful spouse who believes in you .........
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
Monday, November 7, 2011
Theory: Top Gun Stays Mum
Theory: Top Gun Stays Mum
The top gun has been sent the evidence proving some at the sick organization are lying about the "troublemaker," and told by the "troublemaker" that the top gun will get the first shot to clean up the slanders going around the sick organization. The "troublemaker" waits, and waits, hearing nothing from the top ......... and sends an enquiring email once a month for several months. He/she starts to formulate a theory of what could be going on in this case. Having heard nothing from the top gun, who apparently will never reply or acknowledge the "troublemaker" because a reply could be taken as an admission of guilt by the sick organization, the "troublemaker" thinks long and hard about the next step.
He/she has figured out that the sick organization will never admit that any of its chosen ones are guilty of anything, and even the most vile of them will be protected to the bitter end. ...... The "great" organization must never be questioned in any way by anybody. Doesn't the "troublemaker" know the organization can do no wrong? .......... Only the organization can decide who and what to punish, and no one out of their circle is allowed any input.
Since the "troublemaker" has heard nothing from the top gun or from the rest of the sick organization via the rumor mill, he/she assumes nothing has been done, so he/she composes a memo to be sent to his/her colleagues so they will know that the slanders are really lies, and to defend his/her reputation. The "troublemaker" fires off his/her memo to defend his/her reputation and also sends the proof so people can see for themselves.
But as we all know, people will believe what they want to believe, proof or no proof, and dirty politics rule all.
Nothing happens for a while. ......... Then many hear of the sudden and mysterious resignation of one of the tormenters and liars. The "troublemaker" guesses that the tormenter "blew his/her top" at the release of the "troublemaker's" memo and his/her lying exposure to his/her buddies (his/her true character was exposed). This apparent theory by the "troublemaker" of open uncontrolled anger by a tormenter was then apparently something the top gun could no longer ignore; such obvious "sandbox" behavior could not be seen by others as coming from the "great" (but sick) organization. The other tormenters acted like nothing had happened and the sick organization kept them on.
Apparently even the tormenters must not squawk when exposed, or stepped on, and must take their "medicine" quietly.
So the "troublemaker" never was acknowledged, replied to, apologized to, or even thanked for taking all the persecution, BS and lies and still doing his/her job and then some for years. And many still believe in the lies, and will never acknowledge the "troublemaker" and his/her work efforts.
And the sick organization pays no attention to all the flaws in its handbook and management system that the "troublemaker" pointed out, and stays the same, and stays sick on and on because no one has the courage to change it to make it better, or likes the politics as they are .............
... and you could be next in line for the "troublemaker" position in your organization ..........
Generally speaking, real truth will not be tolerated in a sick organization ............. only their "truth" .........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011
The top gun has been sent the evidence proving some at the sick organization are lying about the "troublemaker," and told by the "troublemaker" that the top gun will get the first shot to clean up the slanders going around the sick organization. The "troublemaker" waits, and waits, hearing nothing from the top ......... and sends an enquiring email once a month for several months. He/she starts to formulate a theory of what could be going on in this case. Having heard nothing from the top gun, who apparently will never reply or acknowledge the "troublemaker" because a reply could be taken as an admission of guilt by the sick organization, the "troublemaker" thinks long and hard about the next step.
He/she has figured out that the sick organization will never admit that any of its chosen ones are guilty of anything, and even the most vile of them will be protected to the bitter end. ...... The "great" organization must never be questioned in any way by anybody. Doesn't the "troublemaker" know the organization can do no wrong? .......... Only the organization can decide who and what to punish, and no one out of their circle is allowed any input.
Since the "troublemaker" has heard nothing from the top gun or from the rest of the sick organization via the rumor mill, he/she assumes nothing has been done, so he/she composes a memo to be sent to his/her colleagues so they will know that the slanders are really lies, and to defend his/her reputation. The "troublemaker" fires off his/her memo to defend his/her reputation and also sends the proof so people can see for themselves.
But as we all know, people will believe what they want to believe, proof or no proof, and dirty politics rule all.
Nothing happens for a while. ......... Then many hear of the sudden and mysterious resignation of one of the tormenters and liars. The "troublemaker" guesses that the tormenter "blew his/her top" at the release of the "troublemaker's" memo and his/her lying exposure to his/her buddies (his/her true character was exposed). This apparent theory by the "troublemaker" of open uncontrolled anger by a tormenter was then apparently something the top gun could no longer ignore; such obvious "sandbox" behavior could not be seen by others as coming from the "great" (but sick) organization. The other tormenters acted like nothing had happened and the sick organization kept them on.
Apparently even the tormenters must not squawk when exposed, or stepped on, and must take their "medicine" quietly.
So the "troublemaker" never was acknowledged, replied to, apologized to, or even thanked for taking all the persecution, BS and lies and still doing his/her job and then some for years. And many still believe in the lies, and will never acknowledge the "troublemaker" and his/her work efforts.
And the sick organization pays no attention to all the flaws in its handbook and management system that the "troublemaker" pointed out, and stays the same, and stays sick on and on because no one has the courage to change it to make it better, or likes the politics as they are .............
... and you could be next in line for the "troublemaker" position in your organization ..........
Generally speaking, real truth will not be tolerated in a sick organization ............. only their "truth" .........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Theory: Waiting to Expose Lies
Theory: Waiting to Expose Lies
The "troublemaker" must learn to be patient, and bide his/her time. Waiting for any crack to appear in their wall of torment .......... that allows him/her to get through to redeem his/her reputation and expose their lies. He/she can wait for years ..... but he/she WILL wait to expose them for what they are.
They had laughed at him/her when he/she did nasty work, torn at his/her reputation as best they could, lied about him/her to others, etc. Laughed when he/she was down and they tromped on him/her; laughed when his/her spouse left for younger, exciting sex, etc. ..........
They did him/her so much evil he/she could now use their evil actions against him/her as information to use against them, to expose them, and the "operation" of a sick organization.
Finally he/she sees his opening. One of the main tormenters has really enjoyed his/her role as the chief basher/tormenter and has gotten giddy with excitement over the years and has embellished his/her bashing of the "troublemaker's" life and ways so much that he/she is now openly lying and slandering him/her, and using him/her as an sick organization example of what not to do or the organization will "get them, too." But the "troublemaker" has proof via court records that the lies are lies. He/she thinks of ways he/she can expose the main tormenters, thoroughly thinking about all options. He/she could expose them via a slander lawsuit, proof given to the local media, or to the head politician over the organization, or to the top one of the organization telling him/her to handle it or he/she will. He/she thinks long and hard .............
He/she gets his/her proof together and sends it to the top gun, and says "I'm giving you the first shot to clean this up." Letting them quietly police their own people, but knowing they will not actually do much. But knowing a slander lawsuit takes a long time and is hard to prove because all the witnesses "clam up," because they are still at the sick organization and they do not want to be known as the "troublemaker," or experience "troublemaker" persecution ...........
Now it is done .......... He/she has exposed the liars, and they are known ......... and he/she has done it by making the sick organization do the job .......... but the ones at the top do not do enough, as expected, so the organization still stays sick ....... but is now known as sick .......
Another theory on life at a sick organization ......... it could happen to any of you.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
The "troublemaker" must learn to be patient, and bide his/her time. Waiting for any crack to appear in their wall of torment .......... that allows him/her to get through to redeem his/her reputation and expose their lies. He/she can wait for years ..... but he/she WILL wait to expose them for what they are.
They had laughed at him/her when he/she did nasty work, torn at his/her reputation as best they could, lied about him/her to others, etc. Laughed when he/she was down and they tromped on him/her; laughed when his/her spouse left for younger, exciting sex, etc. ..........
They did him/her so much evil he/she could now use their evil actions against him/her as information to use against them, to expose them, and the "operation" of a sick organization.
Finally he/she sees his opening. One of the main tormenters has really enjoyed his/her role as the chief basher/tormenter and has gotten giddy with excitement over the years and has embellished his/her bashing of the "troublemaker's" life and ways so much that he/she is now openly lying and slandering him/her, and using him/her as an sick organization example of what not to do or the organization will "get them, too." But the "troublemaker" has proof via court records that the lies are lies. He/she thinks of ways he/she can expose the main tormenters, thoroughly thinking about all options. He/she could expose them via a slander lawsuit, proof given to the local media, or to the head politician over the organization, or to the top one of the organization telling him/her to handle it or he/she will. He/she thinks long and hard .............
He/she gets his/her proof together and sends it to the top gun, and says "I'm giving you the first shot to clean this up." Letting them quietly police their own people, but knowing they will not actually do much. But knowing a slander lawsuit takes a long time and is hard to prove because all the witnesses "clam up," because they are still at the sick organization and they do not want to be known as the "troublemaker," or experience "troublemaker" persecution ...........
Now it is done .......... He/she has exposed the liars, and they are known ......... and he/she has done it by making the sick organization do the job .......... but the ones at the top do not do enough, as expected, so the organization still stays sick ....... but is now known as sick .......
Another theory on life at a sick organization ......... it could happen to any of you.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Theory: Surrounded by Lies
Theory: Surrounded by Lies
The "troublemaker" was placed in his/her position usually by lies about him/her made by someone usually jealous of the space he/she had, or the recognition and PR he/she got, or the workers he/she had, or because he/she showed up his/her boss, etc. Someone wants to bring him/her down.......... They will use anything they can to bring him/her down: sex, alcohol use, tobacco use, being late, leaving early, his/her private life, etc., etc.
It is connived so he/she cannot win. If he/she works on all jobs under his/her command so the work gets done he/she is said to be wasting his/her education on technician, or "grunt" work. If he/she does not do the work to get the job done, he/she is said to be above such work and has no feeling for the project and the organization. Either way he/she loses....and this starts the lies. If people buy into those initial lies then they just expand them to say things like he/she is spending valuable time fixing things rather than buying new equipment, or he/she spreads himself/herself too thin by trying to do too much, or he/she cannot manage his/her time well. Vague accusations are used that are hard to prove one way or the other. Other co-workers are glad he/she has been singled out for persecution because that means they are safe ........ for a while .........
People that have no concept of the work involved, and do not do any of the work involved, are making the decisions on the project, not because they know anything about the project, but because of the sick organization chain-of-command. Sometimes the "troublemaker" is singled out because he/she "shows up" his/her boss with a better idea or invention, or is just smarter. The boss then thinks he/she has to make the "troublemaker" look bad to the rest of the organization to prove he/she is still "top dog," and will do almost anything to make the "troublemaker" look bad, and him/her smarter and in command (usually an appointed, rather than earned, position).
By then the "troublemaker" has to make a decision on whether to leave (usually without a letter of recommendation) and start all over, or to stay on and try to get a retirement (if he/she is closer to retirement than half-way).
If he/she stays then it becomes a race to the finish ..... can he/she reach retirement, or will they finally get him/her?? ........... Or drive him/her nuts? .......... Or will he/she drive them crazy? ........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
The "troublemaker" was placed in his/her position usually by lies about him/her made by someone usually jealous of the space he/she had, or the recognition and PR he/she got, or the workers he/she had, or because he/she showed up his/her boss, etc. Someone wants to bring him/her down.......... They will use anything they can to bring him/her down: sex, alcohol use, tobacco use, being late, leaving early, his/her private life, etc., etc.
It is connived so he/she cannot win. If he/she works on all jobs under his/her command so the work gets done he/she is said to be wasting his/her education on technician, or "grunt" work. If he/she does not do the work to get the job done, he/she is said to be above such work and has no feeling for the project and the organization. Either way he/she loses....and this starts the lies. If people buy into those initial lies then they just expand them to say things like he/she is spending valuable time fixing things rather than buying new equipment, or he/she spreads himself/herself too thin by trying to do too much, or he/she cannot manage his/her time well. Vague accusations are used that are hard to prove one way or the other. Other co-workers are glad he/she has been singled out for persecution because that means they are safe ........ for a while .........
People that have no concept of the work involved, and do not do any of the work involved, are making the decisions on the project, not because they know anything about the project, but because of the sick organization chain-of-command. Sometimes the "troublemaker" is singled out because he/she "shows up" his/her boss with a better idea or invention, or is just smarter. The boss then thinks he/she has to make the "troublemaker" look bad to the rest of the organization to prove he/she is still "top dog," and will do almost anything to make the "troublemaker" look bad, and him/her smarter and in command (usually an appointed, rather than earned, position).
By then the "troublemaker" has to make a decision on whether to leave (usually without a letter of recommendation) and start all over, or to stay on and try to get a retirement (if he/she is closer to retirement than half-way).
If he/she stays then it becomes a race to the finish ..... can he/she reach retirement, or will they finally get him/her?? ........... Or drive him/her nuts? .......... Or will he/she drive them crazy? ........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Theory: "Troublemaker" Becomes Superhuman
Theory: "Troublemaker" Becomes Superhuman
Tormenting or bullying can sometimes, probably rarely, lead the victim (one path/theory of many) to adapt to think faster, react faster, and be smarter than those around him/her in order to stay ahead of the tormentors. This, unfortunately, leads to the bullies trying harder to do him/her in. So the tormented has to become ever faster and smarter to stay ahead of the bullies ..... superhuman in taking abuse and out-thinking the bullies in order to keep his/her job.
This drives the bullies and sick organization establishment crazy, so they try ever more nasty tricks and set ups to try to get to the "troublemaker." They send sexy members of the opposite sex to see if person says anything wrong, or acts wrong, so they can get him/her on a sex crime, or misconduct. They make his/her papers, reports, and mail disappear, or get "lost," then punish him/her for missing a meeting, or deadline he/she knew nothing about.
They harass or torment him/her daily, making him/her toe the lines that no one else is forced to walk. They hold hearings or "inquisitions" over things he/she says. They make mountains out of insignificant things he/she says or does. They put him/her through kangaroo courts where so-called impartial members of the court have to call time-out to leave to go get more nasty questions from the tormentors for the kangaroo court. They make him/her do nasty jobs to see if they can get him/her on insubordination. They make him/her work holidays and weekends so they can do as they wish. They isolate him/her from about everyone. They try to trap him/her in making a mistake, but he/she knows by now he/she cannot make a mistake. He/she has to be perfect in every way on every day.
His/her mind is now like a huge computer, taking in all around him/her in order to protect himself/herself the best way possible to survive, and stay ahead of the bullies. He/she can outthink them all by now, and counters their moves. It was not how they planned his/her torture. They hate it............
It could happen as presented above; this could be one outcome of bullying, tormenting, etc.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Tormenting or bullying can sometimes, probably rarely, lead the victim (one path/theory of many) to adapt to think faster, react faster, and be smarter than those around him/her in order to stay ahead of the tormentors. This, unfortunately, leads to the bullies trying harder to do him/her in. So the tormented has to become ever faster and smarter to stay ahead of the bullies ..... superhuman in taking abuse and out-thinking the bullies in order to keep his/her job.
This drives the bullies and sick organization establishment crazy, so they try ever more nasty tricks and set ups to try to get to the "troublemaker." They send sexy members of the opposite sex to see if person says anything wrong, or acts wrong, so they can get him/her on a sex crime, or misconduct. They make his/her papers, reports, and mail disappear, or get "lost," then punish him/her for missing a meeting, or deadline he/she knew nothing about.
They harass or torment him/her daily, making him/her toe the lines that no one else is forced to walk. They hold hearings or "inquisitions" over things he/she says. They make mountains out of insignificant things he/she says or does. They put him/her through kangaroo courts where so-called impartial members of the court have to call time-out to leave to go get more nasty questions from the tormentors for the kangaroo court. They make him/her do nasty jobs to see if they can get him/her on insubordination. They make him/her work holidays and weekends so they can do as they wish. They isolate him/her from about everyone. They try to trap him/her in making a mistake, but he/she knows by now he/she cannot make a mistake. He/she has to be perfect in every way on every day.
His/her mind is now like a huge computer, taking in all around him/her in order to protect himself/herself the best way possible to survive, and stay ahead of the bullies. He/she can outthink them all by now, and counters their moves. It was not how they planned his/her torture. They hate it............
It could happen as presented above; this could be one outcome of bullying, tormenting, etc.
See other "Troublemaker" posts.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Friday, October 21, 2011
Theory: Victim, Ringleader, or both?
Theory: Victim, Ringleader, or both?
The victims of a sick organization are looked at differently by different people, depending on their job status, morals, etc. Some of those of lower job status, and some of those of the higher job status see one who is being treated unfairly, bullied, lied about, tormented, harassed, etc., and think of the person as a victim. The victim thinks of himself/herself as a victim. The victim is also called a complainer by many because he/she squawks when stepped upon. However, those of a lower job status that want to gain favor with the establishment, plus those of the establishment who want to stifle the "victim's" voice, ideas, influence, complaints, etc. usually think of the "victim" as the "ringleader" of the dissenters, especially if the "victim" is vocal in his/her complaints about the way he/she is being treated, or is going against the flow of the organization.
In one theoretical case (of many possibilities) one person had his/her salary reduced, and his/her workers taken away twice over the years in order to break him/her, or force him/her out. The sick organization thought the increased work load would force him/her out. There was infighting among several higher management people so higher authorities called for each senior member of the sick organization to go before a psychologist so everyone's character and personality could be analyzed prior to a mandatory weekend retreat that all would attend to work out the problems so work would flow more smoothly, and production increase. As the "troublemaker" or "victim" walked into the appointment with the psychologist, he/she was greeted with, "We understand you are the ringleader of the troubles around here." The victim got so angry he/she went into a several minute documentation of what had been done to him/her over the years and asked if he/she was the victim or the ringleader. The psychologist do not know what to say; shortly thereafter the mandatory retreat was called off and the parent organization of the sick organization then proceeded to do nothing about the problem, thereby enpowering the establishment to keep up their torment of the "troublemaker" and several others. The parent organization had backed the ones in power before (when they put them in) and they were not going to change no matter what, or admit they had done anything wrong, or stupid (by backing their people they put there in charge).
The sick organization had passed on the idea to the parent organization that the "troublemaker" was the "ringleader" of all sorts of crimes against the sick organization, when all he/she was doing was squawking when stepped on, and trying to protect himself/herself, and trying to fend off attacks. Of course the parent organization believed their own people who they had put in the positions of power over believing the "troublemaker," and also considered him/her the "ringleader" of problems around there.
Apparently it did not help the idea of a mandatory retreat when someone asked "Who's going to bring the guns? "
The parent organization did nothing then (retreat was cancelled), and did nothing to their buddies who just kept on doing as they had before, and just let attrition take its course. As each "troublemaker" left the sick organization had to pick another for the "troublemaker" position, and the sick organization went on as before.........
Depending on which side you are on (sick organization or tormented) the "troublemaker" is considered a ringleader of the opposition, or the victim of bullies.....and everyone loses..........and is not the best they could be........and the sick organization stays sick on and on ...............
Add your own theory to the comments...........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
The victims of a sick organization are looked at differently by different people, depending on their job status, morals, etc. Some of those of lower job status, and some of those of the higher job status see one who is being treated unfairly, bullied, lied about, tormented, harassed, etc., and think of the person as a victim. The victim thinks of himself/herself as a victim. The victim is also called a complainer by many because he/she squawks when stepped upon. However, those of a lower job status that want to gain favor with the establishment, plus those of the establishment who want to stifle the "victim's" voice, ideas, influence, complaints, etc. usually think of the "victim" as the "ringleader" of the dissenters, especially if the "victim" is vocal in his/her complaints about the way he/she is being treated, or is going against the flow of the organization.
In one theoretical case (of many possibilities) one person had his/her salary reduced, and his/her workers taken away twice over the years in order to break him/her, or force him/her out. The sick organization thought the increased work load would force him/her out. There was infighting among several higher management people so higher authorities called for each senior member of the sick organization to go before a psychologist so everyone's character and personality could be analyzed prior to a mandatory weekend retreat that all would attend to work out the problems so work would flow more smoothly, and production increase. As the "troublemaker" or "victim" walked into the appointment with the psychologist, he/she was greeted with, "We understand you are the ringleader of the troubles around here." The victim got so angry he/she went into a several minute documentation of what had been done to him/her over the years and asked if he/she was the victim or the ringleader. The psychologist do not know what to say; shortly thereafter the mandatory retreat was called off and the parent organization of the sick organization then proceeded to do nothing about the problem, thereby enpowering the establishment to keep up their torment of the "troublemaker" and several others. The parent organization had backed the ones in power before (when they put them in) and they were not going to change no matter what, or admit they had done anything wrong, or stupid (by backing their people they put there in charge).
The sick organization had passed on the idea to the parent organization that the "troublemaker" was the "ringleader" of all sorts of crimes against the sick organization, when all he/she was doing was squawking when stepped on, and trying to protect himself/herself, and trying to fend off attacks. Of course the parent organization believed their own people who they had put in the positions of power over believing the "troublemaker," and also considered him/her the "ringleader" of problems around there.
Apparently it did not help the idea of a mandatory retreat when someone asked "Who's going to bring the guns? "
The parent organization did nothing then (retreat was cancelled), and did nothing to their buddies who just kept on doing as they had before, and just let attrition take its course. As each "troublemaker" left the sick organization had to pick another for the "troublemaker" position, and the sick organization went on as before.........
Depending on which side you are on (sick organization or tormented) the "troublemaker" is considered a ringleader of the opposition, or the victim of bullies.....and everyone loses..........and is not the best they could be........and the sick organization stays sick on and on ...............
Add your own theory to the comments...........
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Sunday, October 9, 2011
One Theory : Why Some Organizations Stay Sick a Long Time (by Adrian R. Lawler)
One Theory : Why Some Organizations Stay Sick a Long Time (by Adrian R. Lawler)
The following comments represent one theory (of possibly many) on why/how some sick organizations could stay sick for a long time:
One reason some sick organizations stay sick a long time is that the head leaders are continually selected from within the organization ranks. They then continue all policies and management style, etc. that they worked under/on and are used to following, continue their buddies in positions of power, and thus continue the organization's sickness over years. Even a new leader selected from elsewhere can be visited and influenced to be their buddy and follow the same everything, including those to pick on, as before.
People selected as head person/supervisor tend to enjoy (or learn to enjoy) control or dominance over others. They tend to think they are always right, and cannot be questioned in any way without getting angry in some way (they might just turn red and appear ready to explode). Only their authority, ideas, or their way matter. If one complains or questions or has an idea of his/her own and the leader(s) do not like it he/she is labelled a "troublemaker" --- which is then voiced far and wide to label that person as an enemy of that particular organization.
Since the other people in the organization then tend to shun/persecute those labelled "troublemaker" in order to get/stay on the "good side" of the tormentors/head person and thus try to avoid their own persecution for being on the "enemy's" side, the staff becomes apprehensive/wary/more isolated/distrustful/etc. and the organization communication starts shutting down. Staff won't admit the "troublemaker" helped them, or saved their project, or anything else good because being the "troublemaker" everyone "knows" he/she does no good, even if it is not reality, and saying something good about the "troublemaker" will put them in jeopardy. There is less cooperation from/among staff because they are avoiding the tormentors and the "troublemaker" (they don't want to be treated that way), and they are spending a lot of time and energy trying to protect themselves.
It is especially bad if someone recognizes the problem, mentions it, and is then shut up (silenced) because it is not "their business," a change would cost too much time, effort, and money, a political order comes down to stop anything from changing present system (which some people like), etc. If this occurs then the staff gets the message that no one really cares, no one is listening, nothing is ever going to change ---- so it becomes every person trying to save his/her own rear. Then you get infighting and protection of "territories," status, image/ reputation, etc., which lead to various words between various people --- and cooperation is stalled. Joy is mostly gone from the organization work, and the organization stalls........... (Competitors delight in sick organizations because they cannot compete well.)
It can stay stalled for years, unless fixed.........
The "troublemaker" may be kept on as an example to/punching bag for the rest of the staff, and as the local "black sheep," so all (leaders & staff) can continue their torment (which gives some great delight and some feeling of power to all who torment the victim, and gives staff a target for venting their anger, etc.), etc. The leaders think they are doing great because they are keeping the complainer/questioner/boat-rocker/free thinker/etc. under control and the rest of staff are following their lead of shunning/tormenting the "troublemaker" and the enemy is contained and the organization stays the same.
If the "troublemaker" leaves (for any reason), then the sick organization may talk about him/her for years to use him/her as an example of what not to do, as a "black sheep," as a teaching story for interns/employees, etc. Over the years the sick organization takes great delight in embellishing the story so the person who first asked a question, or had an idea, or complained about unfair treatment etc., goes from "troublemaker" to the organization's "bogyman." And since the organization wants to stay the same, they must pick another person as their "troublemaker" and new target for all so all stays the same.........
And some of the organization staff no longer complain or question, or have an idea of their own, or think for themselves because they saw what was done to one who did. And the sick organization continues on with no real advance in ideas, production, or reputation. .......... And few, or none, of leaders or oversight powers at the organization are smart enough, or care enough, or will investigate to see what is going on and get advice/help from some specialists. But some others may see........
The "troublemaker" could have been "broken" by all the torment, and stress, and left organization, or stayed/left to become an even better survivor and stronger person. If he/she became stronger some of the organization may continue to "pick at" him/her for years (even if gone), because they have not yet finished their task of tearing him/her apart, or their brain is still "stuck" on "getting" that person. By then the "troublemaker" has three main options: (1) do nothing and let the torment continue (to keep the job, or if gone let torment continue and just try to forget it), (2) seek revenge and expose sick organization far and wide (like they lied about him/her), or (3) still believe in the concept of the organization but not how it is operated. If the "troublemaker" chooses the last option he/she may be able to wield some influence (whether still at organization, or gone) to help change the sick organization, because he/she has more proof the organization is sick from their continued torment and feels his/her job and family are/can be no longer threathened, and quietly tries to make it better. At any rate, the "troublemaker" is/was probably affected in one to many ways that badly stressed people are known to be affected. Those people at the sick organization may be affected in some ways if they have a conscience and a feeling of right and wrong.............
And if the sick organization never recognizes (one ex: positive PR, thanks, etc.) the "troublemaker" for the work he/she did, or never tries to correct (showing it can acknowledge good in "troublemakers") the lies against him/her, or allows the sick practices of the organization to continue, or does nothing, it will continue to stay sick (and the same), and be known as sick ...............
( My theory could be true. Things could happen as I presented them. (Compare part of above to a wolf pack.) Experts on sick organizations are requested to comment on this theory and its various parts/paths. Others are encouraged to note their observations, experiences, etc., to help us all be able to better deal with a sick organization, the people really causing the real problems, and the resulting stress, because sick organizations are all around us and will affect us all sometime during life.)
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D. , (C) 2011 --
The following comments represent one theory (of possibly many) on why/how some sick organizations could stay sick for a long time:
One reason some sick organizations stay sick a long time is that the head leaders are continually selected from within the organization ranks. They then continue all policies and management style, etc. that they worked under/on and are used to following, continue their buddies in positions of power, and thus continue the organization's sickness over years. Even a new leader selected from elsewhere can be visited and influenced to be their buddy and follow the same everything, including those to pick on, as before.
People selected as head person/supervisor tend to enjoy (or learn to enjoy) control or dominance over others. They tend to think they are always right, and cannot be questioned in any way without getting angry in some way (they might just turn red and appear ready to explode). Only their authority, ideas, or their way matter. If one complains or questions or has an idea of his/her own and the leader(s) do not like it he/she is labelled a "troublemaker" --- which is then voiced far and wide to label that person as an enemy of that particular organization.
Since the other people in the organization then tend to shun/persecute those labelled "troublemaker" in order to get/stay on the "good side" of the tormentors/head person and thus try to avoid their own persecution for being on the "enemy's" side, the staff becomes apprehensive/wary/more isolated/distrustful/etc. and the organization communication starts shutting down. Staff won't admit the "troublemaker" helped them, or saved their project, or anything else good because being the "troublemaker" everyone "knows" he/she does no good, even if it is not reality, and saying something good about the "troublemaker" will put them in jeopardy. There is less cooperation from/among staff because they are avoiding the tormentors and the "troublemaker" (they don't want to be treated that way), and they are spending a lot of time and energy trying to protect themselves.
It is especially bad if someone recognizes the problem, mentions it, and is then shut up (silenced) because it is not "their business," a change would cost too much time, effort, and money, a political order comes down to stop anything from changing present system (which some people like), etc. If this occurs then the staff gets the message that no one really cares, no one is listening, nothing is ever going to change ---- so it becomes every person trying to save his/her own rear. Then you get infighting and protection of "territories," status, image/ reputation, etc., which lead to various words between various people --- and cooperation is stalled. Joy is mostly gone from the organization work, and the organization stalls........... (Competitors delight in sick organizations because they cannot compete well.)
It can stay stalled for years, unless fixed.........
The "troublemaker" may be kept on as an example to/punching bag for the rest of the staff, and as the local "black sheep," so all (leaders & staff) can continue their torment (which gives some great delight and some feeling of power to all who torment the victim, and gives staff a target for venting their anger, etc.), etc. The leaders think they are doing great because they are keeping the complainer/questioner/boat-rocker/free thinker/etc. under control and the rest of staff are following their lead of shunning/tormenting the "troublemaker" and the enemy is contained and the organization stays the same.
If the "troublemaker" leaves (for any reason), then the sick organization may talk about him/her for years to use him/her as an example of what not to do, as a "black sheep," as a teaching story for interns/employees, etc. Over the years the sick organization takes great delight in embellishing the story so the person who first asked a question, or had an idea, or complained about unfair treatment etc., goes from "troublemaker" to the organization's "bogyman." And since the organization wants to stay the same, they must pick another person as their "troublemaker" and new target for all so all stays the same.........
And some of the organization staff no longer complain or question, or have an idea of their own, or think for themselves because they saw what was done to one who did. And the sick organization continues on with no real advance in ideas, production, or reputation. .......... And few, or none, of leaders or oversight powers at the organization are smart enough, or care enough, or will investigate to see what is going on and get advice/help from some specialists. But some others may see........
The "troublemaker" could have been "broken" by all the torment, and stress, and left organization, or stayed/left to become an even better survivor and stronger person. If he/she became stronger some of the organization may continue to "pick at" him/her for years (even if gone), because they have not yet finished their task of tearing him/her apart, or their brain is still "stuck" on "getting" that person. By then the "troublemaker" has three main options: (1) do nothing and let the torment continue (to keep the job, or if gone let torment continue and just try to forget it), (2) seek revenge and expose sick organization far and wide (like they lied about him/her), or (3) still believe in the concept of the organization but not how it is operated. If the "troublemaker" chooses the last option he/she may be able to wield some influence (whether still at organization, or gone) to help change the sick organization, because he/she has more proof the organization is sick from their continued torment and feels his/her job and family are/can be no longer threathened, and quietly tries to make it better. At any rate, the "troublemaker" is/was probably affected in one to many ways that badly stressed people are known to be affected. Those people at the sick organization may be affected in some ways if they have a conscience and a feeling of right and wrong.............
And if the sick organization never recognizes (one ex: positive PR, thanks, etc.) the "troublemaker" for the work he/she did, or never tries to correct (showing it can acknowledge good in "troublemakers") the lies against him/her, or allows the sick practices of the organization to continue, or does nothing, it will continue to stay sick (and the same), and be known as sick ...............
( My theory could be true. Things could happen as I presented them. (Compare part of above to a wolf pack.) Experts on sick organizations are requested to comment on this theory and its various parts/paths. Others are encouraged to note their observations, experiences, etc., to help us all be able to better deal with a sick organization, the people really causing the real problems, and the resulting stress, because sick organizations are all around us and will affect us all sometime during life.)
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D. , (C) 2011 --
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Post from Internet: Leadership within the Sick Organization
Post from Internet: Leadership within the Sick Organization
February 23rd, 2010
"How do I make my way in an organization as crazy as this one?"
Unfortunately, this is a common question posed by our clients. Figuring out how to navigate the sick organization is often the single biggest source of stress and energy depletion among employees. And while our clients are leaders themselves, they complain that they often find it difficult to sustainably lead from a fearless, generative and intuitive place when they are constantly victimized by inconsistent managerial policy, organizations that lack a clear sense of vision and executive leadership that comes from a place of ego, depletion and compromise.
In a recent conversation, a client described a situation in which the CEO chose to publicly berate her for being late, while she was interviewing a potential new hire. Our client admitted that she was 5 minutes late passing the candidate over to the CEO’s office, however the cause of the delay was the candidate being passed to her late as well. Compounding the issue, when the CEO discovered that the delay had actually originated as a result of earlier interviews, he asked our client to implicate one of her colleagues as the original source of the delay. Think of this. The CEO has likely embarrassed the candidate, set up a dynamic where two members of his leadership team are potentially at odds with one another, and he has communicated that their time spent interviewing the candidate was not highly valued, at least not as highly valued as his own. Our client says this type of behavior is typical.
More at website: http://www.archosadvisors.com/blog/2010/02/23/leadership-within-the-sick-organization/
February 23rd, 2010
"How do I make my way in an organization as crazy as this one?"
Unfortunately, this is a common question posed by our clients. Figuring out how to navigate the sick organization is often the single biggest source of stress and energy depletion among employees. And while our clients are leaders themselves, they complain that they often find it difficult to sustainably lead from a fearless, generative and intuitive place when they are constantly victimized by inconsistent managerial policy, organizations that lack a clear sense of vision and executive leadership that comes from a place of ego, depletion and compromise.
In a recent conversation, a client described a situation in which the CEO chose to publicly berate her for being late, while she was interviewing a potential new hire. Our client admitted that she was 5 minutes late passing the candidate over to the CEO’s office, however the cause of the delay was the candidate being passed to her late as well. Compounding the issue, when the CEO discovered that the delay had actually originated as a result of earlier interviews, he asked our client to implicate one of her colleagues as the original source of the delay. Think of this. The CEO has likely embarrassed the candidate, set up a dynamic where two members of his leadership team are potentially at odds with one another, and he has communicated that their time spent interviewing the candidate was not highly valued, at least not as highly valued as his own. Our client says this type of behavior is typical.
More at website: http://www.archosadvisors.com/blog/2010/02/23/leadership-within-the-sick-organization/
Friday, September 23, 2011
Comments from Internet on Sick Organizations
Comments from Internet on Sick Organizations
Acknowledgements:
The questions came from several people (including an ex, various friends, etc.) scattered around the country, including my father, and their many jobs (experiences) over many years (over 60) and organizations, a speech given years ago by a higher education official (statements turned into questions), various ideas derived from the internet, and me (who has been at various organizations over several states). I tried to generalize the questions so they would apply to any and ALL organizations.
In order to better illustrate sick organizations, which are everywhere, I have added comments to post from the internet.
+++++++
http://inbadcompanyinc.wordpress.com/bad-company-inc/
From above:
BCI = Bad Company Incorporated
BCI is a fictitious name of a non-fictitious company I worked for. Other words have been used in business literature like sick organizations, poor leadership, unhealthy organizations, bad managers, etc. The amount of names to describe a sick organization is plentiful. There is a difference between not liking some of your co-workers / managers and to working for a sick organization. I can not concretely say what the threshold is for being a sick organization. There are a lot of factors to determine that the entire organization is sick and it may be so obvious because people are yelling at each other…but what does a company look like when the organization is sick but it is subtle.
BCI is in fact an organization that does not have people yelling, throwing things, screaming, etc. Instead they operate at the subtle level. Meaning they are sick without the general opinion of them being so. And you may question my opinion about this company being sick if there are no obvious signs of its sickness. What would be the fun in that…nothing ever intriguing is obvious. Everything cruel is in fact subtle.
http://www.execupundit.com/2007/02/sick-organizations.html
From Above:
Some organizations are sick. Upper management routinely sends messages that inadvertently - or perhaps not so inadvertently in some cases - tell employees that they are easily replaced, their co-workers are rivals, management distrusts them, customers are adversaries, and that there is a big gap between what is proclaimed and what is practiced.
In many cases, the illness is so severe that the patient is delusional. Various "problem employees" are identified, but the organization's problem is not noticed. (It reminds me of the old Jackie Mason line that his mother didn't know how much he drank until one day he came home sober.) The leadership of the organization is so steeped in poor practices that the executives think treating people shabbily is normal, wise, and "all part of the game."
http://www.organizedchange.com/assess.htm
Some taken from above:
Assessing and Improving Your Organization:
Symptoms, Diagnosis and Cures
David Chaudron, PhD
Almost all of us belonged to some sick organization or another and at times all of us feel frustrated with them. Unfortunately, many of us are untrained in diagnosing what is going wrong in an organization. All we know is that it isn't working well.
That sick feeling is from the Stewed Tomato Surprise you had last night, or that disastrous meeting this morning.
To properly diagnose what is happening in an organization, we start like a doctor - with symptoms. Once we can describe what is going wrong, we look for causes, and recommend a prescription for what ails us.
Summary of steps
The process has four steps as described below: 1) get started; 2) assess; 3) choose treatments and use them; and 4) periodically evaluate.
See more at website.
http://www.organizedchange.com/assess.htm
From above:
Symptoms across most of your organization. If illness is prevalent in your company, it implies that organizational systems are a primary cause of the symptoms. Organizational systems such as the organizational structure, compensation, management style, performance appraisal, employee selection process, authority/communication patterns, as well as organizational mission, vision and goals are the major(but often overlooked) causes of organizational ill health. A rule of thumb is that the more widespread the organizational sickness, the more likely that these systems are causing it.
http://work911.com/articles/toxicorgs.htm
See this site for a good discussion of sick organizations, "Toxic leader," other signs of a sick organization, and more.
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news05907.html
From Above:
Dr Tehrani has found four fundamental causes that create sick organizations: organizations born out of trauma and established by individuals or groups of individuals who have experienced or have been touched by a traumatic event; internally damaged organizations - businesses that become traumatised through the activities of one or more employees (rogue traders, failure to adhere to safety standards or other corporate scandals); externally attacked organizations – those caught up in terrorist bombings, fire, floods, hostile take-overs or overbearing monitoring and regulation; and secondary traumatised organizations – emergency services or others interfacing with distressed people, which would cause them to be serially affected by trauma that is indirect, insidious, gradual or hidden.
"Organizations may not even be aware they are (or potentially could be) sick or dysfunctional. It is often only when something goes badly wrong and they think it is the event itself that has caused the bad reaction when actually, they have been dysfunctional all along. All the recent event or trauma has done is bring their dark side to the fore," observes Tehrani.
Tell-tale signs of dysfunctional organizations (which could also be apparent at a departmental rather than organizational level) are: high rate of staff turnover, high absenteeism, high incidences of employee or ex-employee litigation, either no or little sign of business growth, low productivity, high cost per employee.
"Employees expect their organization to behave in ways that are compassionate, supportive and responsive to their needs but what if the organization itself is traumatised and in need of help? It isn’t helpful to berate it for its failings. We need to focus on providing environments in which employees, leaders and the organization can work together to recognise and deal with the symptoms of extreme stress." Tehrani concludes.
Acknowledgements:
The questions came from several people (including an ex, various friends, etc.) scattered around the country, including my father, and their many jobs (experiences) over many years (over 60) and organizations, a speech given years ago by a higher education official (statements turned into questions), various ideas derived from the internet, and me (who has been at various organizations over several states). I tried to generalize the questions so they would apply to any and ALL organizations.
In order to better illustrate sick organizations, which are everywhere, I have added comments to post from the internet.
+++++++
http://inbadcompanyinc.wordpress.com/bad-company-inc/
From above:
BCI = Bad Company Incorporated
BCI is a fictitious name of a non-fictitious company I worked for. Other words have been used in business literature like sick organizations, poor leadership, unhealthy organizations, bad managers, etc. The amount of names to describe a sick organization is plentiful. There is a difference between not liking some of your co-workers / managers and to working for a sick organization. I can not concretely say what the threshold is for being a sick organization. There are a lot of factors to determine that the entire organization is sick and it may be so obvious because people are yelling at each other…but what does a company look like when the organization is sick but it is subtle.
BCI is in fact an organization that does not have people yelling, throwing things, screaming, etc. Instead they operate at the subtle level. Meaning they are sick without the general opinion of them being so. And you may question my opinion about this company being sick if there are no obvious signs of its sickness. What would be the fun in that…nothing ever intriguing is obvious. Everything cruel is in fact subtle.
http://www.execupundit.com/2007/02/sick-organizations.html
From Above:
Some organizations are sick. Upper management routinely sends messages that inadvertently - or perhaps not so inadvertently in some cases - tell employees that they are easily replaced, their co-workers are rivals, management distrusts them, customers are adversaries, and that there is a big gap between what is proclaimed and what is practiced.
In many cases, the illness is so severe that the patient is delusional. Various "problem employees" are identified, but the organization's problem is not noticed. (It reminds me of the old Jackie Mason line that his mother didn't know how much he drank until one day he came home sober.) The leadership of the organization is so steeped in poor practices that the executives think treating people shabbily is normal, wise, and "all part of the game."
http://www.organizedchange.com/assess.htm
Some taken from above:
Assessing and Improving Your Organization:
Symptoms, Diagnosis and Cures
David Chaudron, PhD
Almost all of us belonged to some sick organization or another and at times all of us feel frustrated with them. Unfortunately, many of us are untrained in diagnosing what is going wrong in an organization. All we know is that it isn't working well.
That sick feeling is from the Stewed Tomato Surprise you had last night, or that disastrous meeting this morning.
To properly diagnose what is happening in an organization, we start like a doctor - with symptoms. Once we can describe what is going wrong, we look for causes, and recommend a prescription for what ails us.
Summary of steps
The process has four steps as described below: 1) get started; 2) assess; 3) choose treatments and use them; and 4) periodically evaluate.
See more at website.
http://www.organizedchange.com/assess.htm
From above:
Symptoms across most of your organization. If illness is prevalent in your company, it implies that organizational systems are a primary cause of the symptoms. Organizational systems such as the organizational structure, compensation, management style, performance appraisal, employee selection process, authority/communication patterns, as well as organizational mission, vision and goals are the major(but often overlooked) causes of organizational ill health. A rule of thumb is that the more widespread the organizational sickness, the more likely that these systems are causing it.
http://work911.com/articles/toxicorgs.htm
See this site for a good discussion of sick organizations, "Toxic leader," other signs of a sick organization, and more.
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news05907.html
From Above:
Dr Tehrani has found four fundamental causes that create sick organizations: organizations born out of trauma and established by individuals or groups of individuals who have experienced or have been touched by a traumatic event; internally damaged organizations - businesses that become traumatised through the activities of one or more employees (rogue traders, failure to adhere to safety standards or other corporate scandals); externally attacked organizations – those caught up in terrorist bombings, fire, floods, hostile take-overs or overbearing monitoring and regulation; and secondary traumatised organizations – emergency services or others interfacing with distressed people, which would cause them to be serially affected by trauma that is indirect, insidious, gradual or hidden.
"Organizations may not even be aware they are (or potentially could be) sick or dysfunctional. It is often only when something goes badly wrong and they think it is the event itself that has caused the bad reaction when actually, they have been dysfunctional all along. All the recent event or trauma has done is bring their dark side to the fore," observes Tehrani.
Tell-tale signs of dysfunctional organizations (which could also be apparent at a departmental rather than organizational level) are: high rate of staff turnover, high absenteeism, high incidences of employee or ex-employee litigation, either no or little sign of business growth, low productivity, high cost per employee.
"Employees expect their organization to behave in ways that are compassionate, supportive and responsive to their needs but what if the organization itself is traumatised and in need of help? It isn’t helpful to berate it for its failings. We need to focus on providing environments in which employees, leaders and the organization can work together to recognise and deal with the symptoms of extreme stress." Tehrani concludes.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Comments on Sick Organizations
Comments on Sick Organizations Post:
I originally thought there was a template problem because I was getting all sorts of errors showing up in original post, and during editing. I now suspect a faulty internet connection of some sort causing errors in transmission from my computer upwards.
More comments on post:
I was still learning how to use this system, so I put my initial comments, etc. in the comments section of the post. I listed some sites which can further illustrate sick organizations.
There are sick organizations everywhere and include family, business, government, church, charity, education, and all the other types of organizations. Some are so set in their daily procedures they may not recognize there being anything wrong with themselves. However, outsiders, including spouses of employees, can sometimes recognize the problem by some of the signs noted herein, and others not yet listed by other authors and me.
If people treated each other like they want to be treated, there would be less problems. But people being people means there will always be problems of greed, jealousy, hate, intolerance, bigotry, competition, lying, cheating, stealing, using others, bullying, and so on......... Thus there will be sick organizations of varying degrees of sickness everywhere from now on.
If the leaders of an organization can recognize the problems there is a chance for a partial cure. But if there are toxic leaders or supervisors, the sickness will continue as long as they can vent whatever toxins they release into the organization; they must be controlled, re-educated, changed, or dismissed to avoid their toxins. If the management style, etc., of an organization becomes firmly entrenched it can cause the sickness to continue for many years. This can result in an organization that does not seem to have much joy in what they do or does not advance in production or industry standing (reputation).
For those organizations that refuse to recognize, or fix, themselves there is just a continuing stream of turmoil, conflict, distrust, anger, frustration, depression, etc., etc.
Other names/describers we can use for a sick organization are: corrupt, toxic, dysfunctional, corporate personality disorder, etc.
A few examples are:
--- A group that hides or protects pedophiles.
---A political group that would force its will on others by force or ballot-box stuffing.
---An agency giving the political answer rather than the truth to the public.
---A spouse that lies to or cheats on his/her partner (affecting the family as a unit & as a business).
---An organization that appears to delight in "employee control" rather than leading by good example.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
I originally thought there was a template problem because I was getting all sorts of errors showing up in original post, and during editing. I now suspect a faulty internet connection of some sort causing errors in transmission from my computer upwards.
More comments on post:
I was still learning how to use this system, so I put my initial comments, etc. in the comments section of the post. I listed some sites which can further illustrate sick organizations.
There are sick organizations everywhere and include family, business, government, church, charity, education, and all the other types of organizations. Some are so set in their daily procedures they may not recognize there being anything wrong with themselves. However, outsiders, including spouses of employees, can sometimes recognize the problem by some of the signs noted herein, and others not yet listed by other authors and me.
If people treated each other like they want to be treated, there would be less problems. But people being people means there will always be problems of greed, jealousy, hate, intolerance, bigotry, competition, lying, cheating, stealing, using others, bullying, and so on......... Thus there will be sick organizations of varying degrees of sickness everywhere from now on.
If the leaders of an organization can recognize the problems there is a chance for a partial cure. But if there are toxic leaders or supervisors, the sickness will continue as long as they can vent whatever toxins they release into the organization; they must be controlled, re-educated, changed, or dismissed to avoid their toxins. If the management style, etc., of an organization becomes firmly entrenched it can cause the sickness to continue for many years. This can result in an organization that does not seem to have much joy in what they do or does not advance in production or industry standing (reputation).
For those organizations that refuse to recognize, or fix, themselves there is just a continuing stream of turmoil, conflict, distrust, anger, frustration, depression, etc., etc.
Other names/describers we can use for a sick organization are: corrupt, toxic, dysfunctional, corporate personality disorder, etc.
A few examples are:
--- A group that hides or protects pedophiles.
---A political group that would force its will on others by force or ballot-box stuffing.
---An agency giving the political answer rather than the truth to the public.
---A spouse that lies to or cheats on his/her partner (affecting the family as a unit & as a business).
---An organization that appears to delight in "employee control" rather than leading by good example.
Adrian R. Lawler, (C) 2011 --
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Some Signs of a Sick Organization (by Adrian R. Lawler, 2011)
Some Signs of a Sick Organization (by Adrian R. Lawler, 2011)
If for any of the following generalized questions the answer is yes, then there is a problem with whatever organization is being examined, i.e., it is sick. The more yes answers the more severe the sickness..... Even if only one answer is yes, depending on the importance of the question, the organization may need immediate help from higher authorities to turn it around. The questions are in no particular order. There may be other signs of a sick organization that should be listed.
It is suggested that workers get answers to these questions before they accept a job at the organization they are considering. Others already at a sick organization will have to decide on whether to ride it out in order to get a retirement, or other goal, or leave. Sometimes people are trapped and cannot leave because they cannot get a good (or honest) letter of recommendation from the sick organization. It is stressful to work at a sick organization, and this stress can lead to health, and other, problems. Unfortunately, sick organizations can be found about everywhere covering any job field.
QUESTIONS:
Does organization condone/allow any of following: slander, favoritism, politics trumping research/truth, infighting, persecution, handbook violation, nepotism, etc.?
Are the leaders going around declaring that they, and their organization, are "world-class?"
Does the organization or a supervisor not get it right on the "little" things and thus cannot be trusted to get it right on the "big" things?
Does the organization/person not research very well, if at all, to find the truth before they publish their slanders, thus looking bad for an organization doing research, and putting into question the capabilities, research honesty, and expertise of some of its workers?
Does an organization researcher not do his/her research to find the truth and then publish slanders against another as being the truth, then causing damage to his/her credibility as a researcher and his/her organization's credibility?
Is there retaliation if an employee voices his/her opinion?
Do politics play a greater role than research/truth, or fair play in operation of organization?
Does the organization retain a bullying, slandering supervisor and thus also retain a bad reputation?
Is each type of unit in organization run like a small kingdom with fighting with other kingdoms over money, space, personnel, students/interns, equipment, etc. leading to distrust of others within the parent organization?
Is there any glaring lack of research on anything (even a small case) by someone at an organization doing research?
Is there almost constant drama and turmoil at the organization?
Do authorities take credit for the ideas and work of others?
Do authorities neglect to recognize the good works of the employees?
Does the organization treat employees unfairly, not follow the handbook, or not treat employees with respect?
Do authorities cater to their favorites?
Do employees refuse to acknowledge help from others?
Does the organization have few or no joint projects between separate units?
Are there few, or no, social functions where the supervisors and staff can interact (other than seminars/meetings)?
Does the organization violate US Constitution and other laws and tell people to hire a good attorney if they complain or question?
Are the locals generally unaware of what goes on at the organization in question?
Do authorities "brush off" or ignore or get angry at questioning by members of the public, media, or staff?
Does organization tap phones, monitor email, employ spies, or inspect/divert mail to spy on its staff?
In times of trouble, does the organization keep a teller of jokes over a highly qualified person?
Does the organization tell its staff they can be replaced at any time?
Are people set-up and fired on any reason their boss can think up, or no reason at all?
Does the organization exclude minorities, handicapped, older people, females, etc. ?
Does organization cater to the ones with the biggest "hissy-fit," or voice, or political connection?
Do authorities "twist" the truth to get the answer, or set-up they want?
Does organization leadership operate like a gang of arrogant thugs?
Is the organization changing/making up rules as they go along, going back on promises, lying, etc?
Are employees cheated out of their discoveries or sick, vacation, comp time, or pay?
Are employees kept in their place by constant threats and intimidation?
Are free-thinkers singled out for persecution and/or firing?
Are there people that do little or nothing, or are rarely on site?
Are decisions left hanging for long periods of time?
Do bosses buy stuff just to make sure all their budget is spent?
Are staff meetings held where bosses tell others what to do & staff cannot make comments?
Do BS artists or unqualified people hold positions of power in organization?
Are "yes people" or political darlings showered with the best of everything, or fawned over?
Are employees turned over frequently because bosses use them up?
Is there a high turnover of employees?
Are there bullies or ill-tempered people that have been there a long time?
Is there the attitude of leaders that "we can do anything we want to anybody anytime?"
Does organization give employees impossible tasks that they can never accomplish?
Is there no one to hear problems or suggestions or complaints?
Do know-nothings concerning your job have control over you?
Do bosses give themselves huge raises while giving the employees little or nothing?
Do bosses periodically give employees nasty, dirty jobs to keep employees in their place?
Does the head person refuse to acknowledge an employee's existence, or answer his/her important questions, or defend him/her when he/she is wronged?
Are there wives, girlfriends, or relatives of the leaders also working there?
Do some of leaders use organization property for their own personal use?
If supported by taxpayers, are people making frequent fact-finding trips (vacations)?
Is the staff not given fair warning of any rule changes?
Do supervisors leave nasty notes for the employees to keep them on their toes?
Does organization run on "big show" and "BS" rather than efficiency and accuracy?
Has the turmoil in organization lasted more than a year, or is it still being neglected by higher authorities?
Does organization keep an employee they hate because he/she gets the job done?
Do organization leaders give out hyped-up awards to each other or to their favorites, and not acknowledge the employees actually doing the job?
Do the staff think that PR released is a joke, or hyped up, or wrongly cited?
Do mates/partners of the employees want them to work elsewhere?
Does the organization have a poor or blah reputation among other similar organizations, past employees, local people, or students/interns?
Does organization try to negate those they do not like, that question them, or that do not agree with them?
Do employees find they have little time for a life outside of their work life?
Are the leaders like a bunch of cats, running around to cover up their messes?
Do employees feel they cannot trust their supervisors/leaders?
Does organization conduct "kangaroo court" hearings to justify their actions against employees, or have no hearing at all prior to making their major judgements?
Does organization try to avoid complying with freedom-of-information inquiries?
Do leaders try to bury their mistakes and demand they be hushed up, but make "mountains" out of employee mistakes to make themselves look good and employees bad?
Do employees have an apprehensive or sickening feeling when they arrive on site?
Do leaders always rule against employees in favor of supervisors?
Are employees afraid to question or complain because they get ridiculed or persecuted?
Are employees in mental pain because someone else they are apprehensive about can mess with their job or future?
Do leaders act like they have no conscience, or do not care?
Do supervisors rampage through a work area like a "bull in a china shop," listing, or yelling about, anything they see wrong?
Does a supervisor go through work area at night when no one else is around to note /take pictures of anything out of place to use against the employees?
Do employees work out of fear, rather than out of joy of learning and doing?
Do items mysteriously disappear/get moved from work areas, and supervisor says nothing about it?
Are people at organization afraid to admit an error, and never say "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" when they do something wrong?
Do supervisors manage through adversity, rather than through joint cooperation in learning about or doing job?
Are employees complaining about being violated, or unfairly treated?
Do employees spend a lot of time trying to protect their jobs?
Do people "mind read" and put words/motives as coming from others when it is not true?
Does organization refuse to accept a principle that is generally accepted as the truth/fact by similar other organizations?
Is there a combative relationship between organization, and/or its leaders, and its employees?
Does organization "contain" employees rather than lead them?
Does organization put forth the political position as the answer rather than the truth?
Does the organization refuse to put forth a position on an internal problem, or an ethical question?
Does the organization almost always support those bringing in money, no matter how bad they are as bosses or ethical beings?
Does the organization have a staff handbook they only use to punish those they want to punish?
Do supervisors use industry meetings as means for free vacations?
Does organization allow no other opinions or ideas from the staff?
Does organization control all PR going out, and not allow any PR out making one of their opponents look good?
Does organization say verbal promises that are later denied, or not kept?
Did someone commit suicide to end their involvement and agony and send a message?
Is money being moved from one account to another?
Is leader giving sweetheart deals on property, benefits, etc. to friends or relatives?
Are motor-driven things owned by organization being used as playtoys by the leaders?
Are leaders eating real high on the hog from organization money?
Are leaders charging personal trips to the organization?
See other posts on sick organizations.
If copied, author name must stay with article.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
I thank two readers of this post for editing it and improving its presentation.
If for any of the following generalized questions the answer is yes, then there is a problem with whatever organization is being examined, i.e., it is sick. The more yes answers the more severe the sickness..... Even if only one answer is yes, depending on the importance of the question, the organization may need immediate help from higher authorities to turn it around. The questions are in no particular order. There may be other signs of a sick organization that should be listed.
It is suggested that workers get answers to these questions before they accept a job at the organization they are considering. Others already at a sick organization will have to decide on whether to ride it out in order to get a retirement, or other goal, or leave. Sometimes people are trapped and cannot leave because they cannot get a good (or honest) letter of recommendation from the sick organization. It is stressful to work at a sick organization, and this stress can lead to health, and other, problems. Unfortunately, sick organizations can be found about everywhere covering any job field.
QUESTIONS:
Does organization condone/allow any of following: slander, favoritism, politics trumping research/truth, infighting, persecution, handbook violation, nepotism, etc.?
Are the leaders going around declaring that they, and their organization, are "world-class?"
Does the organization or a supervisor not get it right on the "little" things and thus cannot be trusted to get it right on the "big" things?
Does the organization/person not research very well, if at all, to find the truth before they publish their slanders, thus looking bad for an organization doing research, and putting into question the capabilities, research honesty, and expertise of some of its workers?
Does an organization researcher not do his/her research to find the truth and then publish slanders against another as being the truth, then causing damage to his/her credibility as a researcher and his/her organization's credibility?
Is there retaliation if an employee voices his/her opinion?
Do politics play a greater role than research/truth, or fair play in operation of organization?
Does the organization retain a bullying, slandering supervisor and thus also retain a bad reputation?
Is each type of unit in organization run like a small kingdom with fighting with other kingdoms over money, space, personnel, students/interns, equipment, etc. leading to distrust of others within the parent organization?
Is there any glaring lack of research on anything (even a small case) by someone at an organization doing research?
Is there almost constant drama and turmoil at the organization?
Do authorities take credit for the ideas and work of others?
Do authorities neglect to recognize the good works of the employees?
Does the organization treat employees unfairly, not follow the handbook, or not treat employees with respect?
Do authorities cater to their favorites?
Do employees refuse to acknowledge help from others?
Does the organization have few or no joint projects between separate units?
Are there few, or no, social functions where the supervisors and staff can interact (other than seminars/meetings)?
Does the organization violate US Constitution and other laws and tell people to hire a good attorney if they complain or question?
Are the locals generally unaware of what goes on at the organization in question?
Do authorities "brush off" or ignore or get angry at questioning by members of the public, media, or staff?
Does organization tap phones, monitor email, employ spies, or inspect/divert mail to spy on its staff?
In times of trouble, does the organization keep a teller of jokes over a highly qualified person?
Does the organization tell its staff they can be replaced at any time?
Are people set-up and fired on any reason their boss can think up, or no reason at all?
Does the organization exclude minorities, handicapped, older people, females, etc. ?
Does organization cater to the ones with the biggest "hissy-fit," or voice, or political connection?
Do authorities "twist" the truth to get the answer, or set-up they want?
Does organization leadership operate like a gang of arrogant thugs?
Is the organization changing/making up rules as they go along, going back on promises, lying, etc?
Are employees cheated out of their discoveries or sick, vacation, comp time, or pay?
Are employees kept in their place by constant threats and intimidation?
Are free-thinkers singled out for persecution and/or firing?
Are there people that do little or nothing, or are rarely on site?
Are decisions left hanging for long periods of time?
Do bosses buy stuff just to make sure all their budget is spent?
Are staff meetings held where bosses tell others what to do & staff cannot make comments?
Do BS artists or unqualified people hold positions of power in organization?
Are "yes people" or political darlings showered with the best of everything, or fawned over?
Are employees turned over frequently because bosses use them up?
Is there a high turnover of employees?
Are there bullies or ill-tempered people that have been there a long time?
Is there the attitude of leaders that "we can do anything we want to anybody anytime?"
Does organization give employees impossible tasks that they can never accomplish?
Is there no one to hear problems or suggestions or complaints?
Do know-nothings concerning your job have control over you?
Do bosses give themselves huge raises while giving the employees little or nothing?
Do bosses periodically give employees nasty, dirty jobs to keep employees in their place?
Does the head person refuse to acknowledge an employee's existence, or answer his/her important questions, or defend him/her when he/she is wronged?
Are there wives, girlfriends, or relatives of the leaders also working there?
Do some of leaders use organization property for their own personal use?
If supported by taxpayers, are people making frequent fact-finding trips (vacations)?
Is the staff not given fair warning of any rule changes?
Do supervisors leave nasty notes for the employees to keep them on their toes?
Does organization run on "big show" and "BS" rather than efficiency and accuracy?
Has the turmoil in organization lasted more than a year, or is it still being neglected by higher authorities?
Does organization keep an employee they hate because he/she gets the job done?
Do organization leaders give out hyped-up awards to each other or to their favorites, and not acknowledge the employees actually doing the job?
Do the staff think that PR released is a joke, or hyped up, or wrongly cited?
Do mates/partners of the employees want them to work elsewhere?
Does the organization have a poor or blah reputation among other similar organizations, past employees, local people, or students/interns?
Does organization try to negate those they do not like, that question them, or that do not agree with them?
Do employees find they have little time for a life outside of their work life?
Are the leaders like a bunch of cats, running around to cover up their messes?
Do employees feel they cannot trust their supervisors/leaders?
Does organization conduct "kangaroo court" hearings to justify their actions against employees, or have no hearing at all prior to making their major judgements?
Does organization try to avoid complying with freedom-of-information inquiries?
Do leaders try to bury their mistakes and demand they be hushed up, but make "mountains" out of employee mistakes to make themselves look good and employees bad?
Do employees have an apprehensive or sickening feeling when they arrive on site?
Do leaders always rule against employees in favor of supervisors?
Are employees afraid to question or complain because they get ridiculed or persecuted?
Are employees in mental pain because someone else they are apprehensive about can mess with their job or future?
Do leaders act like they have no conscience, or do not care?
Do supervisors rampage through a work area like a "bull in a china shop," listing, or yelling about, anything they see wrong?
Does a supervisor go through work area at night when no one else is around to note /take pictures of anything out of place to use against the employees?
Do employees work out of fear, rather than out of joy of learning and doing?
Do items mysteriously disappear/get moved from work areas, and supervisor says nothing about it?
Are people at organization afraid to admit an error, and never say "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" when they do something wrong?
Do supervisors manage through adversity, rather than through joint cooperation in learning about or doing job?
Are employees complaining about being violated, or unfairly treated?
Do employees spend a lot of time trying to protect their jobs?
Do people "mind read" and put words/motives as coming from others when it is not true?
Does organization refuse to accept a principle that is generally accepted as the truth/fact by similar other organizations?
Is there a combative relationship between organization, and/or its leaders, and its employees?
Does organization "contain" employees rather than lead them?
Does organization put forth the political position as the answer rather than the truth?
Does the organization refuse to put forth a position on an internal problem, or an ethical question?
Does the organization almost always support those bringing in money, no matter how bad they are as bosses or ethical beings?
Does the organization have a staff handbook they only use to punish those they want to punish?
Do supervisors use industry meetings as means for free vacations?
Does organization allow no other opinions or ideas from the staff?
Does organization control all PR going out, and not allow any PR out making one of their opponents look good?
Does organization say verbal promises that are later denied, or not kept?
Did someone commit suicide to end their involvement and agony and send a message?
Is money being moved from one account to another?
Is leader giving sweetheart deals on property, benefits, etc. to friends or relatives?
Are motor-driven things owned by organization being used as playtoys by the leaders?
Are leaders eating real high on the hog from organization money?
Are leaders charging personal trips to the organization?
See other posts on sick organizations.
If copied, author name must stay with article.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2011 --
I thank two readers of this post for editing it and improving its presentation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)