Neurotic leadership and corporate madness

The cross-border behaviour of Minister Dennis Wiersma and First Chamber chairman Jan Anthonie Bruijn is not an isolated case. You can lump it under the heading of ‘neurotic leadership’. It occurs in many organisations and at all levels. It requires attention to the emotional and psychological aspects of organisations and leadership.

Neurotic leadership is of all times and comes in many forms and at all levels. Well-known examples are Donald Trump, a narcissistic, paranoid and almost schizophrenic leader, and Elon Musk, who shows strong dramatic and compulsive traits. But it can also happen close by, in your organisation, for instance, the team leader or the deputy director. Because he tends to control everything and every one in detail, over and over again, some colleagues are now sitting at home with burn-out complaints, while others have left for the same reason.

Compulsive

The behaviour of education minister Dennis Wiersma and Senate president Jan Anthonie Bruijn also falls under the heading of ‘neurotic leadership’. Systematically scolding and belittling your colleagues because you think they are not doing their job correctly could indicate a compulsive need for control. At the same time, there will be a (mild) form of paranoia (anyone who does not deliver what I want is against me) and certainly narcissism. Wiersma, for example, wants his media moment every day with himself as the shining centre.

Recognisable

Recognisable? In many organisations, you see executives with more or less neurotic leadership styles. And to some extent, it can be very functional and useful. A manager with compulsive tendencies will have a lot of attention to detail and quality. The executive with more suspicious tendencies will be attentive to external risks and competition and take strategic action accordingly. The more narcissistic leader will be willing to seize market opportunities and take risks that others do not dare, putting his organisation at an advantage. But there is always that grey area where behaviour becomes neurotic and compulsive and loses functionality, and becomes harmful.

Glass door

An example from my own practice is a manager with an obvious lack of empathic abilities, but who, partly because of this, was able to fire a large number of colleagues without any problem, cut costs, and thus restore the organisation to health. However, this person could also leave an organisation to its own devices and always regarded its own performance and insights – though often inimitable – as superior. Resentment was equally one of his ‘management skills’. And regularly, when contradicted, this person could suddenly erupt in anger and rage. A glass door couldn’t withstand it once, nor could some of his colleagues. This was disconcerting and traumatic for the employees involved, exactly what is also highlighted in the Wiersma and Bruijn reports. In the end, this manager had to step down.

Trauma

In all cases, personal, traumatic events in the past underlie such behaviour in the present. From the dominant father to the adulterous mother, and from absent parents, to just the stifling concern of a caregiver, and everything else in between. Sometimes there is even intergenerational trauma (epigenetic events): second and even third generations in whom the trauma of the (grand)parents, for instance, due to war or conflict, lives on. In all cases, it involves a knock-on effect of the past in the present and displaying certain behaviours to repress and control the original emotions.

Taxonomy of madness

In his seminal book The Neurotic Organisation (1984), Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries¹ provides a taxonomy of this corporate ‘madness’. Using regular psychiatric conditions, he distinguishes five neurotic leadership styles: paranoid or suspicious, compulsive or compulsive, dramatic or narcissistic, depressive and schizophrenic. Each style corresponds to a certain type of behaviour. It is often a mixture of neurotic behaviours around a dominant style.

Confidence disappears

In his later work, for instance, in The Leader on the Couch (2006), Kets de Vries elaborates on the theme of neurotic leadership even further. The core message is: neurotic leaders cause neurotic organisations. The result of neurotic leadership is destructive group processes, distorted working relationships, growing resistance, defensive behaviour, dysfunctional organisations and unhappy employees in whom all trust in management has disappeared. With a bit of bad luck, the neurotic leader drags the organisation down with him, like a loose anchor pulling a shaky ship.

Deny

Managers with a neurotic leadership style will often deny that there is anything wrong with them; the others do not understand. The same applies to the organisations they work in denying, looking away, and condoning are unfortunately recognisable reactions to avoid intervention. It is also difficult to admit that a minister, parliament speaker or CEO exhibits harmful, neurotic behaviour. Cognitive dissonance plays a role. The unpleasant truth creates its own and adapted reality production.

Irrational

What comes into play is that organisations – government agencies or companies – usually see themselves as purely rational. There is generally little room or interest for the emotional layer, group processes or individual psychology. While that influence is evident and significant:

• A paranoid leadership style can lead to the institutionalisation of suspicion and conservative, anti-innovative management.
• A narcissistic leadership style can lead to the serious overreach of the company with risky investments or decisions and – due to the radiant leadership of the foreman – a weakly developed middle management.
• Compulsive leadership style is often too inward-looking, risk-averse and has an overpowering and stifling eye for detail.
• A depressive leadership style is characterised by resignation, anxiety, loneliness, indecisiveness, and inertia.
• Schizophrenic leadership style is often detached and disconnected from reality, unable to ask for or accept help, with much aggression and often bewildering behaviour.

Reflection

Intervention may therefore be necessary to prevent excesses. Offering apologies and promising improvement is usually insufficient; the psyche is difficult to control. Psychotherapy, analysis or intensive coaching for the manager is the first step. A deep process of self-reflection and self-insight must be initiated that provides insight into the origins of the trauma and opens up openings for restoring ‘normal’ behaviour. If the resistance is too strong or the neurosis is too deep, then resignation or resignation is often the only option; the organisation or group must protect itself.

Healthy leadership

The cases of Wiersma and Bruijn once again highlight the importance of healthy leadership. Leadership development, therefore, goes beyond learning a set of skills. It requires in-depth insights into the individual’s emotional and psychological management and the effects of one’s own leadership on the organisation, teams and colleagues. There must be room for reflection, group discussion, experimental learning and coaching in leadership development. This can be confrontational but is necessary for healthy leadership and for healthy organisations.

Ad Hofstede | #workingwithconfidence ©2023

Please get in touch with me if you would like to know more about how I can strengthen leadership within your organisation or contribute to leadership development and a healthy organisation. I would be happy to give a presentation without any obligation. Please email me at contact@adhofstede.nl or call +31 (0)6 24 58 45 90

¹ Manfred Kets de Vries (1942) is a Dutch psychoanalyst, management scientist and economist who is a professor of human resource management and leadership development at INSEAD in Fontainebleau. Kets de Vries gained fame for his research on leadership styles and regularly acts as a consultant to major international companies.