Managing
Intrapersonal Anxiety
The above mentioned anxiety-evoking aspects of ring
organization (and many possible others) will have special meaning for each
organization member. The ambiguity of the physical organization coupled with the
mysterious nature of the potential workplace and the boundarylessness of the
virtual workplace will have as many meanings as members of the organization.
These conceptual contexts can be discussed from many psychodynamic perspectives.
I limit my discussion here to an object relations approach to understanding
psychological defensiveness (Ashback and Schermer, 1987; Greenberg and Mitchell,
1983 and Ogden, 1989, 1990).
Splitting and projection is an outcome of life experience that
includes both what the individual brings to the situation as well as what lies
within the situation or others to draw projections—projective hooks (Shapiro and
Carr, 1991). An individual who possesses unresolved conflict regarding a parent
with whom a secure attachment was not achieved will, very likely, bring this
unresolved conflict into the workplace for continual reenactment (compulsive
repetition) in the false hope of eventually resolving the conflict. This
intra-psychic context creates a potential for splitting and projection that is
realized when objects that possess attributes of the frustrating parent and his
or her behavior are located in the workplace. A supervisor or executive may be
instantly adored or hated. In the case of the hated other, this outcome is
explained by unconsciously splitting off good aspects of the supervisor or
executive and leaving only the bad and threatening personal attributes. It may
also be the case that the executive’s good aspects are taken into oneself
(introjection) while simultaneously denied and split-off bad aspects of one’s
own self-experience are projected into this individual. Both the person (the
object) and self become split (fragmented), with bad attributes amassed in the
executive and good attributes amassed for oneself. The result is an all good
self and all bad other. The reverse may also occur, where bad parts of the other
are introjected and good self parts projected, thereby creating an all good
other worthy of idealization and all bad and despised self unworthy of respect
from others. This certain or pathological knowledge of the other is highly
familiar, as it arises out of prior life experience with a frustrating
parent(s), which fuels transference of historical feelings attached to this bad
life experience upon the similarly offensive or threatening supervisor or
executive. The response is disproportionate. A “hot button” is created and then
pressed.
This brief description of object relations–based psychologically
defensive process represents but one way to understand the psychodynamics and
psychologically defensive workplace. However, even this brief description serves
to illustrate the powerful and often destructive intrapersonal and interpersonal
nature of intra-psychic process. Given this limited review, one might wonder how
intra-psychic defensiveness will be acted out in a workplace devoid of
individuals who, by the nature of their position, possess power, authority and
status.
Two of many possibilities are discussed here. First, ring
organization may diminish the anxiety the individual experiences by encouraging
appropriate and adequate organizational attachment while, at the same time,
presenting many fewer “targets” for splitting and projection. Problems with
authority figures and organizational boundaries are minimized by the absence of
these figures and by the minimization and permeability of organization
boundaries. One might speculate that this absence will result in the individual
having to work harder to better integrate good and bad self-experience that is
facilitated by the organizational context. A second, less desirable outcome that
may arise in the absence of this personal effort is that the need to split and
project is increased as these unconscious processes become frustrated within the
ring organization experiential context.
Second, the ring organization, since it is composed of people,
will contain individuals who, while not possessing formal organizational power,
authority and status, will present projective hooks. Members who possess
parental attributes or special skills for which they are recognized or who
participate in the task group governance process or perhaps overtly seek
organizational-based power, authority and status will attract the attention of
others who are especially attentive to these dynamics.
The fact that people are not perfect is a truism. Every
organization, regardless of its design, culture and values, contains individuals
who seek positions of power and authority to control their anxieties. Even
though organization members may value avoiding these tendencies, they will,
nonetheless, exist. Their presence may result in these individuals drawing the
projections that would normally be associated with individuals in formal roles
of power and authority. Adoration or hostility may result. In either case, the
group dynamic will be affected, which can be expected to result in interventions
by organization members who seek to support ring organization values. This
elaboration of intrapsychic management of anxiety permits a briefer discussion
of interpersonal, group and organizational anxiety.
In Sum
Unconscious processes abound in the workplace. An example
borrowed from object relations theorizing is psychologically defensive splitting
and projecting. An all bad (or all good) external object is created by first
locating behavior and personal attributes in another that resemble those of a
frustrating parent. All bad self-experience is then placed within the person
(the object), followed by the transferring of one’s deeply held and in many
cases painful and hostile feelings onto this object. The individual is then
subsequently not only known to be like the frustrating parent, he or she is
treated in much the same way. This appreciation makes it clear that ring
organization will not eliminate these psychologically defensive outcomes.
However, its culture, values and operation will promote better self and
self-other integration, which, if successful, will minimize the presence of the
psychologically defensive workplace (Allcorn and Diamond, 1997). A second likely
outcome is that those individuals who are unable to resolve their conflicts and
who consistently and compulsively introduce their psychologically defensive
processes into the workplace may well find themselves the subject of remedial
action and eventually choose to leave this “frustrating” organizational design,
or perhaps be terminated.
Sections
Syndication
