From the enclave to hierarchy – and on to tyranny: the micro‐political organisation of a consultant’s group

Abstract

No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

  George Orwell, the concluding lines of Animal farm.

This paper discusses a long‐term Participant Observer case study about the evolution of a group of recruitment consultants. It uses ‘Douglasian Cultural Theory’ to record and analyse the political processes and techniques that emerged and were applied as its members moved from a loose aggregate of segmented individuals, through group‐based idealistic egalitarianism – (the enclave) – to different stages of bureaucratic control (hierarchy) and finally to its emergence as tyranny. Tyrannous organisation involves control by a small elite, the creation and manipulation of a mal‐distribution of resources, control of information, scapegoating with a lack of ‘due process’ and the use of a redundant rhetoric appropriate to earlier‐stage idealistic egalitarianism as a charter for action. The paper then discusses the inherent instabilities that face tyranny, and demonstrates how inevitably it proved disastrously dysfunctional to the group.

Keywords:

• tyranny
• egalitarianism
• dysfunction
• micro‐politics
• organisational rhetoric

Notes

1. For detailed sources on the nature of Enclaves see Douglas (1992b); Flanagan and Rayner (1988); Thompson and Wildavsky (1990), and Douglas and Mars (2003).

2. The idea was first propounded by Douglas (1992a, 144).

3. See, for example, Hatch (1993), especially chapter 12 (pp. 350–79).

4. But see Flannagan and Rayner (1988).

5. See, for example, Hatch (1993), especially chapter 12 (pp. 350–79).

6. As classically expounded by Max Weber; see Bendix (1960). See also Henry (1988) and Mars (1988).

7. Hatch and Schultz (1993).

8. See, for example, Gluckman (1955) and Douglas (1992a, 83–101).

9. See Flanagan and Rayner (1988), especially the introduction.

10. Names have been changed.

11. Variations on the structure of these selection boards were quickly adopted – and still operate – as integral to UK Civil Service and Foreign Office recruitment. The basic model has now become widespread throughout much of British industry. It is still used within all three UK armed services.

12. In a sense, Arnold had been hoisted by his own petard. As a psychoanalyst he had always argued and had taught his followers that a prime aim of consultants should be to encourage clients in self‐sufficiency – to ‘grow up’ without dependence on them. Herbert was, in effect, arguing that the group had now ‘outgrown’ Arnold and that it was time for it to be self‐sufficient.

13. A very similar arrangement (rotating roles that were similarly crystallised over time) is discussed as occurring in Israeli Kibbutzim. See Mars (1998, 98–112).

14. Unfortunately this was the only set of figures available. There is no reason, however, to think that they are atypical.

15. Steve Rayner usefully distinguishes two kinds of egalitarianism: ‘strict equality egalitarianism’ which insists on equity of access and accumulation and ‘equal opportunity egalitarianism’ which offers differential access to goods or influence as people choose. This group originally espoused the former but after instituting its elite, quickly moved towards, but never achieved equal opportunities. See chapter 2 in Flanagan and Rayner (1988).

16. Mary Douglas (1992a, 144).

17. Mary Douglas (1992a, 144).

18. A considerable time later, I found that two events six months apart were cited as evidence of an unsympathetic, albeit robust approach to two candidates who had asked for feedback after particularly poor showings at the board.

19. In the event, these suggestions were not followed through, possibly because a legal source suggested they contravened common law and could not be sustained.

20. Douglas (1992a, 90).

21. Douglas (1992a, 93–4).

22. Douglas (1992a, 94).

23. In this they followed the official policy of The British Psychological Society, which has long held this untenable claim to professionalism, and its buttressing of the earning of its members.

24. In an attempt to remedy this lack, I offered a draft, but not too different, version of this paper to two members of the group with a request for comments and for any corrections. They submitted it to the rest of the group who then wrote saying they found ‘considerable inaccuracies’ but would not specify what these were and that they would not ‘comment in detail’. When I pressed for guidance as to what inaccuracies they referred to they said the group ‘had difficulty engaging’ with the paper. To ensure accuracy about events after I had left the group, I then contacted a senior executive of the company who had had close dealings with the group. Much of my account of the group’s decline derives from this source.

25. As Stuart Henry has written, ‘Collectives are abstract constructs that merely appear to make decisions: beneath the appearance is the reality that only individuals can make decisions because only individuals have human agency’. Mary Douglas has raised the converse question this entails: in what sense can groups, organisations, collectives be said to think? Douglas (1986).