14 November 2020
A lecturer on discourse analysis made a statement at a seminar that “organisations always protect themselves”, citing the book ‘How institutions think’ by the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1986). This statement and book resulted in a significant shift in my thinking and brought clarity and a new direction to my research in the NHS. Douglas considers that institutions promote their ‘...righteous image’ (p.112), and ‘...endow themselves with rightness’ (p.92). They ‘…have the pathetic megalomania of the computer whose whole vision of the world is its own programme’ (p.92) and ‘...create shadowed places in which nothing can be seen and no questions asked’ (p.69). Andrew Brown interprets the ‘shadowed places’ as relating to the pervasiveness of rationalisations. He argues that groups and organisations, ‘...literally have needs for self-esteem that are regulated narcissistically’ (1997, p.649). ‘Just as individuals seek to regulate their self-esteem through such ego-defense mechanisms as denial, rationalization, attributional egotism, sense of entitlement, and ego aggrandizement, which ameliorate anxiety, so too do groups and organizations’ (p.643). The report published in 2009 on the Irish Catholic Church child abuse scandal identifies such ego-defensive mechanisms. The conclusions stated that ‘The desire to protect the reputation of the congregation and institution was paramount’ (Commission to inquire into child abuse, 2009, p.454). In October 2020 the Anglican Church in England and Wales also came under the microscope as part of the Alexis Jay Independent Inquiry Child Sexual Abuse. ‘The culture of the Church of England facilitated it becoming a place where abusers could hide…alleged perpetrators were treated more supportively than victims…the Church’s neglect of the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of children and young people in favour of protecting its reputation was in conflict with its mission of love and care for the innocent and the vulnerable.’ (The Anglican Church: Safeguarding in the Church of England and the Church in Wales, October 2020, p.vi). Again we see that desire to protect the reputation and self-image. On 10 November 2020 we return to the Catholic Church, but this time for England and Wales with another report with very similar criticisms (The Roman Catholic Church: Safeguarding in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales 2020). ‘…faith organisations are marked out from most other institutions by their explicit moral purpose. The Roman Catholic Church is no different. In the context of the sexual abuse of children, that moral purpose was betrayed over decades by those in the Church who perpetrated this abuse and those who turned a blind eye to it.’ Again the Church failed to protect the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of children and young people ‘…in favour of protecting its reputation’ (p.6). Two authors shed a little light on this overriding obsession with protecting the organisational reputation and image. According to Ricardo Blaug in ‘How power corrupts’, with increased status there is a blurring of the boundary between the person and the organisation and an increased defensiveness. “Increasingly, you identify with the organisation; you bring it into yourself and meld its interests with your own. Slowly but surely, you are becoming a centaur: part individual, part organisation. Any slight against the organisation is now one against your very self” (2014, p.94). Howard Schwartz writes ‘...to the extent that the individual’s identity is an organizational identity, threats to the organization are experienced as threats to the individual. Thus, defense of the organization becomes self-defense...it is not only real threats to the organization that are seen as reprehensible acts of aggression. It can even be mere threats to the image of the organization as perfect.’ (1987, pp.333-334). The NHS is a very defensive organisation with its constant desire for ‘good news’ and the burial and hiding of the ‘bad’; the ‘cover-up culture’ as described by John England in his book ‘NHS dirty secrets’. The child abuse reports provide interesting comparative material regarding behaviour and responses to concerns and complaints. The Churches and the NHS all have an overwhelming and paramount concern for protecting the reputation and external image. This seems to be put before every other moral concern. All are supposed to have an ‘explicit moral purpose’. All have failed to live up to that positive purpose. It seems the lecturer was right. “Organisations [do indeed] always protect themselves”.
2 Comments
9 November 2020
Thank you to Dr Mark Hughes @OCReviewDesk for his review of my article on Organisational Silence in the NHS. 'Organizational silence is not acknowledged enough in #orgchg theories and practice. In this video https://youtu.be/NyD7CJo3GTc I showcase Rachael's @nhsculture_pope fascinating research-informed account of organizational silence in the #NHS.' Organizational Silence in the NHS: ‘Hear no, See no, Speak no’ (2019). Organizational Silence in the NHS: ‘Hear no, See no, Speak no’. Journal of Change Management: Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 45-66. tandfonline.com |