Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 64
or ship out. Those in the top category were referred to as ―water walkers‖ (Swartz and
Watkins, 2003). Those in the bottom category were given until their next review to improve.
In practice, however, with another 15 percent category emerging within six months
sufficient improvement was almost impossible, and they tended to leave quickly.
Furthermore, those in categories 2 and 3 were also now in a position where they too faced
the strong possibility of being ―yanked‖ within the next year. A cutthroat culture was
created. The overall, and distinctly cultic, impact is well summarised by Fusaro and Miller
(2003, p.52):
It is clear that Enron‘s management regarded kindness as a show of
weakness. The same rigors that Enron faced in the marketplace were
brought into the company in a way that destroyed morale and internal
cohesion. In the process of trying to quickly and efficiently separate from the
company those employees who were not carrying their weight, Enron created
an environment where employees were afraid to express their opinions or to
question unethical and potentially illegal business practices. Because the
rank-and-yank system was both arbitrary and subjective, it was easily used
by managers to reward blind loyalty and quash brewing dissent.
Ultimately, cults thrive on internal aggression. The punitive internal atmosphere reminds
members of the fate that awaits them should they dissent, or deliver performance below the
high goals set for them by the group‘s leaders. In addition, by keeping members fearful of
each other, their attention is further diverted from the behaviour of the group‘s leaders.
Within Enron, it appears that the tyrannization personified by the rank and yank system
unleashed what has been described, in other contexts, as the ―identification-with-the-
aggressor syndrome‖ (Kets de Vries, 2001). This postulates that, in order to feel safer,
those at the receiving end of aggression assume an aggressive posture themselves. They
move from being threatened to being threatening. The catch is that ―all they accomplish is
to become aggressors themselves, thus increasing the total organizational aggression‖ (Kets
de Vries, 2001, p.81). Intense criticism aimed at individuals stresses the imagined
weaknesses of the person at the receiving end rather than, for example, difficulties with the
wider organisation. The rank and yank system therefore pitted employees against each
other. It was clearly in every individual‘s interest that someone other than themselves
received a poor rating. This created a strong incentive to provide poor evaluations for others
while simultaneously seeking positive evaluations for oneself. Backroom deals, shifting
alliances and broken promises were the norm. It also provided an incentive to conformity,
and a disincentive to the articulation of dissenting voice. But there was no escaping the
relentless logic of the bottom line. Whatever they did, 15% of all employees would find
themselves in the lowest category twice a year, where they faced the daunting prospect of
being yanked.
Clearly, the switch from affirmation to punishment within Enron meant that employees
regularly received mixed messages. On the one hand, they were the cleverest and best in
the world – a form of positive reinforcement, or love bombing, that it would be hard to
better. On the other, they could be branded as ―losers‖ (a favourite term of abuse, for those
who fell at the PRC hurdle), and fired at any time. Consistent with general cultic norms, the
overall effect was disorientation, an erosion of one‘s confidence in one‘s own perceptions
and, most crucially, a further compliance with the group‘s leaders that strengthened
conformist behaviour in general. Thus, mixed messages within cults are a standard means
of projecting ―the illusion of choice‖ (Lalich, 2004, p.190), while actually intensifying control
by the group‘s leaders. Such messages also constrain topics of discussion, further
reinforcing conformist behaviours. As Werther (2003, p.569) expressed it, the ambiguities
and inconsistencies of mixed messages became undiscussable within Enron. But the
prevailing culture rendered ―the undiscussability of the undiscussable also undiscussable.‖
or ship out. Those in the top category were referred to as ―water walkers‖ (Swartz and
Watkins, 2003). Those in the bottom category were given until their next review to improve.
In practice, however, with another 15 percent category emerging within six months
sufficient improvement was almost impossible, and they tended to leave quickly.
Furthermore, those in categories 2 and 3 were also now in a position where they too faced
the strong possibility of being ―yanked‖ within the next year. A cutthroat culture was
created. The overall, and distinctly cultic, impact is well summarised by Fusaro and Miller
(2003, p.52):
It is clear that Enron‘s management regarded kindness as a show of
weakness. The same rigors that Enron faced in the marketplace were
brought into the company in a way that destroyed morale and internal
cohesion. In the process of trying to quickly and efficiently separate from the
company those employees who were not carrying their weight, Enron created
an environment where employees were afraid to express their opinions or to
question unethical and potentially illegal business practices. Because the
rank-and-yank system was both arbitrary and subjective, it was easily used
by managers to reward blind loyalty and quash brewing dissent.
Ultimately, cults thrive on internal aggression. The punitive internal atmosphere reminds
members of the fate that awaits them should they dissent, or deliver performance below the
high goals set for them by the group‘s leaders. In addition, by keeping members fearful of
each other, their attention is further diverted from the behaviour of the group‘s leaders.
Within Enron, it appears that the tyrannization personified by the rank and yank system
unleashed what has been described, in other contexts, as the ―identification-with-the-
aggressor syndrome‖ (Kets de Vries, 2001). This postulates that, in order to feel safer,
those at the receiving end of aggression assume an aggressive posture themselves. They
move from being threatened to being threatening. The catch is that ―all they accomplish is
to become aggressors themselves, thus increasing the total organizational aggression‖ (Kets
de Vries, 2001, p.81). Intense criticism aimed at individuals stresses the imagined
weaknesses of the person at the receiving end rather than, for example, difficulties with the
wider organisation. The rank and yank system therefore pitted employees against each
other. It was clearly in every individual‘s interest that someone other than themselves
received a poor rating. This created a strong incentive to provide poor evaluations for others
while simultaneously seeking positive evaluations for oneself. Backroom deals, shifting
alliances and broken promises were the norm. It also provided an incentive to conformity,
and a disincentive to the articulation of dissenting voice. But there was no escaping the
relentless logic of the bottom line. Whatever they did, 15% of all employees would find
themselves in the lowest category twice a year, where they faced the daunting prospect of
being yanked.
Clearly, the switch from affirmation to punishment within Enron meant that employees
regularly received mixed messages. On the one hand, they were the cleverest and best in
the world – a form of positive reinforcement, or love bombing, that it would be hard to
better. On the other, they could be branded as ―losers‖ (a favourite term of abuse, for those
who fell at the PRC hurdle), and fired at any time. Consistent with general cultic norms, the
overall effect was disorientation, an erosion of one‘s confidence in one‘s own perceptions
and, most crucially, a further compliance with the group‘s leaders that strengthened
conformist behaviour in general. Thus, mixed messages within cults are a standard means
of projecting ―the illusion of choice‖ (Lalich, 2004, p.190), while actually intensifying control
by the group‘s leaders. Such messages also constrain topics of discussion, further
reinforcing conformist behaviours. As Werther (2003, p.569) expressed it, the ambiguities
and inconsistencies of mixed messages became undiscussable within Enron. But the
prevailing culture rendered ―the undiscussability of the undiscussable also undiscussable.‖
