Summary
In the Business Game there are any number of personalities, but we have managed to identify some highly dangerous and harmful, which must be identified by colleagues, but especially by bosses. This is a guide to identify and unmask; It is an invitation for the bosses to identify and fire, under pain of destabilizing the organization.
Within these characters we highlight the climbers, the actors, the critics, the pleasers, and above all, the Machiavellian and the Narcissites. The latter are the most dangerous, and a detailed analysis of which is carried out.
Abstract
In the business game there are a great number of personalities kinds, but we have identified some highly dangerous and harmful personalities, which must be identified by teammates, and especially by the Managers. This is a guide to identify and show them to the public, and it is an invitation to the boss to identify and fire them; otherwise they will destabilize the organization.
Within these figures we highlight the climbers, actors, critics, pleasers, and above all, the machiavelic and narcissistic; who are the most dangerous, and in this document we show up a detailed analysis about them.
Introduction
Although we make the decision to continually improve our personal and work profile, obviously and perhaps fortunately we will never cease to be, by humans, imperfect: sometimes for good, and perhaps some more for evil. To some extent, we all have traits that are capable of being typified in that "jungle" that is called a company. A very common typification is to associate types of people with animals. In any company, in mine, in that of the reader, one can find animals such as:
- The toad (very common and almost essential in classrooms) The little antThe turtleThe fox, and obviously the foxThe Dog and also the bitchThe scorpionThe “tatacoa” snake The pig The lazy The alligator The donkey The cow The bee
In reality, these are nothing more than exaggerated personality traits, a topic that has been widely studied since the beginning of the 20th century, mainly by people like Freud, through his experience as a psychoanalyst. Anyone with these traits (even if they are positive, such as generosity or compassion), as well as people with mental maladjustments (there are also psychopaths and neurotics in organizations) can at some point be problematic for organizations. Let's briefly look at some stereotypes, among the most widespread, behind which we find people with whom it is difficult to work. They may be a minority, but we must react appropriately to them, to try to neutralize their effects - and perhaps take advantage of their particularities - to benefit the results
Highly dangerous characters in companies
The following list is based on different studies compiled from various articles that luckily are available on the web, where we highlight the writings of the Spanish doctor José Enebral Fernández.
Below we summarize the main "stereotypes" or "characters" that we find in companies.
1. The individualists
Individualistic behavior is a prevalent characteristic in today's culture and society. It is also a problem that has multiple negative effects for the achievement of organizational ends, however this characteristic and the development of an individualistic work culture originates from the current capitalist system in which we live and which has wide and marked repercussions not only for organizations but also for society itself. (Patlán Pérez & Martínez Torres, 2010)
In times when teamwork has been so widely preached, individualists seem, more than ever, oddballs; but they can be highly decisive and reach solutions or results with creativity and efficiency that is superior to what is presumable. It will be understood that being individualistic does not necessarily mean being selfish, or worrying excessively about the ego; the individualist is usually so identified because he wants to work alone and perhaps follow his own rules. He is often especially talented in a specific activity. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
This is the ideal man (or woman) for certain tasks, and even when he has to act as a teammate, his contribution can be positive if his level of isolation or individuality is not threatened. But if you are to contribute to the team's results, there are things we cannot do alone.
The individualist hates meetings, in them he usually tries to impose his opinion over others: it is difficult for him to work as a team; However, he writes reports really well, you can expect important things from him when he takes work home, and he is extremely creative. The problem occurs when you are asked to collaborate with colleagues, or when you "have" to be part of a committee… that's where the friction with the other team members begins. Imagine a soccer player who doesn't like passing to others.
This is a concept product of an individualistic society like the Colombian one: we prefer the live strategy, we all end up blocking each other, like in traffic or in line, and that's why we end up worse-arriving later-. And if this is transferred to a company, obviously many care only about personal gain.
It turns out that we have trouble working Collectively. No one has said it as clearly as Professor Yu Takeuchi, a Japanese who lived in Colombia for more than 50 years. When they asked him what was the main difference between the Japanese and the Colombians, his answer was this: "Well, look," he said, "a Colombian is smarter than a Japanese, but two Japanese are smarter than two Colombians." (García Villegas, 2009)
There is also an individualism disguised as teamwork. It occurs when, for example, a department of a company works as a team against another department: they become rivals. The typical example is the financial one with marketing; or commercials with clerks. The mission of the company is not looked at, but to fulfill the objectives of the area. When two departments each work on their own, they can meet their own objectives, but not necessarily those of the company, as shown in the drawing.
Individualism goes against teamwork, goes against synergy. We can define synergy as: "the force that arises from the union of actions carried out simultaneously by separate entities that have, as a whole, an effect greater than the sum of their individuals". In other words, synergy is achieved when "the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts." Or to express it in a more graphic way, the synergy happens when "1 + 1 = 3". (Ortigosa Vallejo, 2007)
However, this individualism is easily curable in companies. The latest trends in coaching evaluate these behaviors and know how to take advantage of them for the benefit of the company. This requires hard work, but progress can always be made. The strategy is to integrate individualists and make them see the benefits of teamwork and synergy.
2. The politically correct
There are people in organizations who are very visibly characterized by never getting wet, by avoiding speaking clearly or out loud, by not taking sides. Colloquially the phrase that represents them would be: “Neither nor Fa”. These people respect the status quo and do not confront power: it would be politically incorrect. They usually have a diplomatic response and always take a safe position. It is not that this attitude is especially negative for the organization, since they are people who comply exactly with what the leader dictates, but it is not positive; is that: neutral or… neutral. The politically correct do not generate enemies, but in the end their closest identify them. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
His favorite phrases are "yes sir," they always agree with the boss's decisions, they never do anything outside of what "the boss told me"; they do not make decisions for themselves, but they always play a safe role Almost always due to the fear of “losing a job”, “losing a pension”, etc. I in particular call them "perritos buseteros" (head dogs) because they shake their heads from top to bottom just like the famous puppies or adornment characters that show off many public service vans in Colombia (and many private cars as well).
They are the perfect employees for an autocratic boss, they are always willing and never disagree with him. But they don't collaborate with the rest of the team or take sides (unless it's the boss's). They carry out an order at all costs, no matter that the boss took it at a time when he did not evaluate all the possibilities.
The problem is that they do not take sides so they see that some injustice is committed. They do not help a partner if they risk it, and avoid interacting too much with the group. They do the job they've been told to do even if they know deep down that it's wrong.
They usually take notice of all the boss's mistakes, but comment quietly on only a few people of the same condition. They never take the lead, they never feel a position; in meetings they are generally silent and nod their heads.
Strategy: The only possible cure is for the boss to inject them with doses of confidence and self-confidence to give their opinions. And that importance is given to your opinion in front of colleagues. The strategy is to strengthen your self-esteem, is to ask for your opinion in public.
3. The negatives (Downers)
“In their endeavor to see, always and only, the dark side of things, the negatives or downers, with their usual catastrophism, could undermine the uplifting feelings of others. It is good to always analyze the pros and cons, but the negatives only seem to see drawbacks and undesirable consequences. It may be necessary to look for the root of their pessimism in some frustration, but it is more profitable to find a way to eliminate or reduce this attitude, perhaps through patient Socratic dialogue ”(Enebral Fernández, Managing Characters: Stereotypes in the company, 2005, p. one).
They are those people who always see the black dot on the white sheet. Who always look for the point to criticize, and always believe that there is a plot against them. According to him, the others conspire to make his life bitter. It is very common to see them blame the government, the banks, the wealthy, the company, the teachers, the rector, the dean; every action that a class with power and influence performs on them will always have a black intention in disguise (which exists only in their minds).
It would seem that the best possible reaction would be not to listen to them, that their messages enter us through one ear and leave us through the other; but, while we have patience, we should evaluate their arguments. It should not be ruled out that they are ever correct in their bad omens. It is desirable that all people be constructive and positive, while still seeing the difficulties and drawbacks.
According to the worldwide best seller "The Secret", the law of attraction works all the time, and we attract what we think. Whoever thinks negative gets negative results, simple like that. And since you have negative thoughts, all those emotions will manifest sooner or later, giving reason more and more to this type of person; increasingly believing himself to be a "prophet".
“It takes a lot of very persistent negative thinking to really bring something negative into your life. However, if you insist on your negative thoughts for a while, they will eventually manifest. If you worry about your negative thoughts, you will attract more concern about them and multiply them ”(Byrne, 2006).
Negatives do enormous harm to the organization if they resonate with other people. Its power lies in "recruiting" people of weak conviction who allow themselves to be convinced. They cannot harm themselves, without the help of others. If they reach a consensus they can destroy an organization.
It is very common to see them in social demonstrations against the government, or in religious sects that preach the end of the world. Downers seem to have a breeding ground in unions, always on the theory that the company's mission is to do the worst possible harm to employees, always thinking of conspiracies or secret meetings.
However, negativity should not be confused with skepticism.
Strategy: Show them in a group meeting, after consensus with other colleagues. However, that can backfire if you have a lot of supporters. What should be kept is a statistic of the events in which an unfavorable opinion has been issued, always a posteriori. A prori is very difficult to unmask them, because it can fall into the game of "devil's advocate", with polarization of opinions. What must be done is to identify them, and record their opinions, and at the right time make them realize that they have cast negative opinions in the face of positive acts already accomplished. They can be stereotyped through posters that make them see whenever they are giving negative concepts.
A negative person spreads, it is like a cancer metastasizing. A negative person is better to fire her, a negative person is better to keep her away from life, because sooner or later it will infect you.
4. The critics
Critics have a bad image, but the critical or self-critical role in companies is often missed. Still formulated with rigor and restraint, criticism has traditionally been poorly received within organizations and it is only very recently that it has been promoting, for example, upward feedback, and also pointing out the need for self-knowledge and recognition of their own mistakes, such as a positive quality of managers and leaders. Today it seems recommended that the organization establish communication channels through which to channel critical opinions, and to promote multi-source feedback in its proper dimension. And we all need to be more receptive to well-formulated constructive messages. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005).
Critical thinking is a thought of excellence, subscribed to objectivity and rigor; high quality thinking that contributes to professional effectiveness. For Richard Paul and Linda Elder, and to this end, our thinking should be endowed with independence, integrity, humility, empathy, impartiality, integrity, perseverance and subordination to reason. The critical thinker is therefore humble and cautious, although demanding, daring and courageous; It is insightful, sharp, and penetrating, almost like that of the famous Arthur Conan Doyle character. The critical thinker is also tenacious and persevering, although open and reasonable; it is independent and complete, without forgetting therefore the ethics in the handling of information; He is fair, impartial, while remaining flexible and empathetic. In this way we nurture our objectivity,and we get closer to the realities. (Enebral Fernández, The critical thinker, 2008)
"The ideal critical thinker is usually inquisitive, knowledgeable, of sound reasoning, open-minded, flexible, fair in his evaluations, honest in acknowledging his prejudices, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider things, clear about issues, ordered in complex matters, diligent in the search for relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused on investigating and persistent in the search for results that are as precise as the subject / matter and the circumstances of the investigation allow it ». This and other statements promoted the so-called "critical thinking movement". (American Philosophical Association, 1990)
When we refer to critical thinkers, we are doing so to those who think with enthusiasm, doubting their own perception of realities and also questioning the content and purpose of each information, before taking it for good: they are people who, with information, show themselves demanding and even, in a way, skeptical.
We are facing an essential quality in the Information Society. Not everything in the newspapers is true. Not everything that appears in the news is real, not everything that is on the internet is valid.
Critical thinking should not be confused or merged with compulsive criticality, nor with skepticism. The critical thinker, as a positive face of criticism, has certain attitudes that can be beneficial for an organization such as: (Enebral Fernández, The critical thinker, 2008)
- Seeking truths, Presenting an exploratory attitude, Wanting to have good judgment, Identifying inferences, Generating confidence and security, Often having doubts, Finishing seeing the hidden, Identifying causes and consequences, Denoting curiosity, Contrasting all information, Being aware of their prejudices poorly given information. It is flexible, reasonable and complete. It does not express its opinion without certainty.
But there are those who seem happy when they find someone else's mistake, so the so-called Compulsive Criticism is rejected. A person with this characteristic It can be described with all or some of the following statements: (Enebral Fernández, The critical thinker, 2008)
- Look for flaws, failures, present a negative attitude. (related to negatives) Believes having good judgment, rushes into inferences, generates mistrust and insecurity, often has reproaches, sees bad, identifies failures and guilty, denotes dissatisfaction, admits everything that supports his judgments, is based on his mental models. He is stubborn and inflexible. He criticizes without certainty.
Compulsive critics can be confused with negatives, because negativity is often followed by criticism. It is very common for them to be part of a political, or ecological, or simply anti-government activist group. Their positions are radical and always against whoever has the power. Everything that is done will always be the target of your criticism; critical if it is white, or if it is black; if it is high or low: the important thing is to criticize.
Strategy: The best way to behave towards critics is to ignore them and expose them in public. However, as the boss, I think the best thing to do is fire them, as it will harm the organizational climate and the team's behavior. It may seem like an extreme situation, but I've never seen a compulsive critic improve.
5. The Obstructionists
Filibusting or Parliamentary Obstructionism: Delayed or tactical impediment to the approval of an agreement that must be taken in a deliberative assembly. (Wikipedia)
Some authors speak of "militant mediocrity"; these are people who don't do great things or let others do them. There are obstructionists who simply hinder the progress of things by failing to fulfill their commitments and obligations, they are dangerous especially if they effectively have the power to prevent the brilliance from shining and talent from emerging or emerging. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005).
There is a popular saying that says "Neither slit nor lend the ax." This is a type of person who obstructs any initiative of the people, but who do not propose anything, but they are angry that someone else proposes, and they hinder any new idea or initiative. It is never missing in any classroom, in any company, or in any type of organization.
Obstructionism, “like other forms of awkwardism, constitutes a vileness on a personal level, but it also does significant damage to the organization, perpetrated by these people in illegitimate defense of their interests. One can hinder tasks without intending to, but here we mean deliberate, intentional obstruction. This situation must be prevented or uncovered by the boss, with skill and subtlety. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
Some authors like Ronald Hubbard define it as Suppressive Personality: a person who seeks to suppress or crush any improvement activity or group. A suppressive person suppresses those around him; is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Suppressive personality is another name for "antisocial personality." (Hubbard, 2010)
Some attributes of this type of people are: (Hubbard, 2010)
- He speaks only in very general terms: "They say", "Everybody thinks", "Everyone knows"… He can also be a "rumor spreader". It usually turns out to be a single source; and from that source it has been invented to affirm the opinion of the rest of society. Such a person traffics mainly with bad news, critical or hostile observations, invalidation and suppression in general. He is a bad omen. When he transmits a message or news, he alternates communication to make it worse. Near “antisocial” people we see cowards or sick or cowardly friends who, when they do not go really crazy, conduct themselves in life in an incapable way., failing, without succeeding. It is quite useless to treat, help or train people like this while they are under the influence of an antisocial person.very few times do we actually see the antisocial personality in a mental or social hospital; only his "friends" and his family are there.
An indication of antisocial personality that primarily deals with critical or hostile claims, invalidation, and general suppression (Hubbard, 2010)
As we see, the obstructionist (suppressive, or antiosocial) has Negative and Critical features, but intentional, with the intention of "blocking" or "Suppressing". "
Antisocial personality disorder “is a mental health condition in which a person has a prolonged pattern of manipulation, exploitation, or violation of the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal. ” (US National Library of Medicine)
If the obstructionist knows himself to be unmasked, guarded, under suspicion, then it becomes very difficult for him to maintain his strategy. The best strategy is to unmask it in public, previously achieving a consensus with peers. Once discovered he is usually seen as a "spoiler", or as a "traitor to the group".
And if the obstruction came from the boss, the affected individual must, at least, carry documented evidence of the specific facts, while trying to get rid or free of the blockade. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005) The best evidence is emails, where you are forced to answer on specific topics. Sometimes small obstructions are not in themselves worthy of consideration, but as a whole they can be better analyzed. So in some cases the fault is in not bringing him an "obstruction agenda". An incident schedule should be kept, no matter how small.
A classic example of obstruction occurs in soccer. A referee may, from small fouls, throw-ins, not giving rules of advantage, harm a team by "giving it a whistle"; And clearly this happens, but it is very difficult to prove, since serious situations such as penalties or expulsions are the only thing that the spectators look to draw conclusions.
I invite you to identify and highlight the obstructionists. Let's share the perception with other colleagues to be vigilant, and we build the list of evidences.
6. The “climbers” - (Climbers) and the “steps”
In business matters, the dynamics of the system is usually by areas, directions, managements or departments that are governed by a structure of linear hierarchies. At a higher level, there is greater responsibility and greater decision-making power, and there are regularly methodical ways to level up in this structure, such as competency tests, or evaluation of performance and results. In companies, especially medium and large companies, you can do what is commonly known as an “administrative career”. There are also internal competitions and the so-called "meritocracy". The promotion is almost given that by "inertia" in military or state organizations, where it is time of service, it is essential to "ascend". But in private organizations, it is usually a little more complicated,for people are commonly seen arriving by parachute to high positions, preventing those below them from going higher.
There is another way of promoting, which is not regulated and which is usually harmful to the company and unfair to the personnel who do abide by the established methods, but which is very effective for those who do not have sufficient professional training or who simply do not have patience, it is about "climbing". (Aceves Ulibarri, 2088)
Currently, managers cannot be 100% aware of the details of operation in the lower hierarchies, and therefore, must seek expert and reliable personnel to obtain the best results under their supervision. The climber can trick his unsuspecting boss about his own performance.
Some concentrate their energy on work and their performance, and others concentrate it on their personal growth in search of promotion. Certainly, there are people who cultivate their image with special care and relate with great skill, with the priority purpose of ascending. "Generally, the climber is not only willing to exploit his merits but also to attribute, subtly or blatantly, some outsiders."
This type of personalities seeks the comfort and security of sympathy that they can generate in those who have the power of decision in a hierarchical system to be able to ascend through a deficiency in the system, which is called "Step".
The rung is a person who has power, but is manipulated by the feeling of sympathy for another person; and stop considering professional performance as priorities for “the good time” that you live or think you will live with this person. A mismanagement of human emotions, or no emotional intelligence in an important hierarchy, is a breeding ground for the climbing personality.
6.1 Climber Profile
Climbers are usually charming, the psychology in them is natural and in common use, they detect deficiencies in the people around them and try to correct with false arguments, behavior and flattery the emotional deficiencies of their targets.
Now, climbers are not exactly sociopaths but they do share with them many of the psycho-emotional characteristics, such as the fact that they do not mind destroying or corrupting the system and its people in order to get what they want.
"What is wrong ?; What do I cheat ?; What is unfair ?; That I do not deserve it?… So sorry, but he who does not compromise does not advance.
This is how the climber or the climber thinks. They are charming for those who have to be, with those who do not have that care, the screen simply does not work for them. They use from flattery to acts of comedy that steal smiles from their targets, from gifts to excessive attention, they can be caresses, sexual exchanges or the promise of them. The climber buys, but his investment is mediocre, just like his victim… (Aceves Ulibarri, 2088)
This "labor mountaineer" is calculating and his talent is useful to the organization most of the time; cares about their preparation and has great communication skills. However, every employee sooner or later reaches what is called "the level of incompetence", and that's where the problems begin, as he uses his intelligence to hide it. When that level is reached, it is impossible for him to ascend, which causes frustration and a process of "defense" of his position and position.
According to Fernández, there are legitimately ambitious and competent people, but the one we call "climber" "seeks power simply to have it, or simply seeks money: he does not climb to do anything great for the collective benefit." The climber does his thing: he puts his own interests before those of the collective. ” (Enebral Fernández, 2005, p. 2)
This type of attitude ends up directly influencing the prosperity of companies. It is up to the Directorate to distinguish climbers from those other people who are legitimately ambitious, capable, and respectful of the merits of others, in accordance with the common good. People who want to ascend should not be confused with climbers, because this spirit of constant improvement is what makes companies progress.
Strategy: Climbers are easy to identify from the bottom up, but not from the top down. With 5 minutes of conversation in front of colleagues or subordinates you can identify yourself. Wanting to climb is not a crime: the crime is to step above other people.
6.2 “Step” Profile
Egocentric, insecure, eager for attention, arrogant, little analytical, always faint-hearted even if he knows how to hide it, he uses fuss, a fan of superiority, inferiority complex derived from a deep neurosis, personality disorders that cause anguish of "being"; it has little emotional intelligence because it does not recognize climbers; they are selfish people and do not trust themselves, they overvalue "social recognition" and are vulnerable to flattery. These people may or may not be extroverted depending on the stimuli of the environment and tend to have a high quotient in other sectors of intelligence, although they are socially clumsy or were so during a stage of their life.
Although anyone can fit this profile, the truth is that not everyone is a step, because in addition to all this, they must be able to offer a surface to “climb”, that is, they must have contacts or a hierarchy source of opportunities for the climber who has nothing to offer his "step", that a palliative to his emotional deficiencies.
I have identified another type of step: the best friend, the one who does the work, the one who covers the muddy ground, the one who is always at the top of the climber: his right hand, who is usually academically and professionally intelligent, but not emotionally intelligent; he usually has no initiative and waits for orders. He is the one who always does the job, both clean and dirty, although someone else always takes the credit. This valuable person is always at the mercy of a climber who uses it.
6.3 Climbing Process - step
The "Step", in principle does not know that it is, usually, the climbers do not reveal themselves at the outset, they first seek to engage their target with attentions that unleash sufficient amounts of endorphin in their body chemistry to ensure a willing emotional stability towards they; however, over time the "Step" becomes aware of its position, of the game, of the intention of its "friend" or "friend", but that will not make it back down its steps, no, it is too late, is already addicted to bad jokes, flattery, gifts, kisses and caresses, to the promise of sex or to sex itself, it will not decline from its "Removal", its right to "be Even if it is at the cost of hypocrisies and falsehoods. (Aceves Ulibarri, 2088)
When the time comes, when he is officially a Step, he will fulfill his function and will be marginalized by the climber or by the climber, he will notice the change of attitude, the attentions and jokes diminish, the flattery is almost canceled. Once the promotion is achieved, the status is increased, to the step "The reign is over", and our "mountaineer" gets another "Step" to whom to lavish his attentions. The victim feels used but is very childish to act wisely, he will deny his responsibility, he will try to protect a dignity that no longer exists because he gave it up when he gave his raptor the opportunity to be his "friend". (Aceves Ulibarri, 2088)
The personalities of "Escalón" are the contours, fissures and deficiencies of the system, are the surfaces not designed for the ascent, for which it is favorable to enter the work network; without a sense of justice, without objectivity and without a vision of projects, they are a danger to any corporation, threatening professionalism, ethics and the nobility of work.
7. The actors
There are people in our organizations who work a lot and complain about their strenuous working hours, but what a great part of these "suffering" employees really mean is that they spend all day in their companies. I don't know if they work a lot, but it really seems like it; And that can be enough on many occasions because the evaluation of the productivity and usefulness of what we do in our companies is inadequate or non-existent. (León, 2007). Do not forget that talking about "hour-buttock-on-chair" is not the same as talking about "productive time". (A term that many managers and employees confuse).
“Simulating or appearing to work may be comparable to working; what's more, it can even give a better image if possible without the risk of shitting it trying to do it right. And it is that pretending that you are a great expert and / or that you work is usually easier than putting it into practice. ”
Pedro León.
As managers, the evaluation of productivity is sometimes carried out using subjective criteria of close characters, but we do not have objective criteria to measure productivity.
Given the panorama, many professionals have realized for a long time that simulating or appearing to be working can be homologated to working, moreover, it can even give a better image if possible without the risk of shitting it trying to do it well. And it is that pretending that you are a great expert and / or that you work is usually easier than putting it into practice. (León, 2007)
They act. It is not known if they are themselves, or an actor who comes every day to play his role. They are predictable: they behave like a typical manager. They advance quickly through the corridors, they do not stop to have a coffee outside their office, they speak well but avoid entering the subject. They seem concerned about being discovered: THEY ARE FAKE MANAGERS. They appear to be very busy and have many papers on their table. They try to win over people, to avoid being discovered (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005).
There are people who seem to fit into many different roles, without clashing. Perhaps therein lies the key: they "seem" to fit. Once I met a manager who did not look like him, but an actor who came every day to play his role. As Socrates said: "Strive to be what you want to appear." There are people who go from office to office pretending to perform well but without waiting for the results to prove it. Staying in office long would give them away.
It is true that, in the company, almost all of us try to appear to be better than we are, or at least we try to show off our abilities; but the actors do not contribute to the community, but only pretend the contribution. All they want is for the boss to get a good impression of him. And they go over whoever, and they steal whoever's job.
Typical scene: Some employee detects a problem in the organization, and comments to the Actor; who immediately goes to a "brilliant" colleague to ask his opinion on a matter. Take careful note, they discuss some details to make the "brilliant" partner believe that they solved the problem between the two. Then he goes to other officials to “brag” about the problem he has solved; and finally he sends a report to the boss about the problem he detected and the solution he implemented in a “hard” 15-day job. (Any similarity with the reality of your company is pure coincidence).
The actor does his role as well as a "snake charmer." He loves the boss, and that's the only thing that matters. They praise themselves, invent stories to the chief of their occupations, of their achievements, of the fictitious meetings that they carry out.
When they are bosses they are FALSE DIRECTORS, they invent jobs that should not be done, formats that do not work. The main role they hold is that of intermediaries when not necessary. They report the work of others, how they helped, of which we "did", when in reality they only attribute other people's merits. They are experts sending reports and reports with their "innumerable" and "encompassed" activities, they are experts in meeting management indicators.
"It is not essential that a prince possess virtues. But it is essential that it appears to possess them. Having and practicing them is always harmful, and pretending to have them, useful. It is good to be pious, faithful, human, upright and religious, and also to be so effectively: but you must be willing to go to the other extreme if necessary »(De Machiavelli, p. 45).
These are also called the "ties". They simply "do the trick of working." Many times they do not have the professional skills for the position, the subordinates do all the work for them, and behave as if they did. They act, and they do it well. These types of characters are very common in state companies, they are already found in any corridor of some mayoralty or governorate.
Acting also involves having excellent interpersonal skills to like each other and the boss. But once he's discovered, he doesn't last long in office, unless he works as hard as he boasts.
The companions realize what happened, but many times the boss is the last to know.
8. Lazy, lazy, lazy, or “lazy” (lazybones)
But the actors are not always managers or bosses. They are mostly low-level employees, preferably office workers. They are not very visible by the bosses. This is where the actors intersect with the “Lazybones” or Loafers.
An actor in the background is lazy. We quote the psychoeconomist Corinne Maier who in her Praise for Laziness (“of art and the need to do as little as possible in the company”) says that life is not at work, especially when work is not life:
- Never accept a position of responsibility because you will be forced to work more: Show yourself nice with temporary positions because they are the only ones who really work; Wander the hallways and the cafeteria, but always with a lot of folders under your arm; Never go to meetings with a new idea because you will have to explain it and, if it works, put it into practice; if you have no choice but to say something, use the jargon of business schools, which means absolutely nothingWhen you hear people speak in the office of “culture of the company ”and other patriotisms of public limited companies, look the other way and become the invisible employee. (León, 2007)
In all organizations, there are some individuals who work little or not at all and try to live as well as possible. It seems they have given up on success or recognition and are left with ease and financial comfort. Some lazybones (camouflages) camouflage themselves in work teams covered by collective performance; Obviously, they are soon identified by their peers, who in many cases “pimp” these behaviors for the sake of maintaining friendship. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
This is a lifestyle that is born in schools and universities; in fact, in adolescence they are “admired”, and they constitute a role model: to achieve everything with minimal effort; or in other words, everything that means effort is not worth it. They settle for a 6, and live their life with mediocrity. When there is work, or there are responsibilities, they hide; and getting recognition is not your priority.
Organizations should not (and rarely do) allow such visible and undesirable attitudes as these, especially since they can be contagious. A lazy man who is not punished damages the organizational climate, as it takes away the motivation of others.
But there are organizations infested with loafers: Those that have unions, because they hide their own laziness in the form of resistance to "tyranny" or "resistance to workplace harassment" by the bosses. In Colombia, the unions, despite their good intentions, and despite their incessant fight against equality, acolyte the behavior of these characters under the cloak of “union law”.
We do not believe that they are the most harmful people for organizations, but low performance, visible or not so much, must be analyzed and combatted. However, sometimes this behavior is accepted by managers or bosses: the owner's son, the friend, the boss's mistress, the manager's brother, the deputy's recommended, etc. The dangerous thing would be to see a "Holagazán" who is also a "Climber".
9. Parasites
There are some details that differentiate them from the lazy: the parasites do not give up recognition: "they try to take on the efforts of others and" appear in the picture ". They even try to get others to do the job for them, ”taking advantage of the collaboration and teamwork coverage, or by flattery. They put themselves in the middle where intermediaries are not necessary. They usually have visible interpersonal and communication skills, but they take advantage of them to their advantage. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
"Parasitism can be disguised as an ability to manage: direct and delegate.." Peter Guzmán
They are, in general, more ambitious than the climbers or the idlers; although they share many of its characteristics. In fact, parasitism occurs with some frequency in middle management. Parasitism can be disguised as an ability to manage: direct, coordinate, and delegate. They are generally good at assigning tasks, but they are also good at taking credit for others. Once I met a parasite that did not allow us subordinates to skip the regular conduit, all so that the manager did not realize that we did all the work for him.
However, parasites don't live long, and everything is known, sooner or later. The problem occurs when the parasite does not have the boss in the same office, or run a branch in another city. In these cases, he will protect his condition at all costs before his superiors. And the serious problem is when you combine the parasite with the actor, and put a blindfold on the bosses.
Managers should identify these characters, through dialogue with all levels of the organization. This is a harmful character that should be removed from companies; However, you should take advantage of your skills as a manager or boss for the good of the organization, because it is not easy to put people to work, but not give them 100% of the credits.
10. The pleasers (Lambones)
It presents a behavior of certain servility and flattery before the boss. This is generally not well regarded by other coworkers. It is the student who tells the teacher who did the mischief, to secure some privilege.
In its consequences, this is not a markedly negative behavior; if anything, you may be suspected of hiding performance deficiencies, pursuing greater boss privileges, or shirking responsibilities. Although the service attitude and good disposition are positive values, the bosses should not promote these attitudes, but those other more professional ones.
In the eastern plains of Colombia, the bosses behave more like “bosses”, inherited from the pseudo-feudalism that was lived in rural areas until the middle of the 20th century. And being a boss means having around a group of pleasers who serve you. And in this organizational culture, the bosses reward the “lambones”. A good employee is one who does exactly what the boss says, even if it is wrong.
These characters also dress in many opportunities as "toads". They sell colleagues expecting retribution in return, report activities they consider “the boss must know”, create a climate of discord with other team members. But they are only interested in the "friendship" of the boss, not that of the other employees. They tend to think of themselves as "essential" because they are informants, they tend to put themselves above the rest, creating bad weather. It is one thing to inform the boss, that it is the job of any employee, and another to sell it maliciously expecting a profit.
Usually an autocratic manager or boss generates “pleaser” employees almost automatically. If you see an autocratic manager, he has around him a retinue of servile employees and flatterers.
These types of employees cannot be rewarded, these types of attitudes go against team building, although sometimes for a manager they are a necessary evil. You should take advantage of the extra information about the group, but you cannot reward the person who provides it; Getting them used to the fact that IN A WORK TEAM, INFORMATION CANNOT BE HANDLED BELOW THE TABLE.
11. The Machiavellians
Nicholas of Machiavelli, the most calculating political historian, had no other objective than strong sovereignty in the face of the dangers and instabilities of his time.
The maxim "the end justifies the means" was attributed to Nicholas Machiavelli for his political thinking characterized (by many researchers) as despot, cold, calculating, unethical and amoral. A ruler should use all available means at his disposal, without being limited by morals or ethics, with the aim of achieving a goal that deserves it.
Time and analysis have given him the privileged title of literary and political genius, but he will always be known for promoting, among other things, despotism, tyranny and the nationalist spirit to achieve full and firm sovereignty.
"To survive, the prince has no choice but to be more skilled and tougher than those who seek to bring him down." (From Machiavelli, 1990)
The "Machiavellian" are generally cunning and deeply calculating. What is desirable in this case is that they put their talent at the service of the company and not their own. Cunning or intelligence, like power or authority, are good tools for contributing to results if they are managed well; But in Machiavellian acting there is a certain malice that does not always lead to a good end. But there are, undoubtedly, much more complex and twisted practices, which amply deserve the qualification of Machiavellian, and still far exceed Machiavelli himself. (Enebral Fernández, Directing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005)
The machivélicos make people fight, they “give up” companions and even bosses; They can put or remove people, they can manipulate situations so that everything is for their benefit. This personality of the "bad guy", who makes life impossible for the protagonist, is not a fiction, but exists in our companies.
The Machiavellian can be seen as a chess player, he has a good side that can be used and a bad side; he likes to plan the game and knows how to manipulate people.
This is the type of characters that takes the longest to recognize, and their performance is rarely recognized in "movies that are made up." They have behaviors of Climbers, Actors and parasites in the same person.
Despite the above, its positive side can be exploited: its panoramic vision, its anticipation of events, even its frequent intuition, could generate very positive fruits, put at the service of the cause.
Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas's in the movie "Wall Street", is the icon of the Machiavellian character who threatens our modern work environment. His favorite phrase is: "greed is good."
12. Narcissists
This is the character that, in our opinion, generates the greatest problems within companies, so we will dedicate a whole chapter to analyze it. It is associated with the so-called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder", and has been widely detected and studied. Let's say that you meet the characteristics of individualistic, obstructionist, negative, critical, climber, actor, parasite, pleaser and Machiavellian in a single pattern of behavior.
Narcissistic personalities have been studied for many years: Sigmund Freud published a paper on this subject almost a century ago. The specialists agree that we are all somewhat narcissistic because this allows us to notice our needs and balance them with those of others; But they warn us that you are in the presence of a personality disorder when narcissism is extreme. (Edelberg, 2005)
Narcissistic personality disorder is a group B personality disorder (dramatic, emotional, or erratic disorders). They have a pattern of grandeur, fantasies of success, they need admiration, lack of empathy. They expect recognition, power, brilliance, beauty, or love. They demand excessive admiration. It must occur in various contexts and meet five or more of the following items: (according to DSM IV guidelines). (Americam Psychiatric Association, 2011):
- You have a great sense of self-importance; for example, he exaggerates achievements and abilities, hopes to be recognized as superior without proportionate achievements, etc. (It is common for narcissists to overestimate their abilities and exaggerate their knowledge and qualities, which is why they often give the impression of being boastful or presumptuous people). He is worried about imagined fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or love (They can be delivered to ideas and thoughts about admiration or privileges that "have long been owed to you" and comparing yourself favorably with famous or privileged people) Believe you are "special" and unique and can only be understood by,or can only relate to other people (or institutions) who are special or high-level (attribute to those with whom they relate the qualities of being 'unique', 'perfect' or 'talented') Requires excessive admiration (It is a symptom that denotes a low self-esteem and a great concern for doing the job well and for how they are seen by others) It is very pretentious; for example, you have unreasonable expectations of receiving special favor treatment or that your expectations are automatically met (for example, you may think that you do not have to queue. All this can cause the exploitation of others, either consciously. or unconscious) Is exploitative; for example, take advantage of others to achieve their own goals (they expect to be given everything they want,no matter what this means for others, and they can assume that others are totally interested in their well-being) Lacks empathy: is reluctant to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Frequently envies others or believes that others they envy him (they can devalue people who have received a congratulation by thinking that they are more deserving of it) • He presents arrogant or arrogant behaviors or attitudes. (López-Ibor & Valdés Miyar, 2002)is reluctant to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Frequently envies others or believes that others envy him (they may devalue people who have received a congratulation by thinking that they are more deserving of it) • Has arrogant or arrogant behaviors or attitudes. (López-Ibor & Valdés Miyar, 2002)is reluctant to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Frequently envies others or believes that others envy him (they may devalue people who have received a congratulation by thinking that they are more deserving of it) • Has arrogant or arrogant behaviors or attitudes. (López-Ibor & Valdés Miyar, 2002)
12.1 Narcissistic personality traits
The narcissistic personality is characterized by a grandiose pattern of life, this is expressed in fantasies or modes of behavior that incapacitate the individual to see the other. His vision of things is the pattern to which the world must submit. For narcissists the world is guided and must obey their own points of view, which they consider irrefutable, infallible, self-generated. (Himiob, 1997)
There is in the Narcissist an inexhaustible thirst for admiration and flattery. In short, narcissistic people, even though they may possess keen intelligence, are clouded by that grandiose vision of themselves and their hunger for recognition. We see as well many people who, being able to be successful, productive and creative, subject their lives to flattering mediocrities. (Himiob, 1997). When narcissists exercise positions of power, they surround themselves with people who, by their own condition, are inferior to him or her, and others, who will court him only on the basis of a petty interest.
12.2 The Narcissistic Employee
A narcissistic employee usually goes through a cycle:
It progresses through the hierarchy of an organization steadily and sometimes quickly. However, their self-esteem is fragile. He expects the attention and approval of his superiors and usually gets them for his achievements. Over time problems appear. His concentration on himself and his achievements make him feel invincible which leads to inappropriate or outrageous behavior.
For example: making sexual proposals to your subordinates or having an open affair with one of them. You can abuse personal expenses or exceed your budget. Perhaps she denigrates her colleagues out loud and calls them lazy or stupid. Sometimes it does so by means of epithets involving gender or race. He is unaware of the problems created by his behavior. If any superior tells him, he expects to be forgiven by virtue, according to him, of how valuable he is to the organization. Over time, his arrogance and ignorance of the impact it has on others cause him to lose the support of colleagues and subordinates. Resentment grows among those around him, several leave the company and complaints come to the top. Sometimes the decision is made to fire him. (Mc Donald, 2005)
12.3 Narcissistic manager
It should not surprise us that managers with a lot of narcissism appear in some companies, behavior that in some cases has led to rejection, conflicts, generating a negative organizational climate for the organization.
With your false self-image, you can see how dangerous a narcissist can be in managerial positions. He comes to consider that his subordinates are at his service instead of that of the company, and his own interest prevails over the collective. He thinks that the rules are not for him and he skips them without guilt. (Enebral Fernández, Narcissistic Directors, 2010)
Bosses with exaggerated narcissism tend to make big changes in spending or in the use of resources such as research and development. They conduct large-scale mergers and acquisitions more frequently and with more extreme "more profit or loss" or more volatile results than in companies run by more humble executives. (The Economist, 2006)
In writing these lines, one remembers some people who fully fit this profile. These characters abound everywhere. They are like "pests" that damage the organizational climate where they arrive.
Narcissists would be said to need a cure for humility if they have someone to find it for them. The narcissists' environment should put more effort into showing them their mistakes than flattering them…, if the consequent risk can be assumed. (Enebral Fernández, Managing Characters: stereotypes in the company, 2005, p. 6)
12.3.1 Why is a narcissistic manager dangerous?
For what it does or does not do, rather than for what it is. It is possible to think that it would not matter much that a manager was narcissistic if he were also effective, that is, if he achieved the expected results; but it is that "narcissism reduces effectiveness in the short and long term, and erodes the quality of life in the company". (Enebral Fernández, Narcissistic Directors. Why is a narcissistic executive dangerous ?, 2008)
So we are facing a dangerous disorder that affects the desirable tandem of performance and professional satisfaction; We are facing a disorder that seems to announce disasters.
It could be said, improvising, that the most dangerous thing about a narcissistic manager is that:
- His vision of reality is too altered. It is not easy to establish authentic communication with him. He ignores the rules of all kinds, including ethics. He is not aware of his mistakes, he does not rectify and he does not learn. He loses the help of empathy, genuine intuition and other resources. He is unable to achieve positive emotional activation of his collaborators. He prioritizes his personal interests. He ignores them, and hurts the dignity of colleagues and subordinates. He scares clients, except for collusion or complicity. No He allows himself to criticize or advise. He is unable to set realistic goals. He generates negative emotions in his environment. He usually flees forward. He fosters or ensures mediocrity around him. It constitutes a contagious reference for the immature. He practices psychological punishments for subordinates.It is often difficult to withdraw the power he administers.
(Enebral Fernández, Narcissistic Directors. Why is a narcissistic executive dangerous ?, 2008)
Perhaps we can add more details, but we agree that it hinders the prosperity of the organization and "damages" or rarefies "its climate. If we reflect on the previous list, one, without being able to avoid it, continues to wonder why the organizations of these peculiar managers do not get rid; Perhaps because the organization's own culture generates them as a side effect?
On the other hand, the climate of “militant mediocrity” that the narcissist usually generates as self-protection deserves comment: someone who presented brilliant or innovative ideas could be immobilized. The narcissist cannot tolerate more brightness than what he makes shine; you cannot celebrate successes that are not yours; it has to be the best. In short, he needs a more mediocre environment than him.
An investigation by organizational psychologist Kathy Schnure analyzed the effects of narcissistic leaders in an organization and found that although those with strong narcissistic tendencies are perceived as possessing greater leadership potential, negative characteristics of this type are long-term. of personality come out afloat and are detrimental to a company, so it is better to avoid including people like that on the payroll. Managers should try to avoid hiring or promoting those whom they manage to identify as daffodils. (Schnure, 2010)
Speaking of the positive part found in his research regarding the leadership of people with high levels of narcissism, Schnure explains that because of their charisma and their ability to convince others to accept their views, these people can obtain positive performance. "Those results would indicate that vision, self-confidence, and pride in your own achievements could translate into effective leadership in an organization or team," she says.
But, likewise, Schnure clarifies that the positive side of daffodils has a very negative face that ends up being harmful for a company because these types of people are not good at working with others. She further explains that not all charismatic leaders are necessarily daffodils: “Charismatic leaders are not exploiters; they do not trample on others to achieve what they want. On the contrary, they show sympathy towards the employees ”. (Franco, 2010)
Michael Maccoby has a different opinion in the case of narcissistic executives who reach the highest levels of organizations. In an article he points out that these are essential in times of transition. Often skilled strategists and courageous risk-takers, they become a source of inspiration to others and lead their organizations to a promising future. Narcissists are good for companies in extraordinary times, when it takes people with the passion and audacity to lead them in new directions. But narcissistic leaders can also lead companies to disaster, to the extent that they refuse to listen to the advice or warnings of their collaborators. (Maccoby, 2000)
The Narcisita summarizes the behaviors of an obstructionist, a climber, an actor, a parasite, a pleaser and a machine-gun in one person. If you do not know how to manage it, it constitutes a negative factor that must be eradicated from organizations. Please, readers are asked to identify these characters and, if possible, bring them to light.
But, if the narcissist is the boss, and I have to live with him, how can I do?
12.3.2 How to live with a narcissistic boss?
Thinking that we have to live with a narcissistic-style boss, what can we do? Is there really something to do?
Well then, around the narcissist there are those who choose to join the "court" of flatterers and pleasers, waiting for counterparts. The best thing to do is to give up; But while another suitable alternative appears, one must choose to survive in that environment as worthily as possible, while retaining some of their initiative and moral independence. Enebral makes the following suggestions:
- Avoid criticism or limit it thoroughly and formally. Be on the lookout for possible cheating jobs that are entrusted to you. Avoid unwarranted reproaches or accusations. Do your work, if you like, with some autotelia..Culture supports around you. Reward the inner accolades you receive. Practice lifelong learning. Don't brag about your knowledge but don't hide it either. Disguise your emotional estrangement from the boss and your court. Make little noise, but gain professional respect. Without fighting, prevent them from appropriating their merits.
(Enebral Fernández, Narcissistic Directors. Why is a narcissistic executive dangerous ?, 2008)
This is a difficult situation and goes against one's self-esteem. If the boss owns the company, it is better to think of another job. If the boss is a middle command, something can be done, but one must prepare for an arduous battle.
13. Conclusions
Whenever there is a group of people, different personalities compete with each other to give themselves the right place. The human being is complex for many, and that same complexity is exalted when he is in a community, when he is in a company. There are a series of "typical" characters that are easy to identify in any organization, and that can be more or less harmful to it.
All people can have moments and actions that are individualistic, obstructionist, negative, critical or climbing, or even lazy; However, these roles become a “modus vivendi” for certain people, and that is where the danger for the organization begins.
All carry with them a degree of danger, to a greater or lesser extent, but we highlight as dangerous:
- Loafers - actors: they are not very damaging to the organizational climate, but they "steal" time and resources. They can infect others. These can be easily identified. The obstructionists-negative-critics, who damage the organizational climate by infecting the rest of colleagues. These are attitude problems that can be corrected in most cases. Machiavellian - climbers: they abound in companies, they are a danger; but his talent can be well taken for the sake of organization. The most damaging for the company are undoubtedly the narcissists, who summarize a set of negative qualities of the human being: obstructionist, climber, actor, parasite, pleaser and machivélico in one person.
This essay is one more than an academic work, a social complaint, where it is intended to bring out characters. An effective psychotechnical test should be able to identify them early in order to avoid their incorporation into the company. Or if it is detected once it is working, steps should be taken to neutralize them or set them aside as much as possible.
So let's begin to identify them and take action.
14. Bibliography
- US National Library of Medicine (sf). Antisocial personality disorder. Retrieved on 08/07/2013, from Mediline Plus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/spanish/ency/article/000921.htmAceves Ulibarri, M. (24/12/2088). Climbing personalities. Retrieved on 08/28/2012, from World Press: http://meliacbarri.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/personalidades-trepadoras/Americam Psychiatric Association. (2011). DMS IV. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Retrieved on 01/09/2012 from Psicomed.: American Philosophical Association. (1990). The Delphi Report. Washington: APA.Byrne, R. (2006). The Secret. Mexico: Gránica.De Machiavelli, N. (1990). Prince. Mexico: Limusa.Edelberg, G. (2005). Narcissistic managers: their advantages? and disadvantages.Enebral Fernández, J. (2005). Directing Characters:stereotypes in the company. Retrieved on 11/11/2011, from Pensar de Nuevo: Enebral Fernández, J. (2008). Narcisitas managers. Why is a narcissistic manager dangerous? Enebral Fernández, J. (04 of 03 of 2008). The critical thinker.Enebral Fernández, J. (2010). Narcissistic managers. Retrieved on 04/09/2012, from http://www.monografias.com/trabajos16/directivos-narcisistas/directivos-narcisistas.shtmlFranco, C. (05/10/2010). Daffodil leaders are harmful to companies. Recovered on 16 of 10 of 2011, from Trends 21. Management Skills: http://www.tendencia21.net/Los-lideres-narcisos-son-daninos-para-las-empresas_a4416.htmlGarcía Villegas, M. (11 of 09 2009). Indulgent individualism. The spectator.Himiob, G. (01 of 06 of 1997). Narcissism. Retrieved on 04/09/2012, from Venezuela Analytical: Hubbard, R. (2010).The Cause of Suppression. Los Angeles, USA: Bridge Poublications. Leon, P. (22 de 12 de 2007). Work or simulate work: what difference does it make? Retrieved on 08/08/2012, from Yoriento: http://yoriento.com/2007/12/trabajar-o-simular-que-se-trabaja-que-diferencia-hay-208.html/L López-Ibor, A., & Valdés Miyar, M. (2002). DSM-IV-TR. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (Masson, Ed.) Retrieved on 04 of 09 of 2012, from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trastorno_narcisista_de_la_personalidadMaccoby, M. (01 of 2000). Narcissistic Leaders. Harvard Business Review.Mc Donald, JJ (April 2005). Employee Relations. Law Journal, Ortigosa Vallejo, B. (12 of 11 of 2007). Teamwork as an improvement in individual effort.Patlán Pérez, J., & Martínez Torres, E. (2010).The culture of individualism in organizations. Culture in organizations., (p. 17). Pachuca, Hidalgo.Schnure, K. (08/10/2010). Narcissism 101. How to limit - or prevent - the effects of morale-damaging employees. (S. f. Psychology., Editor) Retrieved on 02/09/2012 from the Institute of Industrial Engeneers: http://www.iienet2.org/details.aspx?id=21888The Economist. (August 12, 2006). The Brand of Me; Narcissistic Bosses. The Economist. Business.Narcissistic Bosses. The Economist. Business.Narcissistic Bosses. The Economist. Business.
