The Workplace:
Addictive Processes
and the
Supporting Unwritten Rule
Structure
Source: Research Paper - Industrial Psychology; Spring 1990
Copyright © 1990 John S. Nagycontinue
CONTENTS
- Title Page
- Background
- Healthy vs. Normal
- Dysfunction
- Addictions
- Co dependent Roles
- Co dependent Rules Structure
- Healthy Functional Rules
- The Survey
- Co dependent Survey Statements
- Predictions
- Results
- Future Studies
- Bibliography
The Workplace:
Addictive Processes and the Supporting Unwritten Rule
Structure
"My teachings are very easy to understand and very easy to practice,
But no one can understand them and no one can practice them.
In my words there is a principle.
In the affairs of men there is a system."
- Lao-Tse (ref. 10)
Background:
I have noticed over the years, there were a set of rule each person
operated on that were not written down anywhere, no one would speak of
them, or acknowledge their existence and yet each person understood
them and operated by them. In getting involved with readings on
addictions and addictive support systems(ref. 8), I noticed there was
a parallel, a word for word correspondence between family rules and
those of society. When a person or group interact and have
come from similar systems, old patterns arise and their personal
systems were reenacted.
The workplace, it has been my experience, is an area where people
recreate these systems that are common or comfortable to them. I say
comfortable in the sense that comfortable is defined as "experiences
that are familiar and don't disagree with what they have come to find
as acceptable". When a person has known certain patterns all their
pre-adult life, the tendency to seek out or recreate what is familiar
to them ie; patterns they know and trust, is highly probable.(ref. 8)
When these systems of familiar interaction are healthy, the individual's
needs are met and this allows for both the individual and the system to
grow. When the systems are unhealthy, the systems' needs are met and
the individual's needs are not. Systems can be families, or other
organizations of persons who group together for a common goal.
Healthy vs. Normal:
I use the words "healthy" and "unhealthy" instead of the words "normal" and
"abnormal" purposely. The word "normal" reflects the norm or what is
acceptable and currently the manner in which most people interact.
This does not mean that, what is acceptable, what is the norm or what
is current is healthy. What is healthy and what is normal
are two different things.
Currently, most people can be caught using
these two words interchangeably. Mostly to reenforce the idea or
belief that what they normally do is considered healthy. I call this
"healthy by consensus." This practice causes the definition of healthy
to be slurred and reenforces the individuals mind set of what they have
in their life is right. This process takes place widely within
unhealthy systems such as dysfunctional families and other groups of
dysfunctional individuals. The practice is labeled "dysfunctional
because it prevents the healthy functioning of individuals, and who
they interact with, from taking place.(ref. 1, 2, 6)
Dysfunction:
Dysfunctional social systems have four traits in common. These traits
are practiced to some degree in all. The four traits are rigidity,
denial, secrecy and isolation. With these four traits in place, the
system becomes closed and self perpetuating. These traits
reenforce each other and do not allow for change and outside
influences.
- Rigidity - When the rule structure is inflexible and unchanging
the system is static even if it appears in motion. The potential for healthy growth is stifled.
With no change comes no growth. The system can not live. The rule structure prevents
growth. All people involved do not get their need meet.
- Denial - When reality is not
accepted, things and people are not seen. This allows for problems and behavior to continue.
- Secrecy - The problems are known to some or all, but it is a rule
to not mention them for it would cause other problems with the people who don't want to be
seen for who and what they truly are; and what they do. This prevents problems from being
approached.
- Isolation - The individual feels no one could possible
understand the system's problems or for that matter, help fix them. The individual
feels isolated from others since they don't have the same problems. The system promotes this
isolation, therefore preventing outsiders from entering into it and possibly causing change. This
prevents outside help.
Closed systems allow for no growth and the eventual outcome is death
for the system. These systems exist to support a person or group of
persons were a problem is not being approached. It may be a person
with an addiction or compulsion, a couple who refuse to accept a
problem in their lives or an organization governed by individuals who
are active in an addictive process. I will focus on the latter of these situations.(ref. 1, 2,
6)
Addictions:
Addictions within organizations rule how the members interact and how
decisions are made. There are two types of addictions, substance
addiction and process addictions. The two are interlinked and are
interdependent upon each other.
Substance addictions involve the ingestion of materials that alter the
mood of the individual. This may be accomplished by taking chemicals
such as drugs or food. This ingestion momentarily alters the mood of
the individual and allow the problem to continue momentarily subdued
from the consciousness of the individual. The problem still exists but
the individual has taken focus off it. The same thing takes place in
process addictions.
In process addictions, rituals of interaction establish a momentary
satiation for the participants and allows the problem to continue. The
focus has been blurred, the attention and issues diverted. Nothing has
changed but the reality or perception of the participants. The following are but some of the
addictive processes that allow this condition to exist.(ref. 8)
- The Promise
- The Pseudopodic Ego
- Dualism
- Invalidation
- Fabricated Personality Conflicts
- The External Reference
- Denial
- Scapegoating
The Promise
The process of the promise takes the individual out of the present,
asks us to devalue our experiences and focus upon expectations. I call
this an "addiction to potential". One always seeing it but never
realizing it.(ref. 8)
The Pseudopodic Ego (or Co-optating/co-optation)
The pseudopodic ego process absorbs and incorporates differences into
itself, owns these differences, and then uses them to perpetuate the
system intact. If the system is still intact (it hasn't changed), and
the company claims the problem is resolved (it still exists), the
system that allowed the problem to manifest, will allow it to happen
again but cannot admit to it when it happens again. Therefore the only
thing that really has changed is acknowledging that there is a
problem.
Dualism (and Polar Thinking)
Dualism occurs when choices are give in an either/or format. The
choices often are structured with one being acceptable to the choice
giver and the other unacceptable to the choice receiver. This pushes
the outcome in the giver's favor. When dealing in dualisms, the issues
of control and compliance are heavily weighted. By narrowing the view
and the choices the giver maintains control over the recipient.(ref. 8)
Invalidation
Invalidation is a tool used by controllers to prevent individuals, who
are a threat to their authority, from gaining positional strength. By
truncating information and knowledge, the invalidator can draw on
polarity thinking and conclude "This is not perfect, so therefore your
wrong". The process of invalidating has modes. The outcome is always
the same. The problem is not truly addressed and so it continues.(ref.
8)
Fabricated Personality Conflicts
I smile when I explain the process of fabricated personality conflicts.
I've seen this process used most effectively in preventing individuals
from communicating valid information to others, and it is practiced
widely in power struggles. I'll abbreviate it to FPC's. In a nut
shell, by stating an individual is conflicting with another because of
a difference in personality, all future statement are flavored with,"Is
this a real problem, or does this person just not like me and is
causing difficulty for me out of context?". Once this process is
started, the central problem is no longer addressed or there is fear in
approaching any problem because of this accusation. A pseudo issue has
taken focus off the real problem. Whether the conflict was fabricated
purposely or not, FPC's cause a discounting of the problem bearer if
the information is unwanted.(ref. 8)
The External Reference
When external referencing, the individual or system in question is not
evaluating themselves based on their own capabilities. They are
measuring based on capabilities other then their own. They continually
strive to be more then they truly are. Some measure themselves against
other people, corporations and even God. The process is self
perpetuating and is closed loop and is constructed for failure since
the reality and the premise conflict. We can strive to improve
ourselves but we are limited by our own capabilities.(ref. 8)
Denial
Denial is the most obvious of processes used to take focus off the true
problem. It's also the most basic. The preceding six processes all
use denial in some way. By not accepting a reality, we are taken away
from the situation in our minds and never address the issues needing to
be addressed.(ref. 1, 2, 6, 8)
Scapegoating
Scapegoating is also used to take focus off the true problem. It is
used to blame and cause a "Quick Fix" to the problem. It never solves
the real problem, it redirects the attention. In many ways this can be
considered a subset of the FPC's and the pseudopodic ego process. The
system is still intact, the problem still exists, but no one can admit
it because they would now have to admit to not solving the problem and
harming an innocent party.(ref. 1, 2, 6, 8)
All these processes are addictive since they alter the mood and reality
of the individual. They are used as "Quick fixes" when confronted with
an unwanted reality, just as a substance abuser or addict does with
substances. The process becomes the "Drug of Choice".(ref. 1)
Codependent Roles
Co dependents balance the addictive processes mentioned above by
enabling the processes to continue. Codependents take up roles to
prevent the process from fading out.
They may:
Caretake, lower their self-worth, repress themselves, become
obsessed, control, comply, deny, depend, not communicate, set weak
boundaries, act out, trust, not trust, get angry, get depressed and
stay in any role that the system needs to continue, in order to feel
they are contributing.
They do this thinking they are preventing disaster. What they don't
realize is they are actually preventing the problems from being faced
by adhering to a set of rules set down by addictive/dysfunctional
systems. (ref. 1)
Co dependent Rule Structure vs. Healthy Functional Rules
Co dependent Rules Structure
As stated in numerous documents(ref. 1, 2, 6), the co dependent is the
support system, facilitator and caretaker of the addictive process.
Without the co dependent, the addict or addictive process will
eventually run it's coarse and die out or change. The co dependent
attempts to make the changes or take care of the process while it is
occurring, but actually prevents it's change or death by doing enough
to allow or enable it to survive intact. The co dependent does this by
following the following rules (these are not all of them):
- Don't Talk
- Don't Feel or Express
- Don't Be Direct
- Don't Be Real
- Don't Want, Expect or Desire
- Do As I Say, Not As I Do (Don't think)
- Don't Play
- Don't Make Waves
These Rules in their simplest form enable the addictive process to
continue. Co dependents learn these rules early in their lives to
survive in families that were dysfunctional to extreme or to some
degree. The individual is forced to be other than themselves.
Individuals grow up with these rules and learn to deal socially within
these rules. When in the work place, co dependents exercise these
rules and are reenforced by other co dependents practicing their
degree of the same rules.(ref. 9)
These rules also are punitive in nature. They operate on the spirit
of the individual to suppress individuality and promote compliance.
They are the basis for the following list of punishing behaviors that
are shown to have an implied message to or response for the receiver.
Punishing Behaviors (ref. 4) / Implied Message/Response
- Monopolizing the conversation / Don't talk
- Interrupting / Don't think
- Showing obvious disinterest / Don't express
- Keeping a sour facial expression / Don't want
- Withholding customary social cues such as greetings, nods, etc... / Don't be
direct
- Throwing verbal barbs / Don't express
- Using nonverbal put-downs / Don't think
- Insulting or otherwise verbally abusing others / Don't respect
- Speaking dogmatically; not respecting others' opinions / Don't think
- Complaining or whining excessively / Don't want
- Criticizing excessively / Don't be real
- Demanding one's own way; refusing to negotiate or compromise / Don't
think
- Ridiculing others / Don't be real
- Patronizing or talking down to others / Don't be real
- Making others feel guilty / Don't want
- Soliciting approval from others excessively / Don't feel
- Losing one's temper frequently and easily / Don't make waves
- Playing "games with people; / Don't make waves
- Manipulating or competing in subtle ways / Don't be honest
- Throwing "gotcha's" at others; embarrassing or belittling others / Don't be
real
- Telling lies; evading honest questions; refusing to level with others / Don't be
real
- Overusing "should" language; pushing others with words / Don't be
real
- Displaying frustration frequently / Don't expect
- Making aggressive demands of others / Don't be real
- Diverting conversation capriciously; breaking others train of thought / Don't be
direct
- Disagreeing routinely / Don't think
- Asking loaded or accusing questions / Don't express
- Overusing "why" questions / Don't expect
- Breaking confidences; Failing to keep important promises / Don't
expect/want
- Flattering others insincerely / Don't be real
- Joking at inappropriate times / Don't be direct
- Bragging; showing off; talking only about self / Don't be real
When looking at behavior within the workplace, behavior as indicated
above, has social responses and messages attached. When these
responses or messages are acted out, the individual denies reality and
their needs are not met. They then contribute to the dysfunction of
the system.
Healthy/Functioning Rules
Healthy rules allow for the individual to operate in a manner that
is functional. When individuals;
- Do Talk
- Do Feel or Express
- Do Be Direct
- Do Be Real
- Do Want, Expect or Desire
- Do Think and Learn by Example
- Do Play
- Do Change and Grow (ref. 9),
the system benefits from the wholeness of the individual. The system
is no longer preventing growth. It is encouraging it. This rule
structure is instructive and rewarding as the following list will show.
Rewarding Behavior (ref. 4) / Implied Message/Response
- Giving other the chance to express view or share information / Do
Express
- Listen attentively; hearing other person out / Do Talk
- sharing oneself with others; smiling; greeting others / Do Be direct
- Giving positive nonverbal messages of acceptance and respect for others / Do
Feel
- Praising and complimenting others sincerely / Do Express
- Expressing respect for values and opinions of others / Do Be real
- Giving suggestions constructively / Do Think
- Compromising; negotiating; helping others succeed / Do Think
- Talking positively and constructively / Do Talk/Think
- Affirming feelings and needs of others / Do Feel
- Treating others as equals whenever possible / Do Be real
- Stating one's needs and desires honestly / Do Want/Desire
- Delaying automatic reactions; not flying off the handle easily / Do
Think
- Leveling with others; sharing information and opinions openly and honestly / Do Express
- Confronting others constructively on difficult issues / Do Talk/Be direct
- Stating agreement with others when possible / Do Grow/Think/Be
direct
- Questioning others openly and honestly; asking straight-forward, non loaded questions / Do Be direct
- Keeping the confidences of others / Do Expect
- Giving one's words sparingly and keeping it / Do Expect
- Joking constructively and in good humor / Do Play
- Expressing genuine interest an the other person / Do
Expect/Think/Feel
When looking at behavior within the workplace, the behaviors indicated
above have social responses and messages attached. When these
responses or messages are acted out, the individual can embrace reality
and their needs are more likely met. They can then contribute to the
functioning of the system.
The Survey
Addictive Behavior (Survey)
For the survey, I decided to key into the awareness of processes
occurring within the organization and draw conclusions from literature
that emphasizes how the two are linked. This was done to facilitate
the quickness of the survey and to prevent socially unacceptable
actions from being admitted in filling out the survey. Although the
survey is anonymous, I felt the least possible threat to the person
filling out the form, the more honest the response. Also, I felt most
people can indicate rule structures without knowledge of how the
structures operate, much like knowing the unwritten rules without ever
actually reading them. (Yes, this was an assumption on my part.)
In focusing on the process addictions, I asked six statements in a true
or false format. The design was purposeful in that I was aiming to
present an either/or situation for the surveyed person to respond. The
statement "Please indicate if the following are mostly true or false"
was added to impress upon the individual the need for a decision.
Admittedly, this too can be considered a duality process. I felt the
survey would not suffer though unless I had an individual aware enough
to point this out (Another assumption). A follow up study could be performed to see how
interviewing the individuals afterward would effect these results.
These first six statements were based on the six process addictions
addressed in the book "The Addictive Organization" by Anne Wilson
Schaef and Diane Fassel. In their book, the authors explain how each
process is closed loop and self perpetuating. I added numbers 7 and 8
because other sources(ref. 1, 2) showed one as a primary method that
is underlying all these processes and the another as taking focus off
the real issues and acting as a "quick fix". The processes are;
- The Promise
- The Pseudopodic Ego
- Dualism
- Invalidation
- Fabricated Personality Conflicts
- The External Reference
- Denial
- Scapegoating
The following statements were placed in the survey to see if these
processes were in place.
- 1. The company makes promises but delays delivery more often then not.
The statement implies that we must wait for our needs to be met and
they will be met sometime in the future. I designed this statement to
reflect this process. I didn't want the statement to altogether deny
the promise never being fulfilled, but I did want the individual to
show if more often then not the delay of the promise did exist.
- 3. Nothing has changed, but the company claims resolution of problems.
The statement implies that although nothing has changed (within the
structure, operation or problems being faced), the company states the
problem is no longer present since the company has taken action.
- 5. Solutions or choices are presented in an either/or format.
This doesn't imply polarity thinking, although polarity thinking is
duality, it implies a restriction of choices and narrowing of view.
- 6. Problems are denoted as trivial for the wrong reasons.
6. If the problem does fit company thinking, it is validated.
Both statements imply that problems must measure up to company
standards in order to be classified as problems. This would mean that
the problem can be written off for any reason the company wishes to
use.
- 7. Personality conflicts arise and take focus off the real problem.
Whether the conflict was fabricated purposely or not the process of
FPC's causes a discounting of the problem bearer if the information is
unwanted.
- 8. The company measures most situations against outside references
instead of internal standards.
8. The company measures most situations against outside references.
The implied statement here is "We evaluate things against outside
standards and not the actual internal capabilities of the company."
- 2. The company does admit when there are problems, readily.
The implied statement is "The company doesn't admit problems readily.".
This statement's answer was opposite to the addiction. The responses
were indicated in the analysis as opposite to the survey to correct for
this.
- 4. When faced with problems, a solution is sought, not a scapegoat.
4. When faced with problems, a solution is sought, not a person.
The implied statement is "Scapegoats are sought for problems, not
solutions.". This statement's answer was opposite to the addiction.
The responses were indicated in the analysis as opposite to the survey
to correct for this.
Co dependent Survey Statements
These implied rules were derived from the booklet "Co-dependency &
Family Rules" on page 14. The presentation suggests a self survey one
can take periodically to grade ones co-dependency. I derived
statements from the survey to reflect work conditions that were also
co-dependent in nature. The statements closely match those in that
survey but differ in the placement and wording. I reworded some
statements for clarity because of feedback obtained during the post
survey interviews. This rewording is shown as repeated numbers in
the statement lists and reflect the minor differences that took place
during the survey process. (ref. 9)
The following statements were placed into the survey to show if these
differing rules exist in the working environment and reflect
dysfunctional rule structure.
#* Statement
- 9. Voicing my problems involving work situations is not welcomed.
- 2. How I feel about issues cannot be expressed openly, especially
when the company chooses to close it.
- 11. I must communicate indirectly, using "messengers" within the
company structure.
- 4. Company expectations are unrealistic. They have a "just do it"
attitude.
- 13. The company expects work to be placed above all outside interests.
- 6. The company says one thing and does another.
- 15. Management frowns on levity and expects seriousness from all
employees.
- 8. Boat rocking is not tolerated and is not welcomed.
* The numbers indicate the order in which the statements appeared in the
survey.
The following statements were placed into the survey to show if healthy
rules existed within the work place and reflect healthy, functional
processes.
#** Statement
- 1. I am allowed to share my problems and get feedback from others.
- 10. I can express any persistent concerns with the appropriate person
any time.
- 3. I speak for myself, directly to whomever is appropriate for the
message.
- 12. The company understand limitations, expects the possible and gives
the proper supports.
- 5. The company limits employee over involvement and expects it's
workers to have outside interests.
- 5. The company limits employee over involvement and expects workers
to have other, outside interests.
- 14. The company is true to it's word and follows through with actions.
- 7. A casual atmosphere is encouraged, where humor is expressed
freely.
- 16. Changes and issues are expressed openly until resolved, without
fear.
- 16. Changes and issues can be expressed openly until resolved, without
fear.
**The numbers indicate the order in which the statements appeared in the
survey.
Predictions
According to Bradshaw, 96% of people raised in American homes
today have some degree of dysfunctionality within their family of
origin rule structure(ref. 3). In readings(ref. 8) it is noted the
organization is hologram. When you divide up its part, the individual
parts retain the same structures. If your parts all come from systems
that are to some degree dysfunctional, you build a structure with built
in dysfunctionality (to some degree). Keeping this in mind, the
outcome of the survey would approach this figure of 96%, but not match
it since the survey has a narrower focus.
Co dependents are needed to support the addictive processes. It is
hoped that the survey will show addictive processes to some degree
also. Since the addictive processes are supported by the co dependent
rules, the two surveys should show some correlation to each other.
The most prevalent process addictions and rule structures should also
be noted in order of severity.
Results
The processes occur in the following order (from highest to lowest occurrence);
- Promise / Invalidation
- FPC's
- Dualism / Pseudopodic ego
- Denial
- External reference
- Scapegoating
- When weighted and added up, survey shows a 86.5% rate of co-dependent
rule structures within the company's unspoken rules on the average.
- The order in which the rules are occurring within the workplace are as
follows (with #1 being the highest occurring and #8 being the lowest
occurrence):
Order of Occurrence / Rule # / Rule
- 5. Don't Want, Expect or Desire
- 8. Don't Make Waves
- 4. Don't Be Real
- 6. Do As I Say, Not As I Do (Don't think)
- 2. Don't Feel or Express
- 1. Don't Talk
- 7. Don't Play
- 3. Don't Be Direct
- The number one rule that is implied in the workplaces of these individuals is "Don't want,
expect or desire".
- The next rule implied is "Don't make waves (rock the boat)".
- The third rule is "Don't be real(istic)".
- The forth rule implied is "Do as I say, not as I do" and so on.
- Conflicting rule structures show up in 65% of the survey responses.
- There is a 6% indication that individuals are operating with a
dualistic rule structure.
- 59.5% of the addictive statement responses show addictive processes are
taking place within their workplace.
The graph above (omitted) shows the data points from below plotted. The
Occurrance of addictive processes is plotted on the vertical and the
different weights for the rule structure is plotted on the
horizontal. The slopes indicates a direct correlation of rules vs. processes
and indicates the two are interlinked proportionally.
Future Studies
- This type of study could be beneficial if completed within a single corporation with all
departments being surveyed.
- The survey can be expanded to include other statements covering more implied or
unspoken rule structures and other addictive processes that were not mentioned in this paper.
- A study of workers responses at different levels of management could facilitate a better
understanding of level conflicts.
- It may also lower the stress of individuals within the company by allowing them to
function more healthily in the working environment. (ref. 5)
I believe this paper only scratches the surface and can be used as a
starting point for research into facilitation of better company
functioning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Beatie, Melody: CODEPENDENT NO MORE. Harper & Row, Publishers. San
Francisco, Ca. 1987
- Bradshaw, John: BRADSHAW ON: THE FAMILY. Health Communications, Inc. Deerfield Beach, Fl. 1988 (book)
- Bradshaw, John: BRADSHAW ON: THE FAMILY. Kuht Huston Production, 1986
- Industrial Mental Health, Class Notes on Managerial Punishing and Rewarding Behavior.
6/19/90 and 6/21/90.
- Mclean, Alan A.: REDUCING OCCUPATIONAL STRESS, NIOSH, Cincinnati, Oh. 1978
- Melody, Pia, and Andrea Wells Miller and J. Keith Miller, FACING CODEPENDENCE: WHAT IT IS, WHERE IT COMES FROM, HOW IT SABOTAGES OUR LIVES.
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, Ca. 1989
- Miller, L. Keith: PRINCIPLES OF EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Belmont, Cal. 1975
- Schaef, Anne Wilson & Fassel, Diane. THE ADDICTION ORGANIZATION.
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, Ca. 1988.
- Subby, Robert, M.A. & Friel, John, Ph.D.. Co-dependency & Family Rules - A
Paradoxical Dependency. Health Communications, Inc. Deerfield Beach, Fl. 1984
- The Modern Library, THE WISDOM OF LOATSE.: (Edited and Introduced by Lin
Yutang). Random House, Inc., N.Y., N.Y. 1948
- WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY. The World Publishing Company. New
York 1967
