PurposeThe article discusses employee disengagement, a phenomenon where employees are at work but are minimizing their work contribution.Design/methodology/approachExamples of disengagement are discussed as well as possible causes. This is a call for further research in order to examine whether employee disengagement is rampant in our organizations, and on the increase while being largely ignored by managers, or whether it is a myth and should be of little concern to anyone.FindingsThe phenomenon of employee disengagement appears to be correlated with conditions where there is a lack of psychological identification and psychological meaningfulness. Disengagement also appears to be maximized under conditions of poor leadership and when levels of trust between managers and subordinates are low. Evidence suggests that there are large discrepancies in the methods and the scales used to measure employee engagement and disengagement.Practical implicationsThere is much conflicting and anecdotal evidence that employee disengagement is increasing. Disengagement may result from numerous causes and conditions. Once the catalysts for disengagement are understood, managers can be better equipped to deal with falling employee commitment and energy levels, thus gaining greater traction on the global business landscape.Originality/valueThis paper argues that the phenomenon of employee disengagement is increasing but that the methods for its identification are inadequate. Finally, the authors argue that the majority of managers seem unwilling or unable to halt the rising tide of employee disengagement.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeOrganisations sometimes select and promote the wrong individuals for managerial positions. These individuals may be incompetent, they may be manipulators and bullies. They are not the best people for the job and yet not only are they selected for positions of authority and responsibility, they are sometimes promoted repeatedly until their kind populate the highest levels of the organisational hierarchy. The purpose of this paper is to address this phenomenon by attempting to explain why it occurs and why organisational members tolerate such destructive practices. It concludes by proposing a cultural strategy to protect the organisation and its stakeholders from the ambitious machinations of the organisational sociopath.Design/methodology/approachThe authors develop an explanatory framework by attempting to combine elements of the theory of memetics with structuration theory. Memetic theory helps to analyse culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. Structuration theory can be used to identify motives and drives. A combination of these theoretical approaches can be used to identify the motives of organisational sociopaths. Such a tool is also useful for exploring the high level of organisation tolerance for sociopathic managers.FindingsOrganisational tolerance and acceptance for sociopathic managerial behaviour appears to be a consequence of cultural and structural complexity. While this has been known for some time, few authors have posited an adequate range of explanations and solutions to protect stakeholders and prevent the sociopath from exploiting organisational weaknesses. Reduction of cultural and structural complexity may provide a partial solution. Transparency, communication of strong ethical values, promotion based on performance, directed cooperation, and rewards that reinforce high performing and acceptable behaviour are all necessary to protect against individuals with sociopathic tendencies.Originality/valueThe authors provide a new cultural diagnostic tool by combining elements of memetic theory with elements of structuration theory. The subsequent framework can be used to protect organisations from becoming the unwitting victims of sociopaths seeking to realise and fulfil their needs and ambitions through a managerial career path.

Presents a practical exploration of business manoeuvre theory, examining the application of a developing military war fighting doctrine and how this can be transferred to the business mindscape in order to influence future planning. Suggests that attackers have strategic advantage over defenders and describes decision processes and complementary systems designed to support aggressive attack. Argues that decision makers broaden their attention from a dual focus on product innovation and increased market share, to include processes and tactics aimed at undermining and destabilising a competitor’s C2 (command and control). Also calls for an increase in the study of competitive behaviour and the study of decision processes and psychological operations (“psyops”) as they occur under time and resource constraints within the combative business environment.