Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 63
group norms designed to quell dissent. Within cults, the dominant culture is likely to be
totalistic, punitive, self-aggrandizing and all embracing in its messianic scope (Tourish and
Pinnington, 2002). Culture, in such contexts, becomes another form of social control
(Willmott, 1993 2003).
A further paradox within cults is that individual consideration shifts from being positive to
critical in nature. As a voluminous literature testifies (e.g. Tourish, 1998), once the recruit
has been ―won over‖, and made an intense commitment, the group seeks to ensure the
further embrace of its norms, by a relentless process of criticism and attack. Individual
consideration of a positive kind (Dr Jekyll) alternates with its alter ego (Mr. Hyde).
Relentless criticism gradually erodes people‘s confidence in their own perceptions (Tourish
and Wohlforth, 2000), creating a form of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975). ―Love‖ –
always dependent on the unconditional expression of enthusiasm for the goals of the
group‘s leaders – alternates with abuse, in a disorienting cycle that leaves recipients feeling
fearful and powerless. Context is crucial. Having made an initial commitment, possibly of a
dramatic kind, recruits are motivated to engage in further behaviours consistent with the
commitment originally made – the principle of commitment and consistency (Cialdini,
2001). When this blends with learned helplessness, it reinforces even further people‘s
already strong inclination to over-identify with the norms that have been decreed by the
group‘s leaders. The leaders, meanwhile, have adorned themselves in the garb of
omniscience and infallibility. Paradoxically, and providing it has come after a period of love
bombing, criticism from such sources reinforces the person‘s attachment to the group‘s
belief system and their sense of loyalty to its leaders.
Moreover, abuse generates multiple insecurities, further strengthening leadership power.
Whatever its precise content, insecurity reinforces ―the construction of workplace selves and
the reproduction of organizational power relations‖ (Collinson, 2003, p.530). In particular, it
seems likely that when people are insecure about their self-identity and their status the
nominal freedom of their position (after all, they retain the choice to leave) will be
experienced as a form of existential angst, intensifying their sense of vulnerability. It has
long been known that people have an innate tendency to conform to authority and power
under a variety of conditions (Milgram, 1974). If they are rendered fearful in the manner
described here, and when the most modest expression of dissent attracts punitive attention
from those above, it seems even more likely that people ―might try to find shelter in the
perceived security of being told what to do and what to think, viewing this as a less
threatening alternative to the responsibility of making decisions and choices for themselves‖
(Collinson, 2003, p.531). When the group environment assumes that all change must start
at the top, the leader knows best, the leader must have a compelling vision and that one
unifying culture is a precondition of effectiveness, inherently cult like dynamics of the kind
described here may be unleashed. It is clear that many of these assumptions are now
standard features of the leadership culture in many corporate organisations.
The Case of Enron
1. “Rank and Yank”, and the Elimination of Dissent
Side by side with largesse and ego stroking, a punitive internal culture was established, in
which all that had been so painstakingly gained could be withdrawn at the whim of senior
managers. As Fusaro and Miller (2003, p.51) remarked: ―Despite all the effort that Enron
expended in selecting the right people to hire into the company, it was quick to fire them.‖
The most striking illustration of this was in the organisation‘s appraisal system, known as
―rank and yank‖. An internal Performance Review Committee (PRC) rated employees twice a
year (Gladwell, 2002). They were graded on a scale of 1 to 5, on ten separate criteria, and
then divided into one of three groups – A‘s, who were to be challenged and given large
rewards B‘s, who were to be encouraged and affirmed, and C‘s, who were told to shape up
group norms designed to quell dissent. Within cults, the dominant culture is likely to be
totalistic, punitive, self-aggrandizing and all embracing in its messianic scope (Tourish and
Pinnington, 2002). Culture, in such contexts, becomes another form of social control
(Willmott, 1993 2003).
A further paradox within cults is that individual consideration shifts from being positive to
critical in nature. As a voluminous literature testifies (e.g. Tourish, 1998), once the recruit
has been ―won over‖, and made an intense commitment, the group seeks to ensure the
further embrace of its norms, by a relentless process of criticism and attack. Individual
consideration of a positive kind (Dr Jekyll) alternates with its alter ego (Mr. Hyde).
Relentless criticism gradually erodes people‘s confidence in their own perceptions (Tourish
and Wohlforth, 2000), creating a form of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975). ―Love‖ –
always dependent on the unconditional expression of enthusiasm for the goals of the
group‘s leaders – alternates with abuse, in a disorienting cycle that leaves recipients feeling
fearful and powerless. Context is crucial. Having made an initial commitment, possibly of a
dramatic kind, recruits are motivated to engage in further behaviours consistent with the
commitment originally made – the principle of commitment and consistency (Cialdini,
2001). When this blends with learned helplessness, it reinforces even further people‘s
already strong inclination to over-identify with the norms that have been decreed by the
group‘s leaders. The leaders, meanwhile, have adorned themselves in the garb of
omniscience and infallibility. Paradoxically, and providing it has come after a period of love
bombing, criticism from such sources reinforces the person‘s attachment to the group‘s
belief system and their sense of loyalty to its leaders.
Moreover, abuse generates multiple insecurities, further strengthening leadership power.
Whatever its precise content, insecurity reinforces ―the construction of workplace selves and
the reproduction of organizational power relations‖ (Collinson, 2003, p.530). In particular, it
seems likely that when people are insecure about their self-identity and their status the
nominal freedom of their position (after all, they retain the choice to leave) will be
experienced as a form of existential angst, intensifying their sense of vulnerability. It has
long been known that people have an innate tendency to conform to authority and power
under a variety of conditions (Milgram, 1974). If they are rendered fearful in the manner
described here, and when the most modest expression of dissent attracts punitive attention
from those above, it seems even more likely that people ―might try to find shelter in the
perceived security of being told what to do and what to think, viewing this as a less
threatening alternative to the responsibility of making decisions and choices for themselves‖
(Collinson, 2003, p.531). When the group environment assumes that all change must start
at the top, the leader knows best, the leader must have a compelling vision and that one
unifying culture is a precondition of effectiveness, inherently cult like dynamics of the kind
described here may be unleashed. It is clear that many of these assumptions are now
standard features of the leadership culture in many corporate organisations.
The Case of Enron
1. “Rank and Yank”, and the Elimination of Dissent
Side by side with largesse and ego stroking, a punitive internal culture was established, in
which all that had been so painstakingly gained could be withdrawn at the whim of senior
managers. As Fusaro and Miller (2003, p.51) remarked: ―Despite all the effort that Enron
expended in selecting the right people to hire into the company, it was quick to fire them.‖
The most striking illustration of this was in the organisation‘s appraisal system, known as
―rank and yank‖. An internal Performance Review Committee (PRC) rated employees twice a
year (Gladwell, 2002). They were graded on a scale of 1 to 5, on ten separate criteria, and
then divided into one of three groups – A‘s, who were to be challenged and given large
rewards B‘s, who were to be encouraged and affirmed, and C‘s, who were told to shape up
