Double Binds at Work

In "lessons learned" sessions — also known as retrospectives — the need for psychological safety is widely understood. [Kerth 2001] Most of us recognize that the value of the session is greatly enhanced if people feel confident that there will be no retaliation for raising issues that illustrate the need for improvement in the group's process. No retaliation during the session, and no retaliation after it, especially in the context of employee performance evaluation.

But as it turns out, the need for psychological safety relative to lessons learned has a much broader scope. A fictitious case might clarify the issue.

Eileen is an IT director for Pan-Arctic Cruise Lines. Last year at about this time, Eileen led the effort to upgrade the MegaSoft operating system on all of PACL's shipboard desktop and mobile devices. It was an especially tricky operation because of the difficulties associated with interactions between crossing the International Date Line multiple times in a day, and deciding which time zone was applicable at various spots in the Arctic Ocean. Eileen has just heard that Antonio, the upgrade lead this year's upgrade, is about to replicate some of Eileen's more frustrating blunders. But she's concerned about contacting Antonio to offer advice, for fear that he might take offense.

Eileen's problem is actually even more complex. If she offers advice unbidden, she might offend Antonio. But if she says nothing, and Antonio replicates her mistakes, she might be faulted for not warning him. And there's no way out for Eileen, because the upgrade effort won't be cancelled. Eileen's situation is what psychologists call a double bind.

Characteristics of double binds

The double bind was first identified by Gregory Bateson, et al., as a model for causes of schizophrenia. [Bateson 1956] They define a double bind as much more than a no-win situation. A no-win situation is one in which all choices have unwelcome consequences. By contrast, a double bind is more complex:

• It involves two or more people. One is the Subject of the double bind. Bateson et al. use the term victim. The second person, the Authority, is someone in authority whom the Subject respects. The Authority might be a composite of several people.
• The double bind is a repeated pattern. It can't be resolved as a single experience.
• It has a primary demand of the form "Do X or else Y". This demand can also appear as a prohibition: "Don't do X or else Y." And it can be paradoxical, consisting of a choice between two unwelcome outcomes.
• There is a conflicting secondary demand, not necessarily expressed explicitly. This secondary demand often constrains the subject's perceptions: "Don't see this as punishment."
• There is no escape. The subject is required to choose among the options.

Eileen is in One of the problems of dealing with
double binds as a Subject is the
difficulty of recognizing thema double bind. The Authority is her supervisor, who she expects will hear about whatever she does or doesn't do relative to warning or advising Antonio. Her choices both lead to unwelcome results, in that they could reflect on assessments of her ability to work with colleagues. Since that assessment could be part of a performance evaluation, this situation is part of a pattern.

Dealing with double binds at work

One of the problems of dealing with double binds as a Subject is the difficulty of recognizing them. For example, the threat in the form "Do X or else Y" is rarely explicit at work. The performance management system, with its coarse-grained rating scale, hangs over everything. At the executive level, the performance management system takes a different form (largely financial) but it is just as powerful.

The effectiveness of performance management as the "or else Y" component of the double bind is determined by the person or persons who apply it — usually the "supervisor." It is therefore, usually, the supervisor who sets up the double bind. As a supervisor yourself, you're more likely to notice double binds affecting the behavior of your subordinates than you are to recognize their affects on yourself.

Last words

One of the less visible elements of the double bind structure at work relates to depriving the Subject of the ability to escape. That element is often implemented using employee stock option plans. By holding out the possibility of a large financial windfall, the ESOP suppresses the willingness of employees to escape any double binds that affect them. Ironically, the organization itself doesn't provide the financial resources this scheme requires. Those resources come from the shareholders in the form of dilution.  Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Bullying:

On Being the Canary

Nobody else seems to be concerned about what's going on. You are. Should you raise the issue? What are the risks? What are the risks of not raising the issue?

The Paradox of Structure and Workplace Bullying

Structures of all kinds — organizations, domains of knowledge, cities, whatever — are both enabling and limiting. To gain more of the benefits of structure, while avoiding their limits, it helps to understand this paradox and learn to recognize its effects.

So You Want the Bullying to End: II

If you're the target of a workplace bully, ending the bullying can be an elusive goal. Here are some guidelines for tactics to bring it to a close.

Shame and Bullying

Targets of bullies sometimes experience intense feelings of shame. Here are some insights that might restore the ability to think, and maybe end the bullying.

Judging Others

Being "judgmental" is a stance most people recognize as transgressing beyond widely accepted social norms. But what's the harm in judging others? And why do so many people do it so often?

See also Workplace Bullying and Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info