S35-4 RELATION OF INFLAMMATORY MARKERS AND ANGIOGRAPHIC RESTENOSIS AFTER CORONARY INTERVENTION WITH SIROLIMUS-ELUTING STENT

The Learning Organization Institutional narcissism, arrogant organization disorder and interruptions in organizational learning Lynn Godkin Seth Allcorn

Article information: To cite this document: Lynn Godkin Seth Allcorn, (2009),"Institutional narcissism, arrogant organization disorder and interruptions in organizational learning", The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 Iss 1 pp. 40 - 57 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470910927669

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

Downloaded on: 17 March 2016, At: 06:42 (PT) References: this document contains references to 57 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2318 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Gérard Ouimet, (2010),"Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss 7 pp. 713-726 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941011075265 Donald G. Gardner, Jon L. Pierce, (2011),"A question of false self-esteem: Organization-based self-esteem and narcissism in organizational contexts", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 Iss 8 pp. 682-699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181770 Jarl Jørstad, (1996),"Narcissism and leadership: some differences in male and female leaders", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 6 pp. 17-23 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739610130528

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368933 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

TLO 16,1

40

Institutional narcissism, arrogant organization disorder and interruptions in organizational learning Lynn Godkin Lamar University, Lubbock, Texas, USA, and

Seth Allcorn University of New England, Biddeford, Maine, USA Abstract The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

Purpose – This article aims to present an alternative approach to diagnosing behavioral barriers to organizational learning. Design/methodology/approach – The paper juxtaposes interruptions in organizational learning with characteristics of narcissism and arrogant organization disorder. Psychoanalytically informed theory and DSM-IV criteria are applied to interruptions in organizational learning and an alternative approach to diagnosing behavioral barriers to organizational learning is suggested. Findings – This paper illustrates how managers might account for human failings when considering organizational learning in less than ideal settings. Originality/value – This paper demonstrates how informed psychoanalytical theory can be applied to the learning organization and provides a framework from which to diagnose and deal with arrogant organization disorder. Keywords Psychology, Learning organizations, Employee behaviour, Change management Paper type Conceptual paper

It is, of course, possible that serious psychopathology in the leader is indeed responsible for the problems of morale, or breakdown of task groups, and the development of regressive group processes. The problem, then, is to differentiate the activation of emotional regression in the leader, reflecting problems in the institution, from the deterioration of organizational functioning, reflecting psychopathology of the leader (Kernberg, 1985, p. 237).

The Learning Organization Vol. 16 No. 1, 2009 pp. 40-57 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696470910927669

Introduction It is strategically important for organizations to metabolize information (Boisot, 2002, p. 70) and to make sense of environmental cues ((Choo, 1998, (2002). Interruptions in organizational learning inhibit institutional capacity to gather, interpret, and absorb information from the environment (March and Oslen, 1975). Psychoanalytical theory potentially holds power to explain organizational dynamics and human frailty so ever present in organizations of all kinds. Organizational learning and psychoanalytical theory seek to understand human nature from divergent perspectives. In this paper we show that all of the seven interruptions in organizational learning listed can be associated with arrogant organization disorder. We associate elements of interruptions in organizational learning and DSM-IV criteria associated with arrogant organization

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

disorder proposing that interruptions in learning may be symptomatic of arrogant organization disorder in particular. This discussion is strategically important. We theorize that individual narcissistic leader behaviors may be translated into related organizational or group behaviors. This conclusion follows because social networks propagate leadership attitudes. Healthy behaviors become “contagious” ((Burt, 1982, 1987; Coleman et al., 1957; Valente, 1995) along with unhealthy. Social relations emerge from psychical proximity and shared opinion developed with social relations. The attitudes of leaders resulting in arrogant organizational disorder cannot be eliminated from such a group. A contagion perspective speaks to unconscious but shared interpersonal and group dynamics. The arrogant organizational disorder may create a self-sealing and perpetuating system of thoughts, feelings and intersubjectivity that is perpetuated throughout an organization structure much like a flu virus potentially becoming a cultural artifact. A CEO who suffers from arrogant narcissism may seek narcissistic supplies from subordinates who are figuratively speaking sucked dry of positive self-experience in the process. In turn these individuals turn to their subordinates for narcissistic supplies creating another instance of narcissistic deficit that may in turn be passed downward throughout the organizational structure. This perspective helps to explain the shared elation of a winning athletic team or the disarray, despair and disorganization of a losing team (Mandell, 1976). The application of the following diagnoses to organizations may then be used without yielding to reification. The diagnoses may be understood to be pervasive themes and fantasies. We now turn to a description of the disorders. Psychoanalytically informed theory An important aspect of human nature that plays a part in understanding self, personality and character is subjective experience of one’s self and others. This experience that begins at infancy and continues throughout life serves to create human nature – who we are. Who we are allows for both well integrated and self-confident individuals and those who along a range are less well integrated resulting in a myriad of psychological defenses that are combined in their own peculiar way by each individual to create problems in personal adjustment and tensions in relating to others. Others may be hungered after or feared but always within a context of less than satisfactory self-experience. Almost everything that happens to or around an individual is evaluated in terms of one’s self. One way to understand this less than adaptive psychologically defensive outcome is to understand narcissism that may range from healthy to pathological. The clinical and theoretical evolution of narcissism Narcissism is most often described as a disturbance of the self that arises from usually pervasive and significant parental failings to provide a loving, accepting and secure context for development. Karen Horney (1950) nicely captures the essences of the failings: In simple words, they [parental figures] may be dominating, overprotective, intimidating, irritable, over exacting, overindulgent, erratic, partial to other siblings, hypocritical, indifferent, etc. It is never a matter of just a single fact, but always the whole constellation that exerts the untoward influence on a child’s growth (p. 18).

Institutional narcissism

41

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

42

Also to be appreciated is that one parent can offer one set of failings while the second presents another set further confounding the child’s experience. In general positive infant and childhood experiences relative to others lead to good me or aversive experiences that generate anxiety leading to the experience of bad me. Positive experience facilitates the emergence of real or true self and anxiety ridden experiences contribute to the emergence of false self where false self is understood to contain over dependence upon intrapsychic compromises, reaction formations and psychological defenses. It is the understanding of the nature of, psychic origins of and treatment of the false self that generates so many different perspectives. Clinically, DSM-IV describes narcissism “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy” (First and Tasman, 2004, p. 1258) that can be diagnosed when any five of the criteria listed below are met: (1) Grandiose sense of self-importance. (2) Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. (3) Believes he or she is special and unique. (4) Requires excessive admiration. (5) Sense of entitlement and interpersonally exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends. (6) Lacks empathy. (7) Often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her. (8) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. This appreciation leads to the conclusion that there are many combinations of attributes leading some to conjecture that the more commonly found combinations constitute types of narcissistic disorder. Narcissism and the workplace Elsa Ronningstam (2005) provides a typology of narcissism that is very useful in terms of understanding narcissism in the workplace. She distinguishes between normal narcissism and its relatives pathological narcissism, shy narcissism, and psychopathic narcissism. Normal narcissism. Healthy narcissism includes empathy to help master the interpersonal world, self-conscious emotions including shame and envy and a sense of control and power: Positive self-esteem and self-regard involve the experience of inner autonomy and sense of control of thoughts, feelings, experiences and impulses [that occur within social norms] (Ronningstam, 2005, p. 39).

Ronningstam’s descriptors of healthy narcissism contained in the list below includes the ability “to tolerate guilt and loneliness while also balancing feelings of separateness, superiority, and pride with feelings of belongingness, gratitude, and concern” (p. 43): . realistic self-appraisal of abilities and limitations; . an ability to tolerates criticism and rejection as well as approval and praise;

. . . . .

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

.

grandiose fantasies that motivate achievement; an ability to internally control one’s sense of power and constructive aggression; a balanced sense of entitlement relative to others; possession of empathy and compassion; an appreciation of commitment and mutuality; and an ability to tolerate feelings of self-conscious emotions (envy shame, pride) and inferiority and humiliation.

Ronningstam’s descriptors of extraordinary narcissism included in the following list fall short of pathology: . a heightened sense of self and invulnerability; . a capacity for risk taking, decision making and integration of ideas, ideals and goals into real accomplishments; . the ability to strongly feel certain feelings related to tasks or goals; . a heightened entitlement and ability to take on exceptional roles and tasks; . the potential for leadership, charisma and capacity to conceptualize and embody ideas or missions; and . an exceptional capacity for devotion. Similarly, those attributes might well be found in anyone’s personality from time-to-time and perhaps consistently relative to some individuals in leadership roles. Extraordinary narcissism offers a transition in thinking to narcissistic types that are pathological in nature. Pathological narcissism. Ronningstam (2005) provides three types of pathological narcissism – arrogant, shy and psychopathic. To be noted is that these have similarities to Horney’s (1950) narcissistic, arrogant-vindictive and self-effacing solutions to anxiety: (1) Arrogant narcissism. Arrogant narcissism closely resembles narcissistic personality disorder introduced earlier and is generally consistent with many other descriptors of narcissistic individuals such as:: . inflated, vulnerable self-esteem; . grandiosity; . strong reactions to criticism and defeats – threats to self-esteem; . strong feelings of anger, shame and envy; . hyper-reactive to perceived humiliations; . mood variations – depression, irritability, elation; . interpersonal relations serve to protect and enhance self-esteem; . arrogant and haughty attitude; . entitled, controlling and hostile behavior; and . impaired empathy and lack of commitment to others. In sum, narcissistic personality disorders are associated with overt and striking grandiosity, a sense of superiority and self-importance and uniqueness that permits viewing others with disdain where perfectionism in the form of perfect

Institutional narcissism

43

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

44

standards is imposed upon others who never measure up. Actual behaviors may include seeking admiration, boastfulness and pretentiousness and self-centered interactions with others. These individuals often develop grand plans in the pursuit of power and of being recognized as brilliant and admirable. At the same time they are sensitive to not receiving these external narcissistic supplies and can be unpredictable and occasionally attack others who do not support their grandiose view of self. (2) Shy narcissism. Shy narcissism inhabits the personalities of individuals in flight from arrogant narcissistic. Descriptors of shy narcissism are: . inhibitions prevent development of capabilities; . shame for ambitions and grandiosity; . compensatory fantasies of being special and perfect; . intolerant of criticism, hypersensitive to humiliation and criticism, hyper-vigilant, feelings easily hurt, self-denigration, extreme self-preoccupation; . not deserving of entitlement, modest, humble, unassuming; . intense shame reactions and fear of failure; . low affect; . inhibited interpersonally and vocationally; . attentive, modest, humble; . impaired empathy; and . strong feelings of envy. Shy narcissism includes a sense of low self-efficacy and self-worth. They might be willing participants in creating morbid dependency upon others who are willing to take care of them. Excessive shame and strict conscience and harsh self-criticism inhibit and impair executive functioning. Grandiose strivings, competence and achievement are avoided. This individual is unhappy, pessimistic and lacks the sense of fulfillment associated with holding inner yearnings for recognition that never comes. (3) Psychopathic narcissism. Those exhibiting psychopathic narcissism have developed excessive and arrogant pride so fragile that it defended at all costs to avoid the return of childhood feelings of being despised and worthless. Exceptional arrogance and a willingness to vindicate excessive self pride at almost any cost to self, others and the organization requires additional discussion. Ronningstam (2005, p. 77) notes, inflated self-views and unstable self-esteem are defended by trying to dominate situations and people and when milder forms of domination fail the reaction may become one of anger and hostility toward anyone threatening positive self-regard. These individuals are hypersensitive and rapidly interpret situations as rewarding or as threatening or humiliating (p. 84). The fragility of their self-experience results in mood swings irritability, cynicism, brief reactive depression, excitement and optimism that reflect shifting levels of self-esteem that may be easily threatened by others (p. 91). Characteristic aspects of psychopathic narcissism are:

.

.

. .

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

.

immoral and willing to be violent to protect and enhance an inflated self image; hyperactive and willing to expend limitless time an energy to succeed and win out over rivals including aggression, sadism, revenge; feelings of envy and rage fuel excessive and hyperactive responses to threats; feelings of exceptional entitlement support interpersonal exploitiveness and when frustrated irritability and rage reactions emerge; and strong feelings of envy for others exist making them a potential threat.

The arrogant organizational disorder Roningstam’s typology is sufficiently developed to allow us to cross it over to the workplace. For our purposes here we will translate arrogant narcissism into the arrogant organizational disorder. The arrogant organizational disorder has as part of its substance shared themes or patterns that may include uses of material aspects of organizations. This appreciation leads to the conclusion that there exists subjective and objective data (substance) that may be used to diagnose this disorder. To be noted is that saying an organization suffers from a disorder risks reifying organization – to regard something that is abstract as a concrete thing. In this case we suggest that the following organizational disorders, rather than entering into reification, are more appropriately thought of as themes and artifacts of organizational life and organizational culture. They are a part of the substance of both the organization in mind and that portion of organization that is represented by identifiable and concrete features. DSM-IV criteria provide the ten descriptors of the narcissistic personality disorder. Six of the ten must be present for diagnosis (First and Tasman, 2004). Similar to DSM-IV we suggest that of the 11 criteria for the arrogant organizational disorder seven must be present for diagnosis: (1) Exceptional pride is held for the organization, its accomplishments and great hope is held for future successes. Leaders see few limitations regarding what may be accomplished and are not inhibited as to how to accomplish goals. (2) Feelings of exceptional entitlement support exploitiveness of others, customers and the public interest. (3) When excessive pride is threatened and the pursuit of goals frustrated envy and rage arise. The leader or management group becomes hyperactive and willing to expend limitless time and energy to succeed and win out over rivals including aggression often tinged with sadism and revenge. (4) There is a history of firings and demotions and of non-supporters and resistors being banished to internal organizational Siberias. Resistance is a threat and will not be tolerated. (5) Management by intimidation is common. (6) Fear suppresses accurate reality testing and creativity. (7) Filtered information flows alter organizational reality and magical thinking is present. Operating problems it may be seemingly thought will pass without taking action to resolve them. It is too dangerous to confront management behavior that contributes to problem generation and perpetuation.

Institutional narcissism

45

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

46

(8) Others are frequently blamed and scapegoated. (9) The sense of mood within the organization is unpredictable where one day a great success is celebrated and a week later there exists despair over not achieving the smallest of goals. (10) Many in the organization are alienated from the organization and its leadership group preferring to hide out in their foxholes (offices and cubicles). (11) In and out group dynamics are polarized and there is considerable evidence of distressing and destructive internal competition and open warfare. Arrogant organizational disorder and interruptions in organizational learning Healthy narcissism can improve organizational performance. Talented narcissistic people possessing intellectual giftedness combined with grandiose fantasies and strong self-investment can experience sustained periods of successful academic, professional, or creative accomplishments. (Maccoby, 2003; Ronningstam, 2005, p. 79) Alternatively, pathological levels of narcissism and arrogance lead others to interpret tasks and events as opportunities to demonstrate their superiority and overestimate their own contribution while ignoring or devaluing the contributions of others and attacking those who are critical (Ronningstam, 2005, p. 82). This appreciation makes it essential to consider the affect individuals expressing arrogant narcissistic disorder can have on organizational learning. The arrogant organization disorder The arrogant organization suffers from a distorted world view and view of organizational life. Management compulsively embracing rigid systems of beliefs and actions accompanied by many groups of organization members (themes) prevent organizations from unlearning unproductive behaviors and limit learning in international joint ventures (Child, 2003; Inkpen and Crossman, 1995; Weick, 1995) The rigid and compulsive nature of these beliefs, myths, ideologies and operational models produce a self-fulfilling prophecy (Weick, 1995). Little or nothing it turns out is really open to being questioned (Argyris and Scho¨n, 1996). Aspects of decision making, individual, group and organizational behavior are off limits for consideration. The result is that healthy organization conflict among people with differing perspectives and beliefs is stifled (Mailloux, 1990, Schwartzman, 1987; Weick, 1995). Inquiry, open debate, exploration of differing opinions – the things that make an organization vitally adaptive are lost. Arrogant Organizational Disorder warps the organization into the service of sustaining grandiose images of the organization, denying problems, and attacking anyone or any organization that calls into question or threatens exceptional but unwarranted pride in the organization. Reality is indeed bent to the service of these disorders. Accurate reality testing is seriously compromised. Organizational learning is interrupted. This disorder has the power to override inquiry and argumentation thereby limiting positive social construction and sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Expectations can be a blessing in the healthy organization and the bane to one that harbors the arrogant organizational disorder. People filter information and determine their actions on the basis of group expectations. In the case of this disorder false expectations result in false

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

definition of circumstances evoking dysfunctional behavior making the original misconception come true (Darley and Fazio, 1980; Jones, 1977; Snyder, 1984, 1992). As a result, perceivers enact as though what they expect will happen thereby confirming their predictions (Weick, 1977). Actions of individuals seeking stability are more likely to result in self-fulfilling prophecies (Snyder, 1992). They are in a position to break such a cycle only when a stable social world is realized in their thinking allows them to consider other aspects of their situation (Weick, 1995). Argyris and Scho¨n (1996) note that double-loop learning in the healthy organization is an outgrowth of contradictions in institutional goals, values, and performance criteria (Rothman and Friedman, 2003). Through double-loop learning actors learn about the meaning of differences between them. Similarly, organizational learning in the healthy environment is a part of team learning that leads to building common frames of understanding between participants (Senge, 1990) in knowledge-creating companies (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Healthy organizations seek to generate functional conflict as a means to increase goal achievement. This brings people together as common understanding grows among them and pulls them apart as individual identities are threatened (Rothman and Friedman, 2003). Arrogantly disordered organizations, however, contain cultural themes that are hostile to healthy inter-group and interpersonal conflict. One way to understand the prohibitions is to examine managerial assumptions and premise control. Arrogantly disordered organizations perpetuate the distorted myths, beliefs, assumptions and premises held by their management and via contagion many organization members. This circumstance is particularly troublesome in complex organizations and those with complex technology. Shared managerial and operating assumptions dominate organizational direction in general (Adler, 1986), and in particular management assumptions are backed up with forceful directives that are especially crippling in the disordered organization making it harder for people to reliably perform and the organization to consistently achieve excellence. If organizational premises are “. . . imposed by managers who feel threatened by the potential loss of their authority or by designers who want to centralize decisions, promulgate rules, and differentiate tasks, then technologies will be run with less judgment than is necessary to manage and comprehend their complexity” (Weick, 2001, p. 171). Such premises are often created as psychosocial assumptions are incorporated into technical and organizational design. Delegation premises concern what individuals may do and directive premises detail what they cannot do. Whether formulated consciously or otherwise, they are no less potent particularly where technology is dependent upon decision premises for control and operation. They are dangerous in organization stymied by arrogant organizational disorder when they facilitate development of self-fulfilling prophecy. Interruptions in organizational learning March and Oslen (1975) identified four types of interruptions to organizational learning: (1) Role-constrained learning. (2) Audience learning. (3) Superstitious learning. (4) Learning under ambiguity.

Institutional narcissism

47

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

TLO 16,1

Kim (1993) expanded on their work adding: . situational learning; . fragmented learning; and . opportunistic learning.

48

At this point we juxtapose the characteristics of arrogant organizational disorder discussed earlier with the seven interruptions in organizational learning. We propose that there is a linkage between interruptions in organizational learning and the arrogant organizational disorder. Our contention is that interruptions in organizational learning may result from arrogant organizational disorder and interruptions in organizational learning may be symptomatic of the disorder. Figure 1 reports the relationships we suggest here supporting this position. Role constrained learning. Healthy management and organizational dynamics facilitate the movement of knowledge throughout the organization. As organization members see others inside and outside their organization adopting modes of operation and best practices successfully, they are compelled to share that knowledge with others in their own organizations. Role-constrained learning appears where individuals grasp such reality, but are unable respond effectively (March and Oslen, 1975). There is a disconnect between belief and action (Berthoin Antal et al., 2003) particularly precipitated by prevailing role definitions and operating procedures (Kierser et al., 2003). Unfortunately, the actions of individuals is embedded in the larger social context (Granovetter, 1985). Some behaviors are rewarded and others punished or ignored by the managerial systems in place (Child and Heavens, 2003). There is a difference between ignorance and confusion: To remove ignorance, more information is required. To remove confusion, a different kind of information is needed, namely, the information that is constructed in face-to-face interaction that provides multiple cues (Weick, 1995, p. 99).

Organizations characterized by the arrogant organizational disorder filter information to reinforce grand self images and hard to defend arrogance altering organizational reality and creating magical thinking. Operating problems calling for a response pass without corresponding action being taken to resolve them. It is readily felt to be too dangerous to confront management behavior further perpetuating dysfunctional behaviors. Messengers of bad news will be sacrificed on the alter of denial and rationalization institutionalizing role constrained learning. We speculate here that organization members cannot refuse to respond to organizational expectations under these circumstance: Consequently, the organization can require its members to adopt highly “artificial roles”, roles that the members are not necessarily able or willing to identify with (Kierser et al., 2003, p. 602).

We suggest, then, that role constrained learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Audience learning. Healthy managers and organizational processes seek to institutionalize valuable knowledge generated by organizational members. Audience learning (March and Oslen, 1975) arises in situations where managers are able to change their own behaviors, but are hindered from bringing about a corresponding

Institutional narcissism

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

49

Figure 1. Arrogant organization disorder and interruption in organization learning

systemic change in operating rules. This is important because roles, rules, and organizational structure validate action taken and provides meaning to those involved (Weick, 2001). Standard operating procedures “. . . frequently induce organizations to act unreflectively and automatically, and that they may invent ‘problems’ to justify their actions” (Starbuck and Hedberg, 2003, p. 337). In such an instance, knowledge is accepted or rejected on the basis of erroneous assumptions reflected in such rules. Errors are created or perpetuated leaving the organization in a state of ignorance (Blackman et al., 2004). Changing organizational rules can be a politicized exercise (Cross and Prusak, 2003). Individuals are “. . . socialized to take up the norms of the particular groups and the society to which we belong, and this restricts what we can do as we particularize the generalized norms in our moment-by-moment specific action situations” (Stacey, 2006,

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

50

p. 136). A study by Inkpen and Crossman (1995) of 40 North American-Japanese joint ventures determined that organizational unwillingness to unlearn old practices severely limited the learning process. Entrenched organizational beliefs and myths sustain organizational practices both positive and negative (Johnson, 1990). Under conditions of audience learning, there is simply no intrinsic reward for managers to share knowledge so they keep it to themselves. Organizational learning is interrupted. Arrogantly disordered organizations contain many individuals who are either highly invested in the established myths, beliefs and operating approaches despite evidence linking them to organizational dysfunction or they have given up, dropped out, and assumed an alienated organizational position. They distance themselves from insular, aggressive and even dangerous executives, managers, colleagues and employees preferring to hide out in their offices and cubicles. Organizational learning is interrupted as actors hunker down in those foxholes. Audience learning appears where is learned by individuals is not shared with others due to the perception that it differs from acceptable organizational themes: Consequently, the organization can require its members to adopt highly “artificial roles”, roles that the members are not necessarily able to willing to identify with (Kierser et al., 2003, p. 602).

Audience learning results. We suggest, then, that audience learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Superstitious learning. Healthy managers seek to determine the likely outcomes of their actions. They accept the consequences of their decisions and labor to learn from them. Superstitious learning (March and Oslen, 1975) results when well-intentioned individuals misinterpret the consequences of their actions and selective acquire and filter data gathered from the environment to justify their beliefs and actions. Arrogantly disordered organizations that contain exceptional narcissism and arrogant pride seek out grand ideas, attempt to accomplish great things and hold great hope for future successes. Leaders and organization members see few limitations regarding what may be accomplished and are not inhibited as to how to accomplish their goals. Managers under superstitious learning often believe that what they do brings corresponding change despite other reality (Weick, 2001). Feelings of exceptional entitlement support exploitiveness of others, customers and the public interest. Similarly, when excessive pride is threatened and the pursuit of goals frustrated envy and rage arise. The leader or management group becomes hyperactive and willing to expend limitless time and energy to succeed and win out over rivals. Aggression often tinged with sadism and revenge can be a part of such a circumstance. Superstitious learning is magnified as the rhetoric of justification is related in reports, announcements, and other communication (Kierser et al., 2003). Feedback is misinterpreted or ignored completely. The timeliness of learning in terms of its immediate or future use is critical (DiBella, 2003). Managers simply come to understand the reality of their actions to late to be practical. Organizational learning is interrupted. We suggest, then, that superstitious learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Learning under ambiguity. Conditions associated with learning under ambiguity (March and Oslen, 1975) develop where managers cannot identify changes in the environment or explain changes that they do see. Meanings and resulting

interpretations of environmental conditions are organized to answer the question “what’s going on here?” We contend that in the arrogantly disordered organization feedback offered by an individual may be cynically rejected by the group:

Institutional narcissism

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

When feedback is offered by a change agent, people wonder why they should believe it and how they should use it (Weick, 2001, p. 399).

For example, the arrogant organization may have a history of firings and demotions and of non-supporters and resistors being banished to internal organizational Siberias. Resistance is a threat and will not be tolerated. Management by intimidation is common. Fear suppresses accurate reality testing and creativity. The sense or mood within the organization is unpredictable. One day a great success is celebrated and a week later there exists despair over not achieving the smallest of goals. Disordered organizations can see internal belief systems thrive when they are learning under ambiguity. Diverse perspectives and adverse information are simply not present. There are no clouds on the horizon. Firings and demotions take interested people from the pool of knowledgeable available for analysis. The “bearer of bad news” is threatened and intimidated further limiting accessible organizational insight. In fear, individuals keep their knowledge, thoughts, and opinions to themselves. The result is organizational learning under ambiguity. We suggest, then, that learning under ambiguity is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Situational learning. Healthy managers solve problems and innovate. However, organizational learning is interrupted when such knowledge is not codified for future use. Resulting situational learning (Kim, 1993) is limited to one occurrence at one point in time. It functions as a snapshot shared with no one except the owner who participated in a particular learning situation. Knowledge garnered through situational learning cannot be replicated later. It is important for organizational knowledge to be passed to others because they use it when other alternative sources of guidance are absent. The organization continues to function in the imagination of participants after circumstances change (Weick, 2001). In the presence of arrogant organizational disorder managers measure what they say when dealing with various constituencies often out of self-preservation. Doing so they effectively absorb information without passing it along. This is counter productive and dysfunctional when it thwarts the attainment of organizational goals. Organizational learning is interrupted. Arrogantly disordered organizations are populated with individuals who are frequently blamed and scapegoated for circumstances out of their control. “In” and “out” groups polarize Considerable distressing and destructive internal competition and even open warfare come into evidence. This results in situational learning and interrupts organizational learning. For example, trial-and-error learning and resulting sensemaking can only be yield healthy results when no knowledge is treated as taboo. The disordered organization fosters situational learning by not accepting or recognizing mistakes. More importantly, situational learning is perpetuated as people are blamed for what they know and made examples of when their knowledge and views do not fit conventional organizational wisdom: If a role system collapses among people for whom trust honesty, and self-respect are underdeveloped, then they are on their own. And fear often swamps their esourcefulness. If, however, a role system collapses among people where trust, honesty, and self-respect are more fully developed, then new options, such as mutual adaptation, blind imitation of creative

51

TLO 16,1

52

solutions and trusting compliance, are created. When a formal structure collapses, there is not leader, no roles, no routines, no sense (Weick, 2001, p. 115).

We suggest, then, that situational learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Fragmented learning. Fragmented learning results as persons learn, but are unable to change corresponding organizational mental models (Kim, 1993). Fragmented learning can be confused with audience learning. However, here audience learning relates to the link between individual and organizational actions while the focus of fragmented learning is on the relationship between individual and organizational worldviews (Kierser et al., 2003). It relates to the mental models and cognitive maps possessed by individuals and organizations:

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

Organizational learning is accomplished when individuals make their mental models explicit and mutually modify them to create shared organizational mental models (Friedman, 2003, p. 400).

The process of embedding individual understanding into organizational mental models is problematic: Much knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, can be lost in the process due to lack of connections between people or parts of the organizational structure (Taylor and Osland, 2003, p. 215).

Fragmented learning can be seen in psychologically healthy organizations. For example, very decentralized organizations with limited networking capability may find it a problem (Berthoin Antal et al., 2003). However, arrogant organizational disorder produces organizations that increase their problems by creating filters, barriers and many interpersonal and inter-group divisions that do not usually exist in healthy organizations. Arrogantly disordered organizations limit what individual organizational members can offer. Individuals are the primary source of organizational learning and knowledge (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998; Kim, 1993; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Mental models entertained by the arrogant organization accept only information consistent with the resident pathology: The cycles of individual learning affect learning at the organizational level through their influence on the organization’s shared mental models (Kim, 1993, p. 43).

The group may then be seen as a collective individual with its own set of mental models and groups can be viewed as extended individuals (Kim, 1993, p. 43). The organizational pathology and resulting distorted perspectives and compromised reality testing associated with arrogant organizational disorder become the accepted way of doing business. We suggest, then, that situational learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. Opportunistic learning. Opportunistic learning (Kim, 1993) appears where there is asymmetry between individual initiative and organizational operational procedures requiring individuals to circumvent existing rules to get things done (Kierser et al., 2003). In the psychologically healthy and unhealthy organization, unintentional learning takes place. People learn to bend the rules to their needs in all sorts of bureaucratic circumstance precipitated by opportunistic learning. This is especially

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

true for those individuals and groups exhibiting arrogant narcissism who believe the rules do not necessarily apply to them. In particular rules and ethics may inhibit achieving a grand vision. Also to be considered is this bending and violation of rules can produce some good along with the bad outcomes and therefore undesired, dysfunctional behaviors and anxiety responses are simply learned along with “best practices” (Maier et al., 2003). We suggest, then, that opportunistic learning is a symptom of arrogant organizational disorder. The contribution of interruptions in organizational learning to diagnosis of arrogant organizational disorder Seven of the 11 criteria associated with arrogant organizational disorder included in the previous list must be present to diagnose an organization as having the malady. While evidence of interruptions in organizational learning does not necessarily imply the presence of arrogant organizational disorder, it implies that the disorder is likely. It is our contention, then, that interruptions in organization learning may provide useful diagnostic power for recognizing the presence of arrogant organizational disorder. The above discussion demonstrates and accompanying Figure 1 illustrates the linkages the disorder has to interruptions in organizational learning. Indeed if organizational learning is disrupted in a number of ways, it becomes important to consider the avoidant organizational disorder is an underlying commonality. Notes on organizational diagnosis Considerable information needs to be gathered some of which is written down and some of which is subjective and must be acquired through individual interviews and focus groups (Allcorn, 2003, 2005; Diamond, 1993; Gabriel, 1999; Levinson, 1972; Stein, 1994). For example, an organizational history needs to be developed that notes key events, growth rates, leadership styles across time and what it was like to work here at different times along the time line. A walk through of the organization and a general orientation to its work yields general observations that inform subsequent listening and analysis. Data must be collected regarding mission, values, performance and success and failures. The scope, consistency, quality and intensity of members splitting and projection and transferences onto management, sections of the organization or leader or consultant leading the change should be noted. An organizational narrative should emerge from the analysis that offers an interpretive basis for developing a diagnosis (Diamond and Allcorn, 2003). In the case of the arrogant organizational disorder and its accompanying interruptions to learning, there will emerge during this process an appreciation of the many of the diagnostic criteria shown here as potentially present. The labeling of an organization as suffering from this or that diagnosis is only part of the work. Groups can suffer from a number of symptoms such as anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and phobias for a number of reasons. Organizations may also have attributes consistent with more than the diagnosis described here. Parts of organizations may differ significantly from their counter parts and the organization. It is also often the case that while one of the diagnoses may be primary others may also be present and emerge into prominence from time-to-time (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1984). It is therefore important to remain open minded when diagnosing organization of dysfunctions.

Institutional narcissism

53

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

54

Notes on intervention Organizations that are diagnosed with arrogant organizational disorder may be regarded as defective containers of anxiety where developmental failures, avoidable problems and a pathological culture that do not allow for the development of an acceptable soothing object – the organization in mind. Narcissistic injuries may have created a culture filled with rage, depressive withdrawal and dependency on idealized images of organization and its leaders who will save the organization. There may well also exist a confused, distorted and dysfunctional sense of organizational identity – who we are (Diamond, 1993). The notion of true and false self is informative in this regard (Masterson, 1988; Winnicott, 1988, 1989). True organization arises from good enough nurturing and supportive attachment that is not over controlling or engulfing. False organization arises out of a general inability of leadership to sense member needs, encourage them, and to aid in the healthy participation within the group. Correcting for the presence of false organizational identity and leaders who have developed false selves requires recognizing the absence of authentic caring and nurturing is the problem. This appreciation leads to the necessity of assuming care taking and anxiety containing roles on the part of executives, managers and even employees as well as consultants to nurture true organization back into existence. Care taking and containment of anxiety creates the context of a holding environment that permits the emergence of non-defensive inquiry and play consistent with transitional space (Winnicott, 1988, 1989). Should this occur a change in organization culture or identity will emerge. Organizational culture is an enduring system of thinking, feeling and acting that abates anxiety. It promotes good self-experience and true self by avoiding out of control experience that promotes anxiety that may range from distressing to disabling and not me false self. A holding and transitional organizational culture that contains playful, reflective and creative spaces and times represents a form of organizational idea where personal integrity, interpersonal authenticity, true self and organization arises in the absence of destructive narcissistic qualities. Conclusion In this paper we suggest that dysfunctional narcissistic behavior can result in arrogant organizational disorder and that the disorder carries symptoms associated with interruptions in organizational learning. The juxtaposition of these two disparate points of view provides the practitioner an alternative way to view leadership in various organizational settings. Linking the arrogant organizational disorder with the interruptions in organizational learning provides researchers a psychoanalytically informed perspective from which to protect organizational performance and employee health. References Adler, P.S. (1986), “New technologies, new skills”, California Management Review, Vol. 29, pp. 9-28. Allcorn, S. (2003), The Dynamic Workplace: Present Structure and Future Redesign, Praeger, Westport, CT. Allcorn, S. (2005), Organizational Dynamics and Intervention: Tools for Changing the Workplace, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D.A. (1996), Organizational Learning: Theory, Methods and Practice, Vol. 2, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Berthoin Antal, A., Lenhardt, U. and Rosenbrock, R. (2003), “Barriers to organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 865-85. Blackman, D., Connelly, J. and Henderson, S. (2004), “Does double loop learning create reliable knowledge?”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 11-27. Boisot, M.H. (2002), “The creation and sharing of knowledge”, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 65-77. Burt, R.S. (1982), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Burt, R.S. (1987), “The contingent value of social capital”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 339-65. Child, J. (2003), “Learning through strategic alliances”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 657-80. Child, J. and Heavens, S.L. (2003), “The social constitution of organizations and its implications for organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 308-26. Choo, C.W. (1998), The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Choo, C.W. (2002), “Sensemaking, knowledge creation, and decision making”, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 79-88. Coleman, J.S., Katz, E. and Menzel, H. (1957), “The diffusion of an innovation among physicians”, Sociometry, Vol. 20, pp. 253-70. Cross, R. and Prusak, L. (2003), “The political economy of knowledge markets in organizations”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 454-72. Darley, J.M. and Fazio, R.H. (1980), “Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence”, American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 867-81. Diamond, M. (1993), The Unconscious Life of Organizations: Interpreting Organizational Identity, Quorum, Westport, CT. Diamond, M. and Allcorn, S. (2003), “The cornerstone of psychoanalytic organizational analysis: psychological reality, transference and counter-transference in the workplace”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 1-23. DiBella, A.J. (2003), “Organizations as learning portfolios”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 145-60. First, M. and Tasman, A. (2004), DSM-IV-TR, Wiley, Chichester. Friedman, V.J. (2003), “The individual as agent of organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 398-414. Gabriel, Y. (1999), Organizations in Depth, Sage Publications, London.

Institutional narcissism

55

TLO 16,1

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

56

Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp. 481-510. Horney, K. (1950), Neurosis and Human Growth, W.W. Norton, New York, NY. Inkpen, A.C. and Crossman, M. (1995), “Believing in seeing: joint ventures and organizational learning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 595-618. Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), “Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures”, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-68. Johnson, G. (1990), “Managing strategic change: the role of symbolic action”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 183-200. Jones, R.A. (1977), Self-fulfilling Prophecies, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Kernberg, O. (1985), Internal World and External Reality, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ. Kets de Vries, M. and Miller, D. (1984), The Neurotic Organization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kierser, A., Beck, N. and Tainio, R. (2003), “Rules and organizational learning: the behavioral theory approach”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 598-623. Kim, D. (1993), “The link between individual and organizational learning”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-50. Levinson, H. (1972), Organizational Diagnosis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Maccoby, M. (2003), The Productive Narcissist: The Promise and Peril of Visionary Leadership, Broadway, New York, NY. Maier, G.W., Prange, C. and von Rosenstiel, L. (2003), “Psychological perspectives of organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 14-34. Mailloux, S. (1990), “Interpretation”, in Lentricchia, F. and McLaughlin, T. (Eds), Critical Terms of Literary Study, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 121-34. Mandell, A. (1976), The Nightmare Season, Random House, New York, NY. March, J.C. and Oslen, J.P. (1975), “The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, pp. 147-71. Masterson, J. (1988), The Search for the Real Self, The Free Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ronningstam, E. (2005), Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rothman, J. and Friedman, V.J. (2003), “Identity, conflict, and organizational learning”, in Dierkes, M., Bethoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 582-97. Schwartzman, H.B. (1987), “The significance of meetings in an American mental health center”, American Ethnologist, Vol. 14, pp. 271-94. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Bantam Doubleday, New York, NY.

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

Snyder, M. (1984), “When belief creates reality”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 18, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 247-305. Snyder, M. (1992), “Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 67-114. Stacey, R. (2006), “Complex responsive processes as a theory of organizational improvisation”, in Shaw, P. and Stacey, R. (Eds), Experiencing Risk, Spontaneity, and Improvisation in Organizational Change, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 124-41. Starbuck, W.H. and Hedberg, B. (2003), “How organizations learn from success and failure”, in Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 327-50. Stein, H. (1994), Listening Deeply, Westview Press, Bolder, CO. Taylor, S. and Osland, J.S. (2003), “The impact of intercultural communication on global organizational learning”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 212-32. Valente, T.W. (1995), Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovation, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ. Weick, K.E. (1977), “Enactment processes in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and Salancik, G. (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, St Clair, Chicago, IL, pp. 267-300. Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Weick, K.E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell, Oxford. Winnicott, D.W. (1988), Human Nature, Brunner/Mazel, Levittown, PA. Winnicott, D.W. (1989), Pscho-analytic Explorations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Corresponding author Lynn Godkin can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Institutional narcissism

57

This article has been cited by:

The Learning Organization 2009.16:40-57.

1. Michelle Cleary, Garry Walter, Jan Sayers, Violeta Lopez, Catherine Hungerford. 2015. Arrogance in the Workplace: Implications for Mental Health Nurses. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 36, 266-271. [CrossRef] 2. John F. Ehrich, Lisa C. EhrichProfile of a Narcissistic Leader: Coffee’s for Closers Only 81-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 3. References 273-284. [CrossRef] 4. Sidney W. A. Dekker. 2014. Deferring to expertise versus the prima donna syndrome: a manager’s dilemma. Cognition, Technology & Work . [CrossRef] 5. Maurice Yolles, Gerhard Fink, Daniel Dauber. 2011. UNDERSTANDING NORMATIVE PERSONALITY. Cybernetics and Systems 42, 447-480. [CrossRef]