The Organisation Shadow-Side Audit

[Printable page]

INTRODUCTION

Most readers will be familiar with the idea that there is a shadow side in human personality. When thinking negatively we may speak of it as the 'dark side'. We associate it with 'bad' people. But each of us has a side that is not rational and may be less than wholesome. There are things that we don't admit to others, maybe not even to ourselves. We prefer to keep these habits, behaviours, thoughts, beliefs, prejudices, fantasies, vices and ideas hidden in the shadows.

The shadow side that we are interested in here is the organisational equivalent of the shadow side in human personality. Since organisations comprise individuals, the organisation's shadow side inevitably reflects much that is inherent in human personality - in leaders, managers and employees. But there is much more to an organisation's shadow side than the vagaries of individuals. Indeed, some aspects of the shadow side are positive, by no means tainted, inadmissible and unworthy. Just as the shadow side is inevitable in any organisation, arguably it is also necessary.

Some organisation psychologists have made a study of the subject. Here we briefly explain their views. Their models contain both individual and organisational behavioural components. Where the behaviour is classically associated with individuals (e.g. greed), then the models are concerned with the organisational causes and consequences of this attribute. But besides such individual aspects, the organisation has direct shadow-side component features of its own, especially in its culture.

One such popular model is advanced by Gerard Egan, and this informs many of the audit's themes. His definition of the shadow side is:

A slightly different model is espoused by Trevor Bentley, a Gestalt psychologist. Bentley's model is more obviously an organisational model, less based on individual personality and behaviour. This model emphasises the wholeness of the two complementary sides - the legitimate and the shadow. It stresses the virtues of the shadow side more strongly than does Egan's. Bentley's work shares much in common with that of Ralph Stacey, a prominent writer on complexity and chaos theory. While considering the shadow side as 'vital', Stacey also views the two sides as 'enemies'. His definition is:

All models speak of two systems in any organisation, but use slightly different terms. Egan speaks of the rational side versus the non-rational (i.e. shadow side). Bentley talks about the legitimate system and the shadow system. Alongside the legitimate system Stacey talks about both the shadow system and also shadow networks.

In this audit the descriptions of models, and comparisons between them, are the audit author's own. He has amplified upon his understanding of the models in the light of his own experience and the need to render them practical for the purpose of communicating and using them for self-assessment. For a full and strict interpretation of the models, readers are referred to the original works (referenced in the audit).

The rational and non-rational

The rational half of organisational life is concerned with how managers prefer to think and talk about the organisation; for example, how job roles fit together, and therefore how (at least on paper) work is assumed to get done. But this is not what in reality makes the organisation tick. To get the fuller picture one must be aware of the non-rational half. To give a 'taster' here are some examples:

Egan uses the term non-rational (and sometimes 'arational') as opposed to irrational. He views the effect that these factors collectively have on the health of the organisation as a mix of positive, negative and neutral. Thus, friendships, for example, are not rational or logical features of an organisation. Neither are they irrational. Their impact may be positive, negative or neutral, or a mix of these at different times. For example, friendships can be the means of getting round obstructions and bureaucracy.

It is commonly accepted that the two halves of the human brain perform different functions. The left hemisphere processes rational thinking, numbers etc, while the right hemisphere handles colour, music, intuition, and so on. Based on this analogy, and as a way of gaining understanding of the shadow-side concept, the audit's author likens the two sides to the left and right brain hemispheres, giving them the broadly differentiated characteristics shown below.

The rational factors are generally more explicit. They are usually written down, and they tend to deal with 'what' issues. By contrast, shadow-side factors are generally implicit and are more likely to concern 'who' issues. Table 3 gives a fuller list of the factors that comprise the two sides.

Note how seldom items in the right-hand column find a place on the boardroom agenda, despite their potency. Note too how most shadow-side elements are the kind of behaviour and drives that we associate most naturally with individuals. But a few are direct organisation manifestations: for example, the organisation's culture, customs and norms, departmental rivalries, and the grapevine.

From this list it is easy to see how an organisation in which the shadow-side variables are dominant might be chaotic or anarchic. On the other hand, if these are strongly suppressed, the organisation might be too restrictive, predictable and unimaginative. Hence the idea that these two sides of the organisation form an equation, with some kind of balance needing to exist between them.

The balance of power and influence that one side has vis-à-vis the other varies between organisations. Some workplaces are fairly straightforward, predictable, easy to fathom and possible to manage. Others remain a mystery, are 'crazy' and difficult to manage unless you understand the quaint rules and have well-honed political skills.

Managed chaos

Bentley and Stacey regard balancing the two sides of the organisation as important and needing active management to achieve this state. According to Bentley, the essential characteristics are as shown below.

This model places considerable value in the shadow system. It serves as a natural safety valve where people can take care of themselves against the rigours of their formal roles. Managers need to understand its nature and maintain it as a kind of semi-legitimate counterweight to the official legitimate system.

The shadow system initially appears dysfunctional. It runs counter to a single system that is rational and focused entirely on serving the organisation's legitimate purpose. But Stacey points out that:

Can the shadow side be managed?

Suggesting that an organisation's shadow side might be a serious subject for study and managerial skill development may encounter a range of responses:

There's truth and merit in all these responses, including the sceptical ones. Some manifestations of the shadow side are probably out of reach of all but the most patient, forgiving and imaginative. But this audit makes managing the shadow side seem an obvious candidate for legitimate and practical study.

    © William Tate, Prometheus Consulting, 2003

Top of page