Sort by: Author Title [ Type  (Desc)] Year
Filters: Author is Larry Hirschorn  [Clear All Filters]
Hirschorn, L. (1993).  The Psychodynamics of Organizations. (Howell S. Baum, Eric L. Trist, James Krantz, Carole K. Barnett, Steven P. Feldman, Thomas N. Gilmore, Laurence J. Gould, Larry Hirschorn, Manfred F.R. KetsDeVries, Laurent Lapierre, Howard S. Schwartz, Glenn Swogger, David A. Thomas, Donald R. Young, Abraham Zaleznik, Michael A. Diamond, Ed.).
"A wide variety of approaches that guide investigation of organizational life have openly and strongly challenged the assumption that organizations behave as rational systems." (p. xiv) "Managers and executives in contemporary organizations must exercise great initiative while delegating substantial authority to those below them. It is no longer adequate simply to give and take orders. But as people experience greater freedom in their roles, they must also confront the anxieties and conflicts that bedevil them when they exercise authority. The external world of work is shaped increasingly by people's inner feelings and interior experiences. When people cannot take up their authority freely and without undue conflict and anxiety, they fear that authentic self-expression, the full flowering of their resources and vitality, will hurt them. As the three cases presented above suggest, in the face of this prospect some people will behave in inhibited ways, while others will mask their insecurity and neediness by overreaching and demanding too much. In this sense, we can say that people are relying on what Winnicott (1959 [1965], 1960 [1965]) calls a 'false self,' as opposed to a 'true self,' to take up their roles. They will, as a result, lack flexibility and vitality, and instead they will often behave in repetitive, constricted, non-task-oriented, and frequently self-defeating ways." (p. 60) "Organizations give alexithymics great opportunities to blend into the organizational culture. These organizational environments legitimize what otherwise may be looked at as strange may very well be that certain types of organizations go even further in that they possess the kind of numbing quality that awakens dormant alexithymic tendencies in their employees." (p. 210) "In explaining his failure to get ahead, he used the following analogy to to describe the dangers of acting aggressively or politically at work. Among coyotes, males are born into a pack; you have a whole litter. You have men who will never become leaders because of their biology, their genetics. And you have some more aggressive cubs, and they will do whatever they need to do to become leaders. And they have to eat the pack leader. And he never gives up until he can't resist any longer. I think I was born in that other group. When puppies are born, they do all sorts of things to give the dominant male his rights, and they will do all sorts of growling, and the puppy will turn over. There are linkages back and forth between humans and coyotes. Somehow I must not ever have given my bosses that yelp and stomach up, and they sensed it. And I never got the membership and support I needed." (p. 34) "In a landmark article, Schwartz (1987) constructed a theory of the 'organizational ideal' in which organization members, unwilling to face their imperfect selves, imagine that the organization contains the secret route to their ideal selves. Projecting their hidden grandiosity onto the organization, they repress their own sense of limits and failure and come to believe that the organization and its leaders are perfect. In such a culture, members have contempt for one another, or for at least those who stand nearer the bottom of the organization, since only by rising to the top can a person prove that he or she approximates the organizational ideal. Competition between peers is then justified, since the organizations perfection can be protected only if the unworthy are eliminated or put in their place. Mutuality between peers is consequently inhibited and feelings are denied." (p. 75) "Finally, a managers ability to accept these projections, especially the negative ones of subordinates (e.g., dependency, hatred, envy), without retribution or retaliation helps to create what Winnicott terms a 'holding environment'--that is, an environment that provides a sense of psychological safety within which work can productively be accomplished and people can grow and develop in their roles." (p. 61)
Hirschorn, L. (1990).  The Workplace Within: Psychodynamics of Organizational Life.
"Irrational processes highlight the limits of classical organization theory. Theorists such as Simon, Thompson, and Galbraith* have argued that all organizations face continuing uncertainties and have suggested that organizational routines and structures, such as maintaining inventory to meet unpredictable demands for products, are mechanisms for reducing uncertainty. But because these theorists have not linked the experience of uncertainty to people's feelings of anxiety, they have posed the issue of uncertainty too narrowly and have proposed solutions that rely on such rational methods as mathematical calculation and organization design. When anxiety intrudes, rational procedures are distorted by irrational processes. For example, the managers of the manufacturing and sales departments in many companies fight chronically with one another over inventory policy, each blaming the other for the gap between market demand and company supply. Because they feel anxious, they project their sense of blame and failure outward, often scapegoating the person they must cooperate with to reduce the uncertainty they face." (p. 3) "Although people rely on social defenses to contain their anxiety and consequently scapegoat clients, customers, or co-workers, they also desire to restore their experience of psychological wholeness and repair the real or imagined psychological damage they have done in devaluing others. This desire for reparation helps to limit the level of social irrationality in any group setting and provides a strong basis for moments of group development." (p. 10) Employees will be motivated to take risks, managers hope, because the image of the company will function as their inner ideal. Just as the members of a faceless crowd may feel linked to one another because they love the same idealized leader, employees who relate poorly to one another will nonetheless feel connected to one another because they are members of the same ideal company. This new culture will enable employees to short-circuit the difficult process of facing each other directly, of learning to use and to sublimate more fully their feelings when working with others by substituting a shared ideal for specific working relationships. Such a manufactured culture is dangerous because it solves the problem of a depersonalized work system by developing and sustaining a psychological culture of splitting. If the company is the new psychological ideal, what Freud called the ego-ideal, then non-company people or employees who deviate from its norms are correspondingly bad and dangerous. Such a totalitarian culture supports idealizations by ultimately hurting deviants or outsiders, leading managers, for example, to punish dissenters and disloyalists or to commit corporate crimes to protect the company. Thus, in going beyond bureaucracy, we face a branch point. We can create settings in which people can sustain the anxiety of seeing one another as both good and bad, or we can create settings in which people work together because they idealize the company and devalue outsiders." (p. 181) "Klein notes that triumphant feelings frequently function as defenses against feelings of dependence, anxiety, and vulnerability. By feeling victorious over others. we deny the ways in which we depend on them and are vulnerable to their actions and intentions, just as we behave with bravado to mask fear. We express triumph to mask vulnerability." (p. 22) "People's anxiety is not simply rooted in their internal voices or private preoccupations, but reflects real threats to professional identity." (p. 47)