Calming the anxious organization

Calming the Anxious Organization

Jeffrey A. Miller

© 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/ert.10059

We are working in highly anxious times.In fact, there is probably more free-

floating anxiety in the workplace now than atany time in recent memory. This is bad newsnot simply because it is no fun to work in ananxious environment, but also because itgreatly hinders performance—and becauseanxiety leads companies to make ill-fatedbusiness decisions.

The recent rash of corporate scandals—Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Tyco—illustrates what can happen when executivesmake poor decisions under stress. Constantlyhearing such cautionary tales produces evenmore anxiety in the rest of us. Add a pro-found lack of confidence in the stock marketand the unease stirred up by the 9/11 an-niversary to the chronic, low-grade anxietythat already exists in most companies and itis little wonder that the only workers whoaren’t anxious these days are Paxil sales reps.

As an HR professional, you deal dailywith the human fallout of organizationalanxiety. Yet it may not have occurred to youthat anxiety is the root cause of such dis-parate symptoms as heightened interper-sonal conflict, declining performance, absen-teeism, turf wars, spurious grievances, andexcessive turnover. Learning to recognizethe paths anxiety travels through your orga-nization can give you a new handle on prob-lems that seem intractable when viewed inisolation. When you understand how sys-

temic anxiety works, even your minor inter-ventions can have major positive effects.

HOW ANXIETY SPREADS

Anxiety is the product of our instinctivesurvival mechanism. It is a force of nature,as elemental as wind and rain. Though hu-mans may experience it as an emotion, or-ganisms that we don’t usually think of asemotional display anxiety too. It is whatmakes cockroaches scurry away when thekitchen light is switched on, and whatmakes possums play possum. In and of it-self, anxiety is neither functional nor dys-functional. It is a keen state of readiness todo something that may or may not be ap-propriate in response to a threat that may ormay not be perceived accurately.

Animals are usually appropriate and ac-curate in their anxiety because the array ofthreats any one species encounters is prettylimited, and instinct dictates the most effec-tive response. A wildebeest doesn’t have tostop to deliberate when confronted with acheetah. Humans, on the other hand, en-counter a staggering variety of real threats—and are capable of imagining a threat wherenone actually exists. The instinctive re-sponses we have in common with animals(fight, flee, play dead) are, in their rawform, generally frowned on in the work-place. To respond appropriately to the more

11

Employment Relations Today

abstract threats we face requires clear, ratio-nal thought, not instinctive reactions.

Unfortunately, our capacity to thinkclearly tends to decline the more anxious wefeel. Instead of rationally assessing and ad-dressing the threat, we become reactive, try-ing to get rid of our anxiety as soon as possi-ble. The most expedient way to get rid ofanxiety is to pass it on to someone else. Anxi-ety is highly contagious; it gets passed fromboss to subordinate, from coworker tocoworker, from department to department.Furthermore, spreading thins it out. Whatmight have begun as the acute anxiety of oneor a few eventually becomes the chronic anx-iety of the entire organization.

It can be almost impossible to pinpointwhere the anxiety began. It cycles throughthe organization in an endless pattern ofchain reactions. Every cause is also an ef-fect; every effect a new cause. The goodnews is that you don’t have to identify theorigin of the anxiety to break the chain.Once you understand the patterns, you canbreak them at any point.

Let us look at some of the more commonpatterns of anxiety-transfer in the workplace.

Togetherness Pressure

Like herd animals, humans instinctively seektogetherness when feeling threatened. An ex-ternal threat breeds internal “patriotism.”When this is happening at work, you’ll heara lot of emphasis on teamwork and teamspirit. Emotionally, the individual fuses withthe group, so that a threat to the group is felt

Jeffrey A. Miller12

as a threat to the self. To the extent that indi-viduals fuse, they will tend to reject any oftheir own thoughts that might unsettle thegroup. Without even articulating it, thegroup will collectively agree to avoid dis-cussing facts and issues that raise anxiety.Arriving at quick agreement becomes moreimportant than arriving at effective solutions.A false sense of consensus tends to developaround what is, more often than not, theworst possible plan.

In time, togetherness pressure becomes asource of anxiety in itself, leading to a subtleantitogetherness backlash. Individuals beginto feel smothered when they are excessivelyfused with a group. If the prospect of assert-ing themselves and coming into open conflictwith the group feels too risky, they simplywithdraw emotionally. They become boredand alienated. Periods of high group cohe-siveness tend to be followed by periodswhen the entire group seems to have theblahs. People may also react to excessive to-getherness pressure by generating conflictssimply to get some distance. This triggersfresh anxiety and renewed exhortations to“pull together as a team.” Where together-ness pressures are especially strong, internalcohesiveness becomes the de facto missionof the organization—usually to the detrimentof its stated mission.

Pursuit and Distancing

Individuals vary in the amount of togethernessthey desire or can tolerate. In the presence ofanxiety, these natural differences becomeheightened and a source of further anxiety.“Pursuers” seek contact with others when theyare anxious, whereas “distancers” are inclinedto withdraw. Being pursued makes the dis-tancer even more eager to withdraw, whereas

Where togetherness pressures are especially strong,internal cohesiveness becomes the de facto mission of the organization...

Winter 2003

the distancer’s withdrawal makes the pursuereven more eager to seek contact. You’veprobably observed this dynamic in marriagesand love affairs. The same thing happens inthe workplace.

Some jobs obviously require more inter-personal contact than others. A computerprogrammer is not distancing when she seeksthe solitude that will enable her to concen-trate on her task, nor is a salesman pursuingwhen he spends the whole day on the phonewith prospects. Both are engaged in task-appropriate behaviors. When pursuit or dis-tancing exceeds or contradicts job require-ments, you should suspect that anxiety hascome into the picture.

Triangling

Any relationship between two people is in-herently unstable and, when stress is high,will seek to stabilize itself by incorporating or“triangling in” a third person. Such trianglesare rarely equilateral. Two of the people willoccupy inside positions, while one occupiesthe outside position.

If the relationship between the original twois harmonious, then the third person will bethe outsider. The two are using that person ei-ther to create more closeness with each other(by excluding the outsider) or to create moredistance (by giving the relationship somethingoutside itself to focus on). Often they aredoing both. This is what is happening when-ever you and a friend start gossiping togetherabout a third person who is not present.

When two people are in conflict, either orboth will attempt to resolve the tension by tri-angling in a third party. If that third partysides with one of the adversaries, he or she as-sumes an inside position in the triangle, whilethe “loser” in the conflict is relegated to the

Calming the Anxious Organization 13

outside. For example, if an employee comes toyou with a complaint about her boss, she is at-tempting to create a triangle in which you andshe side together against the boss.

When the tension in one triangle becomestoo great, additional, interlocking trianglesare formed. The boss whose employee hastriangled with you may, in his discomfort,complain to another party, such as your boss.This in effect creates a new triangle compris-ing you, the employee’s boss, and your ownboss. If that bothers you, you are likely todraw in yet another party to commiserate.Triangles will continue to spawn new trian-gles until the anxiety has been spread thinenough to feel tolerable to all concerned.

Almost everything that we are used to call-ing “office politics” comes down to triangling.“Doing an end run,” “going over my head,” and“being left out of the loop” are phrases com-monly used in work settings to express discom-fort with the outside position in a triangle.

Overfunctioning and Underfunctioning

People are overfunctioning when they takeover responsibilities that are not part of theirofficial job role. They are underfunctioningwhen they fail to meet their assigned respon-sibilities. Neither behavior has much to dowith inherent ability. Overfunctioning andunderfunctioning are ways of managing anxi-ety in relation to people, not tasks.

Doing more than his fair share puts theoverfunctioner in a one-up position. It makeshim feel strong and in control. Overfunction-ers seldom realize that their behavior is

Any relationship between two people is inherently unstableand, when stress is high, will seek to stabilize itself byincorporating or “triangling in” a third person.


driven by anxiety—until they try to stop. Ex-amples of overfunctioning include giving un-solicited advice, worrying excessively aboutsomeone else, taking over others’ job roles,micromanaging, and believing you are re-sponsible for someone else’s feelings.

Underfunctioners tend to be more awareof feeling anxious. Their usual fear is thatthey will alienate others if they assert them-selves to the extent their job actually re-quires. Examples of underfunctioning in-clude: avoiding decisions, not takinginitiatives, constantly seeking advice, adopt-ing a weak or helpless persona, and believingothers are responsible for your feelings.

Overfunctioning/underfunctioning is a re-ciprocal relationship in which each person’sbehavior prompts and seems to justify theother’s. Because these are relationship behav-iors, neither can exist without the other. Ifsomeone is underfunctioning, there’s an over-functioner in the picture, and vice versa.

Taking Conflict Personally

When embroiled in a seemingly intractablepersonal conflict at work, you will often hearpeople say, “I just can’t win” or, “I’m damnedif I do, damned if I don’t.” This is a clue tothe real source of the conflict. In most orga-nizations, some ambiguity exists about mis-sion, the relative importance of various goalsand values, allocation of resources, job roles,and so forth. When these matters are left un-defined, or contradictory messages aboutthem are being sent, individual members willlikely make differing assumptions or push for

Jeffrey A. Miller14

differing agendas. The resulting disagree-ments are healthy for an organization whenthey bring the underlying issues into focus.

Trouble arises only when people becomeanxious—either about the outcome of theconflict or about the very fact that there isone. Then the focus tends to shift veryrapidly from issues to emotions and personal-ities. Ambiguous or contradictory directivesare particularly unsettling to people who feelthey must please everyone. The lack of col-lective agreement on an issue leads them tofeel that whatever they do will be wrong—because to please one camp is to displeaseanother. If they are unable either to clarifythe issue or to take the ambiguity in stride,they become stressed out and tend to at-tribute their distress to “personality conflict.”

Blaming, Scapegoating, and Cutoff

Strange as it may seem, people are seldomblamed for mistakes that are obviously andentirely their own. Blaming behavior is an ex-pression of the anxiety that arises when theprecise cause of a problem or mishap is hardto identify. When people in an organizationare highly preoccupied with blaming andavoiding blame, it is usually a sign that a sys-temic problem is not being addressed. Some-thing is amiss, and no one really knows whatit is or who is responsible.

Scapegoating is a variation on blame inwhich a single individual becomes the solefocus of a group’s anxiety. That person comesto be thought of as the problem itself ratherthan just the cause of a specific mishap. Theusual scapegoat is the group’s most reactivemember—that is, the one who feels the col-lective anxiety most acutely and acts it outmost conspicuously. The more the group fo-cuses on the scapegoat, the less the rest of its

Trouble arises only when people become anxious—eitherabout the outcome of the conflict or about the very fact thatthere is one.

Winter 2003

members feel their own anxiety. The scape-goat’s evident weakness makes them feelstronger by contrast.

Often a collective myth develops that allhad been well before the problem person be-came such a problem. The corollary of thismyth is that all will be well once the groupgets rid of the problem person. This corollaryis rarely accurate. Once an anxious organiza-tion resorts to “human sacrifice,” chronic anx-iety increases as the survivors secretly fearthat their turn is coming.

In our personal lives, we may permanentlysever relationships that make us anxious. Inthe workplace though, complete severance ofa difficult relationship seldom occurs withouta dismissal or resignation. Dealing with aconflict in this way usually leads to cuttingoff the underlying issues as well as the per-son. Since these systemic issues remain unre-solved, a new and seemingly unrelated prob-lem is likely to arise as soon as the problemperson is gone. Before you know it, there’s anew candidate for cutoff. In organizationswhere employee turnover exceeds industrystandards, cutting off issues has left cuttingoff individuals the only solution to conflictthat anyone can think of.

CHANGING THE SYSTEM FROM WITHIN

The previous examples point out that individ-uals’ problems such as substandard perfor-mance, personality conflicts, turf wars, em-ployee turnover, and so forth cannot besatisfactorily resolved if they are consideredin isolation. An organization is a living sys-tem in which every part is connected toevery other part. Anxiety being felt in the ex-ecutive suite may erupt in a fist fight on theloading dock or elicit the outburst of an iratecustomer. Any specific problem painful


enough to come to your attention is likely tobe the acute manifestation of an anxiety thatis chronic in your organization.

Reading this article may give you the im-pression that individual problems are im-possible to solve without overhauling theentire system. Although I do believe thatsystemic anxiety has to be addressed, doingso is far less complicated than you probablyimagine it to be.

Indirect Intervention

Several decades ago, the psychiatrist MurrayBowen made a remarkable discovery. He wasstruggling with the problem of how to treatpsychiatric patients who either refused ther-apy or were too psychotic to benefit from it.In those cases, he began to work with one ormore members of the patient’s family in-stead. He found that the patient could im-prove without treatment if even a singlemember of the family changed his or herown behavior for the better. Even very minorchanges on the part of a sibling or parent rip-pled through the entire family, reducing thechronic anxiety that was manifesting acutelyin the patient’s mental illness.

The same principle can be applied, to verygood effect, within the workplace. It is not al-ways necessary to work directly with a prob-lematic employee in order to produce an im-provement in that person. Nor is it necessaryto launch a formal team-building effort to puta faltering work group back on track. Al-though anxiety afflicts people in groups, itneed not be addressed either directly within

Any specific problem painful enough to come to yourattention is likely to be the acute manifestation of ananxiety that is chronic in your organization.


or by the group. Any affected individual canchange the group climate simply by changinghis or her own behavior. You yourself can bethat individual.

The key to managing chronic systemic anxi-ety is simply to begin to manage one’s ownanxiety. Since anxiety travels through organiza-tions in endless chain reactions, breaking a sin-gle link on that chain changes the entire sys-tem. Just as when one person is highly anxious,pretty soon everyone around him or her is anx-ious; if one person manages to calm down, thishas a calming effect on everyone else.

The first and perhaps hardest step is torecognize that you are indeed anxious. Thisis not always obvious, because the behaviorsdescribed above—overfunctioning, scapegoat-ing, triangling, pursuit and distancing, and soon—are attempts to relieve anxiety by pass-ing it on. These behaviors often succeed tothe extent that when we are engaged inthem, we no longer feel conscious of ouranxiety. If you recognize any of these behav-iors in yourself, what you also need to recog-nize is that you are acting that way becauseyou are anxious, and that those around youare feeling the same way.

Taking an “I-Position”

Although these anxiety-driven behaviors arequite varied, the “fix” for every one of themis the same. Believe it or not, there is a one-size-fits-all solution. It is called “taking an I-position.” An I-position is a forthright state-ment of what you know, believe, or intend todo. You simply state where you stand without

Jeffrey A. Miller16

trying to control or manipulate the responsesof others. Your stance is based on facts andprinciples, not emotions and personalities.

To take an I-position is to differentiateyourself from the emotional system aroundyou, to operate out of an authentic sense ofself instead of being driven by unconsciousanxiety. Because it is proactive rather than re-active, it has the effect of interrupting what-ever cycle of reactivity you are a part of. Itremoves at least one area of ambiguity: peo-ple around you know where you are comingfrom. Even if they do not like the positionyou have taken, knowing for sure what it ishas a calming effect on the system.

Let’s consider a specific example. As an HRprofessional, you receive daily invitations tobecome triangled into other peoples’ conflicts.When an employee wants you to take her sideagainst her ogre of a boss, you might feel thatone or the other of them is clearly in the rightand requires your support, or you might feelthat it is up to you to mediate some harmo-nious solution that will leave both of themfeeling happy. If you examine these thoughtsmore closely, you will likely discover that youare actually reacting out of anxiety. You feelresponsible for the harmony of the organiza-tion, so this evident disharmony makes youfeel inadequate. So long as you are feelingthat way, whatever you do will backfire.Why? Because you are feeding your own anxi-ety back into the system. Your anxiety simplyadds fuel to the original conflict.

So what do you do instead? First, recognizethat making other people happy is not in yourpower. You have no control over other peo-ple’s feelings, and therefore, you cannot beheld responsible for them. Imagining that youare responsible is an anxiety-driven emotion,not a sound principle. Once you see that, itremains to discover what actual principle

To take an I-position is to differentiate yourself from theemotional system around you, to operate out of an authenticsense of self instead of being driven by unconscious anxiety.

Winter 2003

does apply to this situation. Has the boss vio-lated any formal policies or organizationalnorms regarding fair treatment of employees?Your answer to that question will tell youwhether or not it is appropriate to interveneon the employee’s behalf. Either way, yourjob is to maintain a friendly but neutral rela-tionship with both parties to the conflictwhile stating your position clearly. The emo-tional conflict between them is theirs to sortout, and they will have an easier time doingso once it is clear where you stand.

“Problem Employees”

Understanding the anxiety system also pro-vides you with new tools for dealing with so-called problem employees. Any individuals soidentified are likely to be the latest acutesymptom of chronic anxiety. Because they areunusually reactive to the anxiety aroundthem, they may be especially difficult to dealwith directly. Being the focus of your concernmay only aggravate their anxiety and theproblem behaviors arising from it. Con-versely, they may improve remarkably withno direct intervention if you can shift thefocus of attention—and its accompanyinganxiety—away from them. You may find itmore efficient to work directly with someoneelse in his or her immediate environmentwho appears highly motivated toward change.

If the problem is substandard performance,for example, think of it as “underfunctioning.”Wherever there is an underfunctioner, you aresure to find an overfunctioner nearby. Who ispresently overfunctioning to compensate for theproblem employee’s poor performance? If youcan identify that individual and persuade himor her to stop coming to the rescue, the under-functioner may very well surprise everyonewith an unprecedented display of competence.


When you confront employees who are thefocus of a lot of blame, they often respondwith a barrage of countercharges. In your posi-tion, it is easy to get hooked into the role ofjudge, trying to determine in a fair and impar-tial way who is to blame for what. Rationalthough this may appear, it is an anxiety reac-tion. The very notion of blame arises fromanxiety and is of no use in identifying what isactually going wrong. Pay close attention if theemployee complains that he or she is in a“damned if I do, damned if I don’t” situation.There is probably more than a grain of truthto this assessment. You can help by shiftingthe focus away from emotions and personali-ties and identifying instead the ambiguities inthe system to which the employee is reacting.It is likely that goals, policies, procedures, jobroles, or lines of authority need clarification.The problem employee is the “canary in themineshaft” of a systemic problem and maycease to be so troublesome once the systembetter defines itself.

As an HR professional you are in an idealposition to bring calm to an anxious organi-zation, because the most acute manifesta-tions of its anxiety usually wind up in youroffice. You can change the system by recog-nizing your own contribution to anxietychain reactions and by learning to remaincalm, clear, and collected in the face of oth-ers’ anxiety. This requires a degree of self-discipline and self-examination, but the pay-offs are enormous. Once you learn torecognize and manage your own anxiety, youcan become a calm breeze blowing throughyour entire organization.

Either way, your job is to maintain a friendly but neutralrelationship with both parties to the conflict while statingyour position clearly.


Jeffrey A. Miller18

Jeffrey A. Miller, president of Jeffrey Miller + Associates, is an organizational consultantand coach who specializes in bringing about widespread systemic improvement with aminimum of intervention. Miller is the author of The Anxious Organization: Why SmartCompanies Do Dumb Things (Facts on Demand Press, 2002). He may be contacted bye-mail at [email protected].

Documents

Calming the anxious organization