|
One
particularly disturbing psychological disorder is
Munchausen by proxy, in which a caregiver exaggerates,
fabricates or induces illness in another person in order
to get praise for then helping the victim. A similar
pathology occurs in workplaces when employees create
fictitious organizational problems, only to solve them.
This behavior, which I call Munchausen at work (MAW),
wastes managerial time and resources and can threaten
morale and productivity.
I set
about defining its characteristics after being struck by
accounts of MAW behavior among team members in the course
of three years studying factors affecting team performance
in more than 30 companies across industries. Although MAW
is infrequent, most experienced managers have encountered
it, and they acknowledge that it can be highly disruptive.
Consider
this case from a Fortune 100 professional services firm
that I studied. “Philip” had a reputation for his ability
to get people to work together. He would proudly share
tales of how, under his guidance, people in vigorous
conflict had rebuilt productive working relationships.
Upper management often praised him for this ability, and
he was one of the first people put on any key client’s
team. But over time it emerged that the conflicts Philip
so adeptly defused were of his own creation.
From bits
of information gathered from many teams, management
discovered that in the early stages of a project, before
the team had had a chance to establish healthy
relationships, Philip would target individuals in whom to
plant the seeds of conflict.
In one
case he worked subtly to convince “Mary” that “Tom” did
not want to work with her, and shortly thereafter
convinced Tom that Mary was reluctant to be his teammate.
In no time a dysfunctional relationship between the two
became obvious to all. Philip then expertly resolved the
conflict, using his insider knowledge of its causes.
Management’s suspicions about Philip’s behavior were
confirmed when early team dynamics improved after Philip
had been removed from team roles.
Munchausen
at work runs the spectrum from highly destructive tactics
like Philip’s to nuisance behaviors that quietly corrode
organizational effectiveness. It may involve simply
embellishing a real problem or making it appear that one
looms on the horizon. Just as solving a problem of one’s
own creation can generate rewards, so can bringing an
inflated or predicted “crisis” to the attention of others.
Some MAW
perpetrators—I call this type the “reluctant
hero”—withhold valued but discretionary contributions at
work in order to generate problems that will lead others
to implore them to return to duty.
For
example, an employee may create some dependency within the
organization by volunteering to mentor new hires and then
threaten to give up the role, citing competing
obligations. The perpetrator doesn’t necessarily want to
withdraw but does want to win attention for remaining. Of
course, employees often have legitimate reasons for
shedding discretionary duties. But MAW perpetrators engage
in a regular, destabilizing pattern of commitment and
withdrawal.
Another
type, the “do-looper” (named after computer routines that
run repeatedly if conditions are right), constantly lights
small fires and then puts them out. Most do-looping
involves first creating and then remedying shortages of
supplies, information or other resources. One do-looper I
encountered was brilliant at fixing travel-agency mistakes
for his boss, and was often praised for his efforts. It
was eventually discovered that the mistakes he “fixed” had
never actually occurred.
Many
managers I’ve spoken with nod knowingly when I describe
MAW. However, diagnosis is difficult. A manager who
suspects an employee of Munchausen at work should ask
these questions:
§
Is the
employee disproportionately involved in identifying and
fighting fires?
§
Is the
employee unusually resistant to offers of help in
addressing problems he or she has identified?
§
Does the
employee deflect management’s efforts to understand a
problem’s underlying cause?
§
Are the
facts and coworkers’ accounts at odds with the employee’s
claims about a problem’s existence or severity?
§
Are
problems with a project, customer, process, or between
colleagues, frequently resolved in the employee’s absence?
“Yes”
answers to these questions don’t conclusively confirm MAW,
of course. But they signal that managers may want to be on
the alert for repeated episodes and to validate their
suspicions with multiple observers. If Munchausen at work
seems likely, the best remedies are to reduce the
attention and other rewards that are tied to solutions
and, more broadly, to limit perpetrators’ opportunities
for creating specific problems.
(Nathan
Bennett is the Catherine W. and Edwin A. Wahlen Professor
of Management at Georgia Tech’s
College of
Management
in Atlanta.) |
