Four Steps to Chaos

Sorry I can't provide a link to exactly where I got this from. Though I have very strong feeling that it is from an old issue of Harvard Business Review. Archived in my hard disk for quite some time, so I thought I might as well share it with you guys. I always share knowledge, you know.

So next time, when you are in management (no matter what level), you can participate in corporate games.

*~*~*~*~*

Why do things, even very simple ones, so often go wrong in organizations ? Usually, it’s a matter of miscommunication. And, as organizational scholar Chris Argyris points out, the perpetrators are often senior managers who actually have very strong communication skills. When they want to avoid commitment – and responsibility – these managers may deliberately send mixed messages to their organizations, in a way that cuts off debate and, in the end, sows confusion.

From “Skilled Incompetence” – by Chris Argyris

How does a manager send mixed messages ? It takes skill. Here are four rules :


1. Design a clearly ambiguous message.

For example, “Be innovative and take risks, but be careful” is a message that says, in effect, “Go, but go just so far” without specifying how far “far” is. The ambiguity and imprecision cover the speaker who can’t know ahead of time what is too far. The receivers may also need an out someday and may want to keep the message imprecise. Receivers don’t want “far” defined any more clearly than the senders do.

2. Ignore any inconsistencies in the message.

When people send mixed messages, they usually do it spontaneously and with no sign that the message is mixed. Indeed, if they did appear to hesitate, they would defeat their purpose of maintaining control. Even worse, they might appear weak.

3. Make the ambiguity and inconsistency in the message undiscussable.

The whole point of sending a mixed message is to avoid dealing with a situation straight on. An executive is not about to send a mixed message and then ask, “Do you find my message inconsistent and ambiguous ?” The executive also renders the message undiscussable by the very natural way of sending it. To challenge the innocence of the sender is to imply that the sender is duplicitous – not a likely thing for a subordinate to do.

4. Make the undiscussability also undiscussable.

One of the best ways to do this is to send the mixed message in a setting that is not conducive to open inquiry, such as a large meeting or a group where people of unequal organizational status are present. No one wants to launder linen in public. During a meeting, people rarely talk about how the organizational culture, including the meeting, makes discussing the undiscussable difficult.