The Symbolic Impact of Double Bind Leadership: Double Bind and the Dynamics of Organizational Culture

Abstract

They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game (Laing, 1971). Members of an organization are supposedly led, but very often they do not see the way. On the contrary, they are exposed to conflicting management signals and caught in double bind situations. Double bind connotes a situation where conflicting messages occur, but where it is vitally important to discern what message is being communicated, and where the individual is unable to comment upon the ambiguity. The result is that the individual is not capable of meta communication and thus incapable of learning about the situation. We presume that the double bind phenomenon can often be found in organizations. In extreme cases this creates ‘double bind organizations’ in which the members are continuously confronted with double bind situations. The members become incapable of exploring the existing models of organizational behaviour. Organizational dynamics emerge ‘behind the back’ of people in the organization. The organization's meaning horizon is narrowed due to a lack of authentic dialogue. Attempted changes of organizational direction are experienced as just another double bind, and attempted changes of the double bind patterns become victims of the logic they attempt to alter. In such cases, the organization could be said to be characterized by a form of institutionalized learning incompetence. Understanding the double bind phenomenon should be seen as being important for managing organizations in general, and for the change and the management of change in particular.

Gregory Bateson on deutero‐learning and double bind: A brief conceptual history

“…Defined very briefly as, respectively, "learning to learn" and "pathological deutero-learning," the concepts have become influential in the work of the so-called Palo Alto and Milan schools in psychiatry and psychotherapy (Abeles, 1976;Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956;Burbatti & Formenti, 1988;Burbatti, Castoldi, & Maggi, 1993;Haley, 1963;Koopmans, 2001;Ruesch & Bateson, 1951;Sluzki & Veron, 1971;Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). In more recent years, the concepts have gained prominence in the fields of organization and policy science as an integral part of "organizational learning" (Argyris & Schön, 1978Dopson & Neumann, 1998;French & Bazalgette, 1996;Hennestad, 1990;Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1980;Huysman, 2000;Schön, 1975;Sinkula, 1994;Wijnhoven, 2001).As often occurs when concepts are transferred to other fields than their original ones, their meaning changes and becomes more diverse. This is especially true for the fields of organization and policy science where theoretical diversification and "paradigmatic" proliferation seem to be the rule rather than the exception.…”

Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box.

“…In some cases the whole system is controlled by a regime of unwritten rules that suggest refraining from self-reflection (Scott-Morgan, 1994). Communication research has revealed that such closing behavior is often caused by paradoxical interactions, such as a double bind (Hennestad, 1990;Watzlawick, 1963), basically maintained and fixed by self-reinforcing behavioral patterns. So-called systemic approaches (Campbell, Coldicott, & Kinsella, 1994;Selvini-Palazzoli, 1986) react to exactly this wellknown denial.…”

A review of international cross-cultural mixed messages and their implications for human resource development

“…The concept of the double bind describes a particularly problematic form of mixed message (Hennestad, 1990). To define the concept of the double bind, I draw upon Bateson et al (1956), Rovera (1988), Soldow (1981), and Visser (2003).…”

“…Michailova (2002) described mixed messages experienced by employees related to an international and cross-cultural work environment, specifically in a case study analysis of two Russian organizations that have Western management involvement. While an analysis of mixed messages within an organization separate from international culture dimensions is a fruitful area of inquiry (e.g., Hennestad, 1990;Soldow, 1981), this paper will focus on those mixed messages that are specifically related to international cross-cultural work experiences.…”