Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout: A Proposal for a Theory on the Effects of Toxic Communication in Organisations (essentials) 9783658407797, 9783658407803, 3658407794

Citation preview

Angelika Kutz

Double BindCommunication as a Cause of Burnout A Proposal for a Theory on the  Effects of Toxic Communication in Organisations

essentials Springer essentials

Springer essentials provide up-to-date knowledge in a concentrated form. They aim to deliver the essence of what counts as “state-of-the-art” in the current academic discussion or in practice. With their quick, uncomplicated and comprehensible information, essentials provide: • an introduction to a current issue within your field of expertise • an introduction to a new topic of interest • an insight, in order to be able to join in the discussion on a particular topic Available in electronic and printed format, the books present expert knowledge from Springer specialist authors in a compact form. They are particularly suitable for use as eBooks on tablet PCs, eBook readers and smartphones. Springer essentials form modules of knowledge from the areas economics, social sciences and humanities, technology and natural sciences, as well as from medicine, psychology and health professions, written by renowned Springer-authors across many disciplines.

Angelika Kutz

Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout A Proposal for a Theory on the Effects of Toxic Communication in Organisations

Angelika Kutz Praxis für Mediation & Coaching Hannover, Germany

ISSN 2197-6708 ISSN 2197-6716 (electronic) essentials ISSN 2731-3107 ISSN 2731-3115 (electronic) Springer essentials ISBN 978-3-658-40779-7 ISBN 978-3-658-40780-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40780-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Eva Brechtel-Wahl This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

What You Can Find In this essential

• Possible explanations why more and more employees are becoming physically, mentally or psycho-somatically ill, or why more and more employees are leaving their workplace unnerved. • Assumptions as to how toxic paradoxical Double Bind-Communication can affect employees and the company and endanger the existence of both. • The scientific basis for this.

v

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2 Theory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Double Bind-Theory (Double Bind-Theory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Attachment Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Personality Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Subclinical Psychopath in Organisations, Unethical Toxic Leadership and Dark Triad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Burnout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Burned-Out Organisations (Organisational Burnout) . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 5 6

3 Research Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisation Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Toxic Double Bind-Communication and Personality Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Personality Changes During Promotions within the Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Influence of Personality Disorders in Managers on Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Special Burnout Risk for Narcissistically Burdened Employees and Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Interim Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 11 13 15 16 18 24 26 26 27 31

vii

viii

Contents

4 Theory Proposal: Burnout and Organisational Burnout—in Truth a Double Bind-Induced Work Attachment and Work Relationship Disorder? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Starting Point: Social Uprooting Traumata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Effects on Early Childhood Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Effects on Relationship Motives on a Private Level . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Connections to Transactional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Reference to the Obidient-Daughter/Son Syndrome or War-Grandchildren Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Relationship Motives as an Interface between the Systems: Family and Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Effects of Relationship Motive Intrusions at the Organisational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Collusion between the Institutionalised Psychopath “Corporation” and Corporate Psychopaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Theory Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 Suspected, Global, Societal, Aggravating Vicious Circle . . . . . . .

45 45 46 46

5 Further—Perhaps Somewhat Daring—Assumptions/Questions . . . . .

49

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

33 36 37 38 40 40 41 42

1

Introduction

To find out how paradoxical Double Bind-Communication affects employees and organisations, I interviewed people in the workplace in a qualitative study. I present the resulting considerations here for discussion. The reason for the investigation were my observations as a psychological consultant, mediator and coach that “Burnout” often resulted from certain organisational communication and interaction structures or leadership patterns, as well as a diffuse mixture of feelings of fear, insecurity and constriction in the clients, which manifested themselves in these clients in chronic exhaustion and trauma-like psychological stress states and were the reason for consulting. www.mediation-coaching-hannover.de [email protected] Angelika Kutz

Photo: Corinna Perrevoort

Many thanks to all supporters of this essential! © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Kutz, Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40780-3_1

1

2

Theory Background

The scientific basis of the investigation are the Double Bind Theory, the Attachment Theory, the model of the double regulation of action in personality disorders, explanations for “Burnout” and the concept Organisational Burnout.

2.1

Double Bind-Theory (Double Bind-Theory)

This theory was described by Bateson et al. in 1956, after they had observed the corresponding communication and interaction pattern “Double Bind” (double bind) in the family therapy context within the context of schizophrenia. They refer to Double Bind as highly dysfunctional and “crazy-making” (crazy-making). Double Bind Elements Double Bind arises in existential dependency relationships between people, e. g. families, in which it is necessary to decode messages correctly. Double Binds (Double Binds) are incongruent messages in which either the verbal and non-verbal level contradict each other (a sad message is conveyed with a cheerful-joyful body language or vice versa), or mutually exclusive instructions are given. Both orders are provided with a sanction threat. This gives the Double Bind user the opportunity to reprove or punish the addressee for any behaviour. Example: Wash my fur, but don’t get me wet! No matter which order is fulfilled, the actor necessarily violates the second one given at the same time, with the consequence that he/she can only do it wrong. The Double Bind addressee can neither leave the situation nor may he raise the Double Bind-induced, impossibility of a simultaneous accomplishment of both messages (prohibition of metacommunication).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Kutz, Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40780-3_2

3

4

2 Theory Background

In case of permanent exposure, the habitual experience of punishment by Double Bind causes traumatizing psychological stress and internalized permanent mental tension. Further Developments Watzlawick et al. (2011) specify the consequences of paradoxical instructions in that there are only apparent alternatives, and the Double Bind receiver is always exposed to the accusation that he is either stupid, because unable to understand correctly; rebellious, because he has just implemented the other message than the required one or has addressed the inconsistency of the orders; or crazy, because not able to perceive the reality of the sender in the sense to be expected by him “correctly”. In retrospect, the receiver can always be accused of having executed the wrong order. No matter what he does, he can only lose (Schulz v. Thun, 2016). As a result, the responsibility for the result always lies with the receiver, because an automatic and inevitable vioaltion of each of the orders occurs, which gives the Double Bind user power over the addressee (Kutz, 2016). Once learned and consolidated, a Double Bind pattern is solidified in such a way that the Double Bind addressee already preventively restricts his behavioural repertoire and loses flexible interaction patterns (Visser, 2007). In a study presented by Smith (1976), an aggravating effect of Double Bind communication on the level of trepidation of healthy normals was found. The test subjects were exposed to the contradictory messages alone or to the punishment scenario alone or to a combination of both (= all Double Bind components). The highest level of impairment resulted from the combination variant. In parallel, it was found that those who were only exposed to the paradoxical messages or only to the punishment scenario were able to adapt to the situation; those from the combined Double Bind full variant could not. These full variant participants left the experiment with obvious feelings of annoyance or excessively apologized for their inability to provide “correct” answers, which persisted even after the experimental mechanisms were revealed. Analogy for Organisations Although the concept of Double Bind originates from the family therapy context, it can be generally considered as a dysfunctional interaction in dependency relationships and transferred to the organisational context, because also there the correct deciphering of messages is essential for survival.

2.2 Attachment Theory

2.2

5

Attachment Theory

The theory of attachment goes back to Bowlby and Ainsworth and states that infants develop a strong emotional attachment to their caretakers within their first year of life (Cierpka, 2012). A distinction is made between attachment system or caregiving system (synonym: attachment style). When threatened, the attachment system is activated by the child under threat; when the state of protection is entered, it is deactivated; the caregiving system of the caretakers is fed by their own caregiving experiences and determines their caregiving behaviour. The attachment theory differentiates between secure and insecure attachment (Lohaus & Vierhaus, 2015). Securely attached children have experienced that they can rely on the support of the attachment figures because they have a high degree of sensitivity to the signals of the children, which qualifies them in the caregiving system as secure-autonomous (Cierpka, 2012), because they allow the offspring autonomy and own needs, to which they react empathically in the right way. Insecurely attached children are divided into the A-type (insecure-avoidant), the C-type (insecure-ambivalent), and the D-type, which stands for disorganised. On the one hand, the attachment style unresolved of the parents corresponds to unprocessed trauma experiences (Cierpka, 2012), on the other hand, Double Bind is associated with this D-type because of its powerlessness-causing lose-lose situation, because in Double Bind the attachment figure, which is sought for the purpose of seeking protection, is at the same time the source of the threat (Buchheim, 2013), and which is probably only coincidental, but because of the initial letter D (D-type, disorganised, Double Bind) particularly suitable. Parents with the attachment style unresolved unconsciously transfer unprocessed traumatic experiences of the previous generation to the respective child. The own role ambiguity of the previous generation thus continues via its inner attitude towards itself and others, and subsequently manifests itself in the form of incongruent communication and interaction behaviour, the Double Bind. This has an impact on the attachment patterns of the offspring, i. e. the attachement type of the children of these parents with their own unprocessed trauma experience. The respective children’s generation, unlike securely bonded children, does not develop a healthy basic trust (according to Erickson) or self-confidence, and thus the lack of self-esteem or the injured self-confidence of the traumatized parents’ generation is passed on to the following generation(s) transgenerationally (Geddes, 2012)—unless it is compensated for by other carers.

6

2 Theory Background

The pronounced control behaviour of the Double Bind pattern or the too early, unconscious assumption of responsibility often leads to a role reversal (parentification; Cierpka, 2012), and which results in children finding themselves in a carer or provider role that is unhealthy for their development, which must overwhelm them because it should be the other way round, and interferes with their autonomy as an independent person in the maturing process. Although it depends on the individual coping strategies of those affected whether an objective traumatisation also subjectively leads to such. If, on the other hand, only the objective traumatisation criteria according to ICD-10 or DSM-5 are used as a basis (ICD = International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), some resulting traumatisation effects can only be explained by an equalisation of psychological damage with objective experience of violence. Even in the case of psychological violence, the emotional bond to the carer is massively disturbed and leads to anxious behaviour, mistrust and general relationship difficulties, leading to feelings of insecurity and having negative effects on the self-esteem of this young person, which is reflected in a dysregulation in the self-esteem regulation and an aggravated coping with external stressors (Sack et al., 2012).

2.3

Personality Disorders

The model of double action regulation of action (Sachse, 2000; Sachse & Collartz, 2015) starts from the six relationship motives • • • • • •

recognition/appreciation importance solidarity reliability autonomy boundaries/territory

which should be satisfied in relationships with others in order to ensure a healthy and balanced development during the maturing process and which, depending on their “satisfaction level”, are hierarchical to each other. The least satisfied motive remains at the top of this hierarchy and thus predominantly determines action. Usually several relationship motives act in interaction.

2.3 Personality Disorders

7

Balanced relationship motives lead to authentic behaviour and transparent interactions. If the goals of an interaction are veiled, that, what the person acting intransparently “actually” or really wants, remains hidden for the interaction partner (so-called game level). The middle layer of schemas consists of self-schemas (assumptions about the self) and relationship schemas (assumptions about relationships). People make experiences about their relationship motives during their childhood and adolescence. Depending on the received positive or negative feedback, these lead to corresponding self- and relationship schemas. Durable experiences, such as not receiving sufficient appreciation, lead to certain self- and relationship assumptions, e. g. in relationships one gets devalued, relationships are not reliable, which are later transferred to all other external relationships during the course of their lives—private contacts, partnership, world of work. These schemas lead to negative expectations and interpretations of situations as well as negative affects. In interactions they evoke highly automated, “hyperallergic” reactions to objectively minimal occasions, which is why they are so dysfunctional (Collartz & Sachse, 2011). For the affected people it is additionally unconciously unsatisfactory that they only receive feedback for their actions, but not for themselves as a person or the relationship motive that is actually so important to them. Common drive of all these disorders is therefore the relationship motive satisfaction, which was lacking during development, but which is therefore all the more desired, ultimately the longing for love and care (Sachse, 2000). Overview

The core cause of personality disorders lies, in my opinion, in a self-esteem problem. The injured and therefore unstable, “only” for unconditional acceptance longing self-consciousness is to be protected from (further) injuries. As a result, the behaviour of personality-disordered people is in a permanent state of tension between their inner injured and—unconsciously—perceived as insufficient self-image and the to be maintained outward image, which they unconsciously want to maintain as healthy and positive, as they want to be seen by others.

8

2 Theory Background

The narcissistic personality disorder picture is only listed under F 60.8 Other Personality Disorders in the ICD-10 and is not a separate diagnosis. Appreciation, autonomy, importance and solidarity are the decisive relationship motives for it (Sachse et al., 2011). Their representatives alienate their interaction partners through pronounced egocentrism, which can have a highly detrimental effect on their health (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). Compulsively inclined people in the sense of the diagnosis in F 60.5 ICD10 are highly norm-orientated and risk-averse due to a high need for security (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). Priority relationship motives are autonomy and appreciation. The psychopathic personality disorder is not listed as a separate diagnosis in either the ICD-10 or the DSM-5. It is only mentioned as a sub-item of the dissocial/antisocial personality disorder under F 60.2. These people have almost no social norms or rules internalized which would be necessary for a prosperous coexistence (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). Because they do not know principles such as do not damage others, do not impair them; be helpful, solidary and supportive of others, they also have no value system that would hinder them. This allows them to exploit others unscrupulously, spin intrigues, harm others and remain completely unaffected and emotionally uninvolved by doing so. So-called successful psychopaths manage to adapt to social and legal norms to such an extent that they escape prison and realize (cognitively) what is expected of them, which is why they can adapt through corresponding self-control. Combined with their winning and consuming, superficial-cunning charm, they use their highly manipulative disposition to exploit and abuse others for their own purposes without scruples or consideration. Because of their ability to focus all their resources on a specific task and often high intelligence, they can disguise their activities and at the same time be extremely successful in professional systems, even more successful than narcissists. As with narcissists, the relationship motives of appreciation and autonomy have priority (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). His often exaggeratedly positive self-assumptions like I am very successful, highly-intelligent, extremely capable; I can achieve anything, I can overcome all obstacles etc. enable the psychopath a high self -efficacy-expectation, and this, through the absence of a parallel negative self-schema (as the narcissist still has), free of any self-doubt or criticism-sensitivity, which is why criticism bounces off him. Lacking moral conscience norms, he believes that he is not accountable to anyone for his behaviour, which gives him unlimited freedom of action (Sachse & Collartz, 2015).

2.4 Subclinical Psychopath in Organisations, Unethical Toxic …

9

A psychopath “needs” relationships only to achieve his own goals with their help. According to his relationship assumptions relationschips areexclusively relevant under utility aspects: others can be manipulated and exploited. They lead to running rings around others, make them small, expose them to ridicule. Psychopaths are exclusively orientated to their own goals and driven by convictions like: Be successful, the best! Make something of your life! (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). This leads to their high motivation for performing and as a result of that their positions in organisations which are mostly equipped with high power, high status and high social prestige and wealth endowed positions in organisations. Other convictions of the psychopath are: Others have to do what I say, have work for me, give their best, not make a fuss and endure a lot. Psychopaths despise so-called wimps and expect that others can take criticism with the same ease like they do (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). With the help of effective strategies like flattery, sympathetic-seeming or even threats and intimidation, psychopaths are masters of manipulation. To reach this they can willfully turn off any empathy that may be present in order to outwit and exploit others solely for their own benefit (Sachse & Collartz, 2015).

2.4

Subclinical Psychopath in Organisations, Unethical Toxic Leadership and Dark Triad

The increasing lawlessness and unethical decisions in global economic affairs lead to a deeper scientific debate about unethical leadership (Brown & Mitchell, 2015; Schilling & May, 2015) and are mainly associated with the presence of psychopaths in the corresponding organisation (Stevens et al., 2012). The callousness typical for psychopathy is characteristic for the successful or subclinical psychopath (Corporate Psychopath)—also: Industrial/Executive Psychopath, Organisational Sociopath, Destructive Leader—(Boddy, 2011a), which is used as a synonym for unscrupulously abusing leaders/employees using, manipulating and exploiting other people as well as all human, financial, resource-based and strategic organisational resources for the sole purpose of achieving their own goals without regard or conscience. The Corporate Psychopath is characterized by superficial charm, dexterity/agility, egocentricity, fearlessness and good networking skills, all personality characteristics of the psychopath, which makes him particularly successful in organisations (Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Babiak et al., 2010). This type is specifically attracted by careers with high power promises (Babiak et al., 2007), status

10

2 Theory Background

and monetary gain, which is why some authors see them as significantly involved in the global financial crisis (Boddy, 2011b). Corporate Psychopaths are solely interested in self-gratification and not in long-term organisational success, but work solely because of the power, money and prestige. The fate of colleagues, employees and the organisation that pays them is irrelevant to them (Boddy et al., 2010). This makes them wicked and malicious, heartless and cold-blooded leaders for organisational members who ignore the needs of others, lie, tyrannise, manipulate and even cheat (Boddy, 2011a). Employees working under leaders with this psychogram feel that their work is not appreciated, not valued, they feel insufficiently compensated for their work performance (Boddy et al., 2010b). The employees’ well-being (Giacalone & Promislo, 2010) and their job satisfaction suffer considerably as a result (Boddy & Taplin, 2016). According to Boddy (2014), stress-related conflicts and counterproductive work behaviour increase with the high number of corporate psychopaths in an organisation. Corporate Psychopaths often use victimising (bullying) or unfair leadership (unethical/toxic leadership) with unethical behaviour such as sarcasm, degradation, deliberately caused work overload and rudeness because they enjoy the injury and humiliation of others, and instrumentalise the confusion, chaos and fear in order to conceal their own activities and perpetuate power and control (Boddy, 2011b). Toxic bullying bosses are increasingly observed in Western capitalist societies, for which Sinn (2010) uses the term casino capitalism (casino capitalism) (Boddy et al., 2015). This leads to an atmosphere of fear (Furnham, 2008), role conflicts, ambiguities and a toxic work environment with declining productivity (Harvey et al., 2009) and extreme mismanagement—reflected in poor personnel management, directionless leadership and resource mismanagement, even fraud (Boddy et al., 2015). Because they are poorly organised, productivity-damaging managers (Harvey et al., 2006), they endanger the business performance and longevity of the organisation they work for (Boddy, 2005). In particular, the new, flexible organisational structure “matrix” is a good breeding ground for them. There, they act upon the employees from several sides at the same time. They exploit colleagues and damage the company through undermining morale and stirring up conflicts. An even greater danger is the personality structure of the Dark Triad (Dark Triad) in (leadership) employees. This is a combination of narcissistic, machiavellian (i. e. working with intrigues for one’s own victory; Furtner, 2017) and psychopathic personality disorder (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). There is also a

2.5 Burnout

11

relationship between Dark Triad and loss of quality of work performance as well as increase in counterproductive behaviour according to a meta-analysis (O’Boyle et al., 2012). The studies regarding the so-called tyrannical leaders probably include both the “pure” psychopathic style and the Dark Triad. Both seem to be ideal leadership employees, but in reality they abuse all resources, including employees, cause tension and conflict situations, disharmony and damage the entire organisation (Babiak et al., 2007). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the sophisticated manipulation skills of both the narcissist and the subclinical psychopath are confused with leadership skills by the representatives of the hiring organisation and they are seduced by the false promises and grandiose illusions of such toxic psychograms, which are later revealed as grandiose illusions (LipmanBlumen, 2005). As a result, psychopathic (leadership) employees can infiltrate an organisation and even destroy healthy structures from within and destroy them (Singh, 2008). This is also due to the still common definition of leadership. According to Drouillard and Kleiner (1996), values, ethics, morality, etc. are still missing therein. They therefore postulate the antipodes effective vs. good leadership and campaign for an expansion of the definition to include the components of integrity, honesty, fairness and humanity, in which, in addition to a moral core, care for oneself and others and society resonate and are also included. As long as organisations allow their infiltration by toxic and therefore dysfunctional leaders who are already burdened with personality disorders at the time of entry into the organisation, the described mechanisms have a fatal effect on employees and the entire organisation because of the toxicity that diffuses into all areas of the organisation (Goldman, 2006). Such toxic leadership is costly because it destroys individuals, groups and organisations (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). This happens above all through the damaging effects of the toxic leadership on both the psychological well-being of the led and the well-being of the organisation, because this toxicity becomes part of the organisational culture if such people are not systemically prevented from being promoted (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2013).

2.5

Burnout

Burnout as a symbol of increased psychological stress in the workplace (Kratzer, 2012) is now a serious public health problem (Stier-Jarmer et al., 2016). Burisch (2014) describes it as “a psychovegetative exhaustion syndrome resulting from a

12

2 Theory Background

chronic, work-related stress reaction”. It has overlaps with depressive and psychosomatic disorders, develops in a slow and gradual process (Kaluza, 2012) and describes a state of mental and physical exhaustion (Stark & Maragkos, 2014) with the loss of the ability to regenerate or recover (Riechert, 2015). The term Burnout and the symptoms associated with it are ubiquitous, although Burnout is not listed as a separate diagnosis, but only as a sub-item under Z73.0 “Problems related to difficulties in coping with life” in the ICD-10, and a theoretical classification is difficult. Burnout is attributed to lack of appreciation and stress experience due to the thereof resulting self-esteem injury (Sende, 2014) or a gratification crisis Effort-Reward-Imbalance-Model (ERI) (Siegrist, 2011). It is also investigated under a neurophysiological and hormonal perspective (increased noradrenaline levels) as well as in connection with an increased risk of depression due to chronic stress. V. d. Oelsnitz (2014) considers the aspect of job design and sees an exhaustion effect mainly due to a mismatch of the psychological employment contract “loyalty for a secure job” due to precarious employment relationships, excessive project work and fictutious self-employment without simultaneously increasing room for decision-making and scope of action, which causes feelings of helplessness with corresponding stress reactions. For Seligmann (2016), uncontrollable, traumatizing events lead to learnt helplessness and the loss of motivation to act or to depression. The not controllable and therefore "unbearable" situation caused by Double Bind is comparable to the uncontrolled electric shocks Seligman chose for his experimental setup. Unger and Kleinschmidt (2013) classify Burnout as stress-related exhaustiondepression and occupational accident of modernity. According to Burisch (2014) it is necessary to have as close a match as possible between the individual abilities of an employee and the activity he or she is carrying out for maintaining health in the workplace—Person-Environment-Fit (Caplan, 1987)—as well as autonomy, because this is a prerequisite for the person’s having of a balanced feeling of control of a situation. Kuhn and Weibler (2014) speak of an emaciation through an egomaniacal organisation due to unethical leadership, which is interested in its employees, and which has to do with a narrowing of entrepreneurial responsibility to a pure return on investment-responsibility. Illness-related absences and psychological illnesses in the workplace are linked by Michie and Williams (2002) with unclear leadership and unclear role concepts.

2.6 Burned-Out Organisations (Organisational Burnout)

13

In their anthology “The Emaciating Organisation”, Schirmer et al. (2014) focus on both the individual person (behavioural prevention) and the organisation ( environmental prevention). Burnout is rooted in high goals, which are not achieved despite great resource expenditure, which continuously emotionally exhausts people until the total loss of performance capacity. According to Wüstner (2014) or Lalouschek (2016), possible reasons for emaciation could be perfectionism, narcissism and ambition/thirst to gain power or personality disorders. Burnout arises in my opinion above all, if demands exceed the coping possibilities, for whatever individual reasons, or, as suspected by me, is potentially caused by Double Bind (=> theory proposal paragraph 4).

2.6

Burned-Out Organisations (Organisational Burnout)

This term is based on the book of the same name by Greve (2015). It draws parallels between the Burnout of people and a similar development that can be observed in organisations. With respect to the Double Bind Problem, the following is interesting on an individual Burnout level: • • • •

lack of self-confidence goal and task uncertainty difference between personal values and the value of the task fear of the negative consequences of one’s own failure.

For Organisational Burnout, the following are noteworthy: • • • •

Excessive quality requirements Unrealistic performance requirements Value poverty of the corporate identity The meaning of the company is solely materially orientated.

3

Research Results

My investigation showed that Double Bind-Communication is common in many organisations and part of everyday life—with all the confusing, paralysing and sickening effects for those affected by it. Typical Double Bind-Situations in Organisations • Too many tasks for too few staff (unfulfillable requirements with simultaneous restriction/withdrawal of the necessary resources) • “Do more with less.” (“Achieve more with less.”) Quality- or output maximization with simultaneous minimization of the resources provided (time, money, equipment, manpower) • Matrix organisations as particularly susceptible to Double Bind due to their iridescent and thus unclear task assignments as well as constantly changing “teams” (in which in reality competition and individual rewards are encouraged by the organisation in order to maximize results), which drives a virulent increase in Double Bind Organisations. Because instead of clear decisions with one “satisfied” and one “unsatisfied” side, Double Bind produces “rotten compromises” and thereby dissatisfaction on all sides; it thus creates ambiguous conditions and the thereof resulting insecurity doubles the number of the dissatisfied, which is exponentiated with each additional matrix dimension. Typical Accompanying Symptoms of Double Bind in Organisations • Lack of transparency, not being able to figure out people and situations, not knowing what is intended or wanted, and that “cards are not played openly”, all of which leads to uncertainty and unease. As a result of these uncertainties,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Kutz, Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40780-3_3

15

16

3

Research Results

employees reduce their work performance to the bare minimum because everything can and will be interpreted negatively and to their detriment due to the Double Binds. • Permanent surprise effects because no (internal) preparation for the changing circumstances is possible, with competition (“against each other”) instead of cooperation. • Double Bind for the sake of positive self-presentation out of personal vanity and as a means of generating power in order to prevent employees from thinking independently or yielding to this power pressure and ultimately “going along with everything”.

3.1

Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisation Members

Due to the financial dependence on the employer, most of those affected by Double Bind in organisations cannot leave the system. According to the research results, this leads to psychological, psychosomatic and physical reactions in organisation members/to overload and loss of energy, resulting in a risk to suffer from Burnout. Psychological/psycho-somatic/physical consequences Study participants often described dissatisfaction and the experience of “how it’s done, it’s done wrong” as caused by Double Binds, which were supposed to lead to the Double Bind-immanent traumatising, habitual punishment experience with constant mental tension. Double Bind-Communication was described as causing severe and lasting mental-emotional stress, panic, anger or diffuse confusion or threat states through permanent (diffuse) feelings of being in danger/threatened by an enemy. The resulting feelings of powerlessness and fear as well as the wish to escape from the system were paired with frustration, disappointment and resignation, fear and meaninglessness. This Double Bind-caused diffuse threat situation leads, according to the results of the investigation, to the three evolution-based reactions fight, flight or freeze, with a preference for the reaction flight. Due to financial dependence, however, the employee can usually not escape the Double Bind-System. The reactions of the vegetative nerve system that occur as a result are described with heart palpitations, stomach aches, sweating, sleep disorders, diarrhoea, inner

3.1 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind Communication …

17

dissatisfaction and lack of motivation. Further consequences were insecurity and self-aggression. According to the results, feelings of powerlessness and anger arise from the experience of giving one’s best and yet not being enough, which is additionally accompanied by the psychosomatic reaction “belly grumbling”. This was also supposed to be related to a lack of scope for action. Other mentioned psychosomatic reactions were cold diseases in the sense of “having had enough”, which indicated a weakened immune system, bone and joint problems as well as pain symptoms, but also herniated discs as well as stomach and intestinal problems (“The gall is running over”). Acute hearing losses and having to wear glasses were seen as an indication of “not being able to/wanting to hear or see things anymore”. This is reminiscent of the disease pictures reinterpreted by Peseschkian (2002) into sense-carrying strengths/abilities, in which each individual reacts with his or her very own “points of weakness”. For example, he lists a slipped disc as the ability not to collapse, while an ulcer shows the ability to swallow a lot. As an externally visible, physical sign of inner psychological processes, the extinguishing of joy, pride and cheerfulness in eyes, face and gait was described. Interestingly enough, even the term “schizophrenic” fell in the course fo the study as a description of what those who work in a Double Bind-System do by going to work every day and join in the Double Bind-game—pretending not to see the prevailing problems in the Double Bind-System, but rather to calm themselves down with “substitute activities”. The parallel to the discovery context of the Double Bind (schizophrenia; Bateson et al., 1956) and Gruen’s analysis (2013) that the schizophrenics who protect their intact value system go into inner emigration in totalitarian Double Bind-Systems, which is reminiscent of inner resignation in the work context, is obvious. The study also shows that those who do not want to play the Double Bind-System game (for conscience reasons) are deliberately excluded, making them outsiders in the system. All of these Double Bind-induced psychosomatic burdens also entail the risk of serious physical illness in the medium term. The sentence “Paradoxical instructions make you sick” was repeatedly mentioned during the study. As physical reactions were discribed: physical weakness, flaccidity, “flatness”, severe loss of energy due to energy consumption and long-term sick leave.

18

3

Research Results

Burnout Risk The study found that as a result of paradoxical communication employees describe excessive energy consumption and thereof resulting total exhaustion from overload as well as Burnout. The employees consume their energy on the one hand as a result of these paradoxical system states (level of environmental prevention), on the other hand through their own drivers (level of behavioural prevention). They are forced by external requirements to fulfill demands on which they do not have any influence (lack of scope for action). Their professional expertise, is not taken seriously, not recognized, which leads to resignation and finally - through the steps described in the study: apathy (also in the private context), longing for free time and the simultaneous inability to enjoy free time like weekends, also isolating and encapsulating in the private sphere (withdrawal), nervous breakdowns—finally ending in “Burnout”. According to the results of the study, pronounced personality traits (narcissism, compulsion and psychopathology) in leaders were associated with significantly increased absenteeism in the units assigned to them.

3.2

Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisations

The study found the following consequences for organisations: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Unclear goals are a consequence and promoter of Double Bind in Organisations Impermeable glass partitions between hierarchical levels Double Bind is a game in which the rules of the game keep constantly changing Infantilisation of employees by the Double Bind-System Misunderstood TEAM thought Pseudo-socialism and collective irresponsibility System resistance to change No independent thinking of the employees (anymore) Exercise of power with the goal: compliant employees Efficiency-increasing target pursuit with the help of Double Bind is a fallacy Search for the guilty instead of error culture Filter in the system System-exit-wish and high fluctuation Value system clash as another cause of fluctuation Convenience/consumer attitude

3.2 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisations

19

• The failure of the organisation because creativity and the willingness to work for goals are prevented, and the organisation stops learning (because of ignoring that errors are a learning opportunity)/and improving, adapting and developing in time • At some point “it comes to a bang” and thus to the collapse of the Double BindOrganisation. Unclear goals, which are at the same time both consequence and promoter of Double Bind in organisations, make public organisations due to their political orientation with the typical Double Bind-induced, deliberately ambivalent statements even more susceptible than business companies for Double Bind-structures, which explains the there generally increased level of sick leaves, especially for officials —because of the immense financial consequences threatening them in the case of leaving the system. In business companies with clear target and market orientation, Double Bindinduced financial imbalances are noticed earlier, so that countermeasures can be taken on the company’s side. However, due to the increasing influence of politics in all areas of life, as well as the increased matrix structures, a constant increase in Double Bind-Communication can be observed also there. Because in matrix structures there is a high need for coordination between the individual departments, which means increased demands for the employees and, on the part of the organisation, a calculated increased conflict potentialin order to improve economic results, and a higher probability for reactions on the employees’ side on one of the three health-threatening channels. This Double Bind-related risk point for organisations is reflected in Greve (2015) in the headline Unspecific goals and lack of concretisation. The common research formulation “those up there, those down there” characterizes impermeable glass partitions between the hierarchy levels. If the topmost organisational level loses contact with the base and, moreover, possibly allows itself to be indulged, in terms of height and content disproportionate, conveniences to itself, while at the same time depriving operational level-staff of benefits, the Double Bind "application of double standards" results in the drying up of the communication between the levels, and operating instead with rumors and informal communication, which—especially in combination with the further component of the filter problem (see below)—becomes a danger to the organisation. Greve (2015) describes the mechanisms “Success allows luxury and luxury frustrates” and isolation from everyday business as a danger for organisational

20

3

Research Results

burnout, that is, if the topmost hierarchy level moves too far away from the operational units and these gain the impression that “those up there” had become so detached that they would no longer be aware of the base’s feelings. Double Bind was repeatedly described in the investigation as a game in which the rules of the game are constantly changing, and which one must know, master and—regardless of their sense—play along with in order to survive in a Double Bind-System. The latter is made more difficult by the fact that a Double Bind-System conceals these game rules precisely in order to gain and maintain power over the members of the system, with which the described surprise effects are connected. The poem by Laing, which is very appropriate to this context of the Double Bind-game, and which can be read under https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1144433-they-are-playing-a-gamethey-are-playing-at-not (Login: 27.05.2017), states that everyone is involved in a great game, but which may not be referred to as such under penalty of being punished. Thomas Watson (https://www.iim-edu.org/thinktank/publications/man agement-gurus/Thomas-Watson.htm; Login: 18.05.2017) describes business life as the greatest game in the world if one knows how to play it. This fits in with the statement from the investigation that all those involved are acting as players in a great show game with a lot of theater thunder in self-presentation sessions, in which everyone has to play along because they have to in order not to be excluded from the game and the system as a game spoiler. At the same time, the often heard sentence “we are not in kindergarten here” can be heard. However, doubts and suspicion can arise that this is not after all the continuation of the kindergarten and sandbox games instead of a job-orientated, goaland solution-focused approach to dealing with factual questions, which is also reflected in the title in Harvey (2006): “Bullying—From the Playground to the Boardroom”—“Systematic Mobbing—from the playground to the boardroom”. To play games is usually a childrens’ domain. As a result, the impression is created that Double Bind is used as a perfidious power game for the infantilisation of the workforce by the Double Bind-System. A suitable illustration in this respect can be found in Wehrle (2011), in which an employee is given an “eat ice cream” as a “compensation” for a deliberatly canceled vacation. In return, children do not need to take over responsibility, which results in the restriction of opportunities for taking over self-responsibility and thus a shrinking scope of action in task performance. This strangulation of every autonomy or self-initiative leads to the described frustration and discouragement, and is one mosaic stone on the way to the three disease-causing reaction channels described, but also to the fading joy of work and work motivation and the thereof resulting decreasing commitment or the declining performance

3.2 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisations

21

with quality and performance losses which later have a financial impact on the organisation itself. This “strangulation” of autonomous thinking and acting is one, if not the essential component in the theory derived from my investigation (=> part 4). This mechanism was expressed in the finding of the investigation that the system does not take the organisational members seriously, whereby these are dis-appointed (they “see through” the deception —consciously or unconsciously), give up and in turn do not (anymore) take the events seriously, which leads to a vicious circle of not-taking overself-responsibility or not-taking over responsibility for work results and finally to the unquestioned execution of any instructions, which has the advantage for the system of a better controllability of these (infantilized) employees. At the same time, this has the effect that employees potentially tend to withdraw more and more from any responsibility, which is expressed in the study results as "misunderstood team idea" or the translation of the word “TEAM” with “Toll ein andrer macht’s” = "Great: Someone else is doing it". And if team work—as it is particularly the case of matrix organisations—is demanded, which is the case especially in matrix organisations, but at the same time individual achievements and individuals are rewarded to fuel the internal competition for the purpose of optimizing results, a classic Double Bind Situation exists. This false understanding of team spirit leads, according to the findings of the study to “Pseudosocialism” and Collective Irresponsibility. That is the reason why some study participants distinguished between team and crew. In a team, no one/the individuals do not take over responsibility, in a crew, however, they do. The learning process of the Double Bind-System members, which is triggered by the punishment mechanisms caused by the Double Bind, is problematic as they do not want to take over any self-responsibility in order to avoid the persisting painful experience of punishment. O ver time, they can no longer assume any responsibility for themselves at some point of time, as a result of the thinking and behaviour pattern practised in this way, which can, corresponding to the concept of the “learnt helplessness” (Seligmann, 2016) end in lethargy, apathetic “sitting in the corner” and ultimately in depression—another psycho-somatic disease-consequence. This is then reflected in rising numbers of internal resignations and working to rule, which both contribute to the fact that the system is not questioned. This is quite in the sense of the Double Bind- Organisation, because a system wants to preserve itself (Autopoiesis: Varela et al., 1974; Self-referentiality Luhmann, 2008) and the Double Bind-System must not change, under no circumstances.

22

3

Research Results

Because the purpose of an autopoietic system is exclusively the autopoiesis itself (Zwack & Pannicke, 2010). For this purpose, it is extremely important for the Double Bind-System to prevent, suppress or choke off any independent thinking by members of the organisation. This Phenomenon of aversion to change and the self-preservation of Double Bind-Systems, which, according to the results found here, is probably also based on Double Bind can be found in Greve (2015) as “The successes of the past are more important than the chances of the future”. However, he attributes this to an increasing risk aversion of aged management, because new ways entail risks and uncertain outcomes and everything new causes insecurity. Since employees in these contexts are therefore not supposed to think independently, they stop it after a while, because they become systematically "de-trained" in doing so. Because a common learning experience, which is widespread according to the results of the investigation, is, that suggestions for improvement are not seriously desired by the system, but are only lip service, which leads to selfprotection mechanisms in the form of “keep your mouth shut and lean against the wall”. Employees have too often experienced that factually-intended expert advice is immediately interpreted as criticism of the respective managers or the quality of their work and sanctioned accordingly. This is because in many cases good experts and specialists of their field are promoted to leadership positions instead of “settled personalities” with a real interest in people management and leadership. According to the investigation results, many managers apparently pursue the goal of preventing independent thinking of their employees by means of Double Binds and the thereof resulting exercise of power, in order to create willing employees who carry out every order without questioning, without thinking for themselves, and unquestioningly, so that goals given by the organisation or personal ones can be achieved “effortlessly”. However, this goal of efficiency enhancement turns out to be a multiple misconception. Because the Double Bind-induced, power-motivated prohibition of independent thinking and the resulting lack of willingness to take over responsibility on the part of employees prevent factual, expert- and solution-orientated action and hinders any clarifying or solution. Employees go into inner emigration, resign inwardly, reduce their commitment. In addition, fueled by the error aversion of the Double Bind-System, errors in products or obstacles in material, processes or system processes are not uncovered and not indicated, whereby the learning opportunity lying in errors and the corresponding continuous improvement potential evaporate, and these valuable information is lost for the organisation and not available for their further development in the sense of a

3.2 Consequences of Toxic Double Bind-Communication for Organisations

23

learning organisation. This prevents productive work and ends in stagnation and paralysis for the organisation. In addition, there is the search for the guilty party instead of error-friendliness or solution- and solution-orientated problem-solving strategies (ignoring errors as a learning opportunity). This learning-inhibiting effect is additionally augmented by the filters in the system that are widespread in (especially large, multi-level) organisations, that is, the tendency to present oneself and one’s own area in the best possible light by means of filtered information dissemination for better self-promotion and in order to appear in a better light. As a result, valuable information for further development of the entire organisation is lost, especially at the top level. The mixture of prohibition of independent thinking, error aversion and the thereof resulting disappointment and frustration that one’s own expertise is so little in demand, although this is apparently again and again required by the Double Bind- Organisation, not only “switches off” the employees mentally and emotionally, but ultimately suffocates any creativity for finding solutions that is essential for renewing products or processes. According to the findings of the study, there are also “confidentiality levels” (which are, however, inconsequently complied with in the end, i. e. broken) that obscure information distribution„ which cut off essential parts of the workforce from necessary decision-making bases because in Double Bind- Organisations information and communication ( only the latter one qualifying as “entering into dialogue”) are predominantly confused. Double Bind in Organisations, according to the findings of the study, triggers the desire to leave the (Double Bind-) System, the organisation, and thus causes fluctuation together with experience-, brain- and know-how drain. Reasons for this are resignation, a diffusely perceived feeling of threat, the perception that is not played with a full deck, up to the feeling of being involved in a private war and exposed to the danger of constant unexpected attacks (feeling of uncertainty, unpredictability, surprise effect), which causes uncertainty and unease. Some even prefer to quit into the uncertainty of unemployment in order to be able to leave such a system. In addition, according to the investigation results, there is the further Double Bind-induced fluctuation reason of a the value contradiction (value clash), which arises as soon as the value system of the organisation members no longer corresponds to that one of the Double Bind- Organisation. As a result, organisation members can no longer identify with the organisation, can no longer reconcile the processes there with their conscience and leave the system. These frequent value divergences in Double Bind-Organisations can be found in Greve

24

3

Research Results

(2015) for the organisational level under the headings Poverty of the corporate mission statement/meaning of the company solely materially orientated. In addition, the organisational reputation and the employer branding suffer and Double Bind- Organisations cannot retain or win new good employees. During the study the term convenience or consumer attitude was often used in connection with Double Bind, that someone wants all the advantages for himself, but avoid all disadvantages all the same. With this aspect of convenience and error aversion, the failure of a Double Bind- Organisation is related because Double Bind first prevents independent thinking of employees and then creativity and improvements based on the learning potential lying in errors as well as ceasing willingness to work for goals, so that Double Bind- Organisations can not survive in the medium to long term because innovations are missing, market trends are missed and thus in the medium to long term the earnings situation and the position on the market suffer. It became clear from the investigation that in Double Bind- Organisations it eventually “comes to a bang”, e. g. through acquisition or sale, merger or insolvency, and thus to the downfall of the Double Bind- Organisation. Before such a "bang" the Double Bind-effects strike first on the level of the employees, through illnesses, fluctuation, and later, on organizational level, e. g. in wrong investments or other self-inflicted financial losses, and then the Double BindOrganisation abolishes itself through its constantly self-reinforcing mechanisms and vicious circles due to the Double Bind-induced stagnation and self-paralysis. Double Bind-Organisations thus first destroy their employees and ultimately themselves. Greve (2015) describes these last stages before organisational collapse as diffuse longing for the “Big Bang” of a new beginnings/the unconscious indulgence of organisational suicide, “corporate death from vanity in the competition of heroes” and “the organisation’s immune system is weak.”

3.3

Toxic Double Bind-Communication and Personality Disorders

The study found that personality disorders such as narcissism, compulsion and psychopathy as well as “Burnout” cases apparently occur more frequently in the presence of the Double Bind- Communication pattern in organisations.

3.3 Toxic Double Bind-Communication and Personality Disorders

25

According to the study, some managers expect special treatment of their person, but at the same time deny these privileges that apply to them to colleagues or employees and take the liberty to change these unilaterally established “rules” at any time at their discretion and convenience, which fulfills the characteristics of the narcissistic personality disorder (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). By the pronounced need for control, which is typical of compulsive personalities and due to which they would rather do everything themselves and accordingly delegate accordingly, especially employees who work independently are negatively affected (Sachse & Collartz, 2015). The study provided indications that employees who are permanently exposed to the compulsive personality disorder, especially by managers, often suffer from somatisations, psychosomatisations, irritation and withdrawal with a correspondingly high amount of sick leave. Because of the compulsive disorder-immanent fear of making mistakes and the resulting tendency to perfectionism, this style fits particularly well into the Double Binddynamics with their high aversion to errors and predestines such persons to seek out or intensify, aggravate or accelerate their basic tendencies that were already present at system entry. Interestingly enough, the managers thus burdened had a high sick leave rate in their departments, which “reappeared” in the next subdivision as well, after they changed departements internally. According to the study, there are often people with subclinical, sometimes also—in relation to especially property crimes—with clinical psychopathic personality style frequently encountered in Double Bind-structures; preferably especially in middle or upper and top management positions, because they are especially predestined for these organisational levels by the properties of this personality style. According to the research results, they reach this primarily through targeted manipulation or threats. To achieve advantages for themselves they successfully build Potemkin villages for the purpose of blinding and manipulating their environment. They conceal their own deficits by accusing others or withdraw from taking responsibility. Double Bind-contexts obviously attract these personality types more, but at the same time they probably also produce them. This probably applies in particular to the personality structure of the (subclinical) psychopath, who, according to Gruen (2013), fully adapts to totalitarian or Double Bind-Systems and ultimately executes really everything unquestioned.

26

3.4

3

Research Results

Personality Changes During Promotions within the Organisation

One reason for this could be that ambitious and career-orientated people can be particularly susceptible to undergoing a serious change in nature and personality when being promoted in the organisational hierarchy of a Double Bind-System. In the study, there were descriptions of changes in organisation members who, when they were promoted to the next hierarchy level, initially preserved their value system and remaind fair and appreciative towards former colleagues, now subordinate employees, at the beginning; but this changed increasingly in the course of further steps in their career/moving up in the hierarchy and was described as a “terrible change in personality”, which the employees “had to endure” at the end, from which a “usurpation by the system” becomes clear, to which psychopathically predisposed people apparently adapt with ease.

3.5

Influence of Personality Disorders in Managers on Employees

Such toxic personality styles thus infiltrate organisations apparently not only through a (side) entry, but are also brought about by Double Bind- Organisations themselves due to the changes in nature and personality caused by Double Bind, when people are taken over by the system in the course of their hierarchical ascent. Because Double Bind-Systems reward and promote narcissistic and psychopathic personality disorder behaviour in particular. The Double Bind- Organisation is then characterized by its inherent Double Bind-(Non-) Culture through incongruent, ambiguous and inauthentic messages and communication structures, whereby the employees, together with the Double Bind-immanent continuous reproaches, without the possibility of metacommunication or corresponding clarification chances, become increasingly insecure and cautious in their actions. If the employee feels very burdened by this restriction and has the opportunity to do so, he will leave the Double Bind-System by quitting. If he does not have this option, the consequences and reactions he shows depend, according to the investigation results, on whether this employee is equipped with an intact inner value system or not. Employees with an intact inner value system, who cannot leave the system by quitting, basically only have the chance for an inner leaving of the system, either through the inner resignation, potentially together with passive-aggressive refusal

3.6 Special Burnout Risk for Narcissistically Burdened …

27

behaviour (Sachse & Collartz, 2015) or by the fact that the Double Bind-induced anger or aggression is reflected in one or more of the three reaction channels (psychic, psycho-somatic, physical) up to Burnout (Kutz, 2016). The most alarming and worst form of Double Bind-induced auto-aggression or inner protest against a Double Bind-System, which holds its members in such totalitarian clutches and situations of predicament (dilemmata), keping them thereby “enslaved”, that there seems to be no other escape option for them, are the increasing reports of suicides in the work context. It is striking that the representatives of these Double Bind-Systems then usually strictly deny any responsibility on the part of the system contexts, that is, they see no need for the system-related necessary environmental prevention. Employees without an intact value system, on the other hand (according to Gruen (2013): the psychopaths) adapt to the (totalitarian) Double Bind-System, obediently carrying out everything required of them, without questioning it, and due to their personality style, being probably quickly and easily promoted in a Double Bind-Organisation. Employees who do not or only partially have these personality traits at the beginning may possibly undergo a drastic change in their nature and personality and an insidious assimilation to the Double Bind-System because this behaviour is rewarded by it. This then has corresponding negative consequences for colleagues and employees who are exposed to this totalitarian tyranny and the tyrannical behaviour of Bullying Bosses or even a leader with the characteristics of the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellism and Psychopathy). This way they activate with the help of power exercised through Double Bind-Communication Burnout and other psycho-somatic diseases in their employees.

3.6

Special Burnout Risk for Narcissistically Burdened Employees and Leaders

The study also found indications that narcissistically burdened employees and leaders seem to be particularly at risk with regards to Burnout. The so-called successful narcissist (Sachse et al., 2011) is successful because he manages to substitute his disappointed need for recognition/appreciation and autonomy through extreme performance trying to compensate the (early suffered) painful experience of not being recognized/not being able to act autonomously. This high committment is caused by the unconcious desire to compensate his in truth damaged or completely missing self-confidence (as his self-image reads “I am a failure”) by performance. However, the narcissistically

28

3

Research Results

shaped employee or leader “overlooks” the unconscious psychological process that he only receives recognition for his performance, not for himself as a person and that thereby the gap of the unfulfilled motive for appreciation is never filled—no matter by which substitute. According to the results of the study, it is likely that Double Bind is the true or common cause of both the emergence of various personality disorders and Burnout/exhaustion-depression (Unger & Kleinschmidt, 2006). Because the continuous frustration—caused by the Double Bind-System—of these drivers or relationship motives behind the great willingness to perform shown by the narcissist makes his efforts to gain recognition completely pointless. According to the results of the study, the feeling of always giving one’s best and it still not being enough, causes psycho-somatic “grumbling in the stomach” as well as anger and feelings of powerlessness. According to the Double Bind-rule “Do not recognize anyone unconditionally. If he really tried, he might get the confirmation he wishes, but unfortunately, unfortunately this will never happen.” (Sautter & Sautter, 2014) this (excessive) effort and willingness to perform is precisely what the Double Bind-System does—permanently—not reward. The recognition- and autonomy-motivated) employee or leader, however, repeats constantely the same actions, so to say “more of the same”, still hoping to achieve this through increased performance. But because this is never going to happen due to the Double Bindimmanent mechanisms, the narcissistically inclined employee, who identifies with the organisation, is loyal and does his best and wants to give the best solution for the organisation, drives himself into an exhaustion spiral because of his personal drivers for recognition in order to “work away” the self-image of the failure that he has internalized during his development. Most of the time he can not free himself from this compensation spiral without help or encouragement from the outside, unless the emotional, social etc. costs (Sachse, 2000) caused by this compensation mechanism increase the suffering to such an extent that he himself realizes that he has to and wants to make corrections to his own behaviour pattern. As long as the employee maintains the old patterns, this Double Bind-personality style-compensation-spiral will most likely end in Burnout/an exhaustion depression. Thus, the results found in this study suggest that “Burnout” is caused by both conditions within the structures of the system (Double Bind- Organisations and Double Bind-leaders) and the structure of the individual personality, who is unconsciously persuing the attachment and relationship motives recognition and autonomy which had been disappointed during his maturing development, which

3.6 Special Burnout Risk for Narcissistically Burdened …

29

makes Burnout a multifactorial phenomenon related to both the environmental and behavioural prevention level. If the narcissistically shaped employee or leader manages to keep his performance-compensation-cycle in balance in order to compensate for the selfunconfident self-image (with partly extreme failure anxieties) and is able to rise within the organisation due to his high committment without being crushed by his own drivers in the long run, he can stay mentally healthy and rise to the top of the organisation. However, he may run the risk of developing into the psychogram of the Dark Triad of narcissism, Machiavellism and Psychopathy due to a change in his nature/personality caused by this rise. Especially since, at the very top, according to Sachse and Collartz (2015), he no longer needs empathy for effective manipulation and may therefore lose the ability to feel empathy at all, which makes him develop psychopathic characteristics and thus additionally predestined for the development of the Dark Triad Psychogram. If he does not or does not sufficiently achieve this balance in the long term, his level of suffering and the risk of Burnout will increase due to the following mechanisms.

30

3

Research Results

- Coping Strategies - Resources - Resilience (e.g. social network, hobbies, sports . . . )

Energy level depending on inflow and outflow Total energy inventory

Avoidance Target Leak

Fig. 3.1 Core mechanism of the unhealthy interplay of narcissistic structure and Double Bind-mechanisms. (© Angelika Kutz, 2018)

Overview

The actual core mechanism of the unhealthy interplay of narcissistic structure and Double Bind-mechanisms lies, in my opinion, in the following (see Fig. 3.1): The narcissistically burdened employee or leader suffers from a permanent inner tension between his damaged self-image and the “whole, perfect”, high-performance external image propagated as a smoke grenade in order to conceal the self-image “loser”. This tension cannot prmatently be upheld/sustained, he implodes, so to speak. For his performance driver is based not on energisingintrinsic approach goals but on energy-consuming extrinsic avoidance goals (avoidance of discovery of the damaged self-image).

3.7 Interim Conclusion

31

Thereby energy constantly “drips” from his individual energy vessel, like from a leaking faucet, through the initially unnoticeable “avoidance goal leak”, step by step reducing tereby the total energy stock. Depending on the individual resilience and the ability to regularly refill the energy loss by coping strategies from the private-family, hobby context, etc. so that energy inflow and outflow at least balance each other, the dripping energy—possibly very long or even permanently—can be substituted or compensated. However, if the energy outflow exceeds the refill capacity, which develops slowly and gradually—due to a continuous and sometime very long lasting aggravation and spiral process as it is described for the Burnout context—, the individual person is, in the end, left behind without energy and weak, that is burntout (“burnt-out”).

3.7

Interim Conclusion

Double Bind-Communication structures in organisations have fatal consequences both on the organisation members and the organisations themselves. Double Bind-Organisations apparently arise by the contamination (from above or by lateral entry) with people who are infected with the Double Bind-Virus, mainly narcissists and subclinical psychopaths. Starting from this toxic centre of infection, the Double Bind- Communication pattern infiltrates the entire organisation, infects employees and the organisational system with the Double Bind-Virus, diffuses and solidifies almost as an increasingly inflammatory process in the system, because either the top management sets corresponding examples, or it diffuses within all system parts due to an infection at another entry-point in the system, and gradually produces a Double Bind- Organisation, because the infectious person reshapes the organisation by manipuling it according to their needs. Such, by means of Double Bind-acting, power-driven personality structures in the upper ranks of an organisation often attract people and employees or leaders with corresponding psychograms, while at the same time displacing employees with other psychograms or those with intact value systems from the system.

32

3

Research Results

Another risk factor is the transformation of the organisation into a matrix, which further fuels the Double Bind-Mechanisms, because a Doulbe Bind-System expects the different interests—customer, efficiency, strategy, tactics—to be balanced towards the efficiency goal “economic efficiency of the company”, but at the same timearouses a desired competition with the aim of efficiency improvement. However, the latter represents, according to the findings presented above, a fallacy, because the organisation perishes instead of prospering. Double Bind promotes conflicts, because on the one hand the interests divergences can not be resolved to the satisfaction of all, on the other hand—which is even more serious—it leads to a doubling of the number of the dissatisfied, especially in a matrix structure, because due to “rotten” compromises a responsibility distribution takes place instead of clear, security-providing responsibility assumption. The crux lies in the Double Bind-immanent prohibition of naming the paradox. If a corporate culture allows the naming of paradoxical instructions, the essential main component of the Double Bind pattern, which triggers the paralyzing effect, is eliminated; as soon as Double Binds can be named, there are ways out of the dilemmata. Otherwise, all those involved will remain permanently and health-damagingly trapped in the Double Bind- predicaments. What is decisive is therefore the way an organisation deals with Double Binds. If it implements an open corporate culture with authentic transparency as well as the possibility to name Double Binds; if it allows mistakes as learning opportunities and prevents infiltration by persons infected with the Double Bind-Virus, it has a chance to avoid the negative consequences of Double Bind. For special Double Bind entanglements in family businesses see Chap. 3 from edition 2016 Double Bind in companies under Extras.springer.com.

4

Theory Proposal: Burnout and Organisational Burnout—in Truth a Double Bind-Induced Work Attachment and Work Relationship Disorder? Visualization of the theory design in Fig. 4.1 and 4.2. Core consideration The toxic Double Bind-Communication and interaction patterns induced by social uprooting traumas on the parental generation side (e. g. by tearing families and social environment apart, e. g. by weekend-, holiday- and shift work due to the modern performance society (modern nomadism) or migration, expulsion, flight caused by, inter alia, war, humanitarian disasters, agricultural crises) and—passed on transgenerationally — causes similar and comparable consequences in both the family and the organisational context. Theory Approach 1 Double Bind causes an attachment and relationship disorder in the family context with the consequence of pronounced personality styles or even personality disorders. Theory Approach 2 Double Bind in the organisational context causes a work-attachment/and work-relationship disorder with the consequence of destroyed employees and organisations. Organisational members react to relationship motive interventions by the organisation with illness on the three channels psychological (including the reinforcement of already existing personality disorders), psycho-somatic or physical diseases, with Burnout, with fluctuation and possibly even suicide, which leads to a declining employer branding and brain drain (Kutz, 2017). The frustration caused by Double Bind leads to a loss of motivation and creativity as well as a loss of work pleasure (Kutz, 2016), which in turn leads to a declinin g employee © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Kutz, Double Bind-Communication as a Cause of Burnout, Springer essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40780-3_4

33

Depression

Depression

Suicide

Suicide

Passive-Aggressive

Compulsive Disorder

Double bind sequence/s in organizations: 3 channels: psychological / psycho-somatic / physical Burnout Depression Suicide Inner Resignation Quitting the job / Pension

Double Bind-Induced Self-Esteem Destruction Machinery with 3 reaction channels (Kutz 2016): • psychic-mental • psycho-somatic • physical

Inner Resignation

Burnout

Narcissism

Psychopath

Self-uncertain leaders and colleagues do not create a culture of trust, but rather of conflicts

• • • • •

mental disorders

Depression /

Value system / conscience +

Value system / conscience -

Family system

Powerlessness and paradoxical lose-lose situation. Prevents autonomous personality. Prevents healthy maturation process. Double Bind-User ties the other to himself. Parentification.

Double Bind-Effects in the family:

Passive-Aggressive

Coercion

Compulsive Disorder

Narcissism

Double Bind Destroys Trust in Families

Double Bind Episode: Family Attachment Disorder / amily Relationship Disorder

Mental disorders = Trauma- or Double Bind-induced ?

Universal basic mechanism ?

Infection with the Double Bind-Virus

System organisation

self-insecure people become employees in organisations

Solidarity Importance

Reliability

Confidentiality ? Backing ?

Boundaries

Clear responsibilities ?

Authentic involvement ?

Recognition

Autonomy

Double Bind-Attack on:

qua Instrusion into in the relationship motives

Instrument

Double Bind =

• Power• Control• Intrigue-

Value as an employee ?

Action Scope?

Double Bind Destroys Trust in Organizations

/ De-Motivation DoubleFrustration Bind-Consequence: Work-Attachment disorder / workrelationship disorder

Corporate Psychopath / Dark Triad Psychograms Double Bind-Folge:

Double Bind-Consequence: employee burnout Double Bind-Induced Self-Esteem-Destruction-Machinery

"Bang" foreseeable Loss of creativity / loss of quality / no learning organisation (anymore) Performance reduction / unproductivity / high sickness rate Fluctuation / brain and know-how drain Frustration / de-motivation of employees / passivity

Family system Behavioral Prevention

Double Bind-Consequence: burnout / personality disorders

Fig. 4.1 Theory sketch—upper part; lower part next page. (© Angelika Kutz, 2018)

• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Consequences of Double Bind / Corporate Psychopath / Dark Triad Psychograms:

Double Bind Organization / "Psychopath Corporation"

Value system / conscience +

Quitting the job Early retirement

Ratio prevention

System Organisation

Double Bind-Consequence: Organizational Burnout

Value system / conscience -

r

e

t

c

a

r

a

h

c

f

o

e

g

n

a

h

C

Globalized Double Bind World Society ( "Mobile" with interactions between the parts)

34 4 Theory Proposal: Burnout and Organisational Burnout—in Truth …

insecure about themselves

Parents attachment setting: unresolved = non-autonomous

Inner attitude unclear Roles unclear

Respects autonomy of the other -

("losing home within oneself")

-

("self-contained, stable personality")

+

Effect on attachment patterns in offspring: D type (disorganized)

self-insecure persons, parents, caregivers

-

B A S I C ----T R U S T

Incongruent (non-authentic) communication and interaction patterns lack of authenticity

T R U S T

Infection of the systems with the transgenerational double bind virus

Family system

Secured and safe conditions / peace

Identity / self-esteem / self-confidence healthy => sure of themselves

Parents attachment setting: autonomous

Inner attitude clear roles clear

Respects autonomy of the other +

System organization

T R U S T

+

-

Fig. 4.2 Theory sketch—lower part; continuation from previous page. (© Angelika Kutz, 2018)

+s

B A S I C ----T R U S T