kdag wrote:

As I do, I am looking for motive here. Would the possible motive be "collateral," to keep people in line? It seems to me that maybe, after people have shared this stuff, they would later regret doing so. It might feel to them as if it is hanging over their heads. Now the company "has something" on them. If they later discover other unethical practices by the company, many would be reluctant to report these, for fear of retaliation.

I can imagine lots of motives, one of which is a desire on the part of ineffectual people to 'feel' in control.

I think that, generally, when you see this kind of blithe disregard for labor law, you can assume that other laws are being ignored as well, so, yes, it would be handy to be able to intimidate or discredit anyone who came forward to blow whistles.

What concerns me is that certain practices of intimidate and coercion can quite easily make their way into performance management systems. It is a fine line between providing an employee with constructive feedback, and stripping him/her of dignity.

corboy,

I am going to throw something into the mix, here, and I ask readers to take it for what it is worth.

I have been frequently disturbed by some techniques I have seen utilized in OD (Organization Development) interventions. The generally relate to top down decisions made to change organizational behavior. Best practice OD would have such decisions being made unilaterally or with full knowledge of organization stakeholders. We call this "doing things to people" as opposed to "doing things with people".

I have also seen management and/or external facilitators impose their values and their agendas on employee populations. (Note, this may be more apparent in Japan-based organizations, in which global initiatives are imposed.)

So, maybe, you can see this as a form of manipulation, and w/o consent.

I will now drop the bomb. A few months ago I asked a Japanese OD scholar, and prominent academic who has studied the history of OD and its application in various contexts, if: OD = communism? I expected a guffah as his response, but he said, "...in certain minds, yes."

Will leave you to ponder that statement, as I am continuing to ponder it.

bakkagirl

Based on corboy's reference materials, am going to suggest that you do not need something called LGAT to effect thought reform. Any team can work pretty well: corporate leadership team, community organization, service group, business network, academic body.

In retrospect, I first saw LGAT techniques used by facilitators tasked with gaining consensus of a global network of small business owner to agree to the selling of THEIR network, and all of the know-how, and business relationships jointly utilized within it to a multinational. The entailed creating the illusion of free choice, the illusion of concerns being aired. Once a critical mass were 'on-board' the facilitator used group dynamics to coerce a consensus.

I would suggest that corporate teams are also highly subject to manipulation.

My own experience of thought reform (corporate environment).

A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.

(Sense of inscrutable levels of control within a relatively small organization. Sense that information provided by local management was not the whole story. Sense that some people were 'in the know' and some were not. Impossible tasks, impossible learning curves.)

2. An initial reaction of "surprise."

("I cannot believe you didn't spend the weekend memorizing [a 27 page script]!!!")

3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.

(Standards of performance forever changing. Success is failure. Failure is success.)

4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.

(Interrogator or boss is arbitrator of performance and success. Interrogator/boss restricts contact with other parts of the organization, serves as information conduit, and reality constructor.)

5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.

(Many colleagues said they thought they were losing their minds.)

6. Feelings of guilt.

(For me, more like what dogs must have felt in learned helplessness experiments.)

7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.

(This was the gaslighting thing -- principles of good business practice, ethical administration of services were completely flipped on their heads. Alice and Wonderland world.)

8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.

(I witnessed two bona fide breakdowns.)

9. A need to defend his acquired principles.

(I felt the need to reality check the Alice and Wonderland world with external parties).

10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).

(Didn't happen in my case, but note this experience still occupies too much space in my head).

...

His complaints fall on deaf ears.

(Many took their complaints to the top of the food chain. Haphazard investigation, no follow-up.)


Everything that happens to him occurs according to an impersonal; timeschedule that has nothing to do with his needs.

(YES, YES, YES, an entire organization had reset its working hours to accommodate distance management.)

///

More to follow -- any team will do.

bakkagirl

I think it could involve 'collateral'...real personal information that could render the partner vulnerable.

It could also be about the creation of FAKE intimacy, and FAKE trust. I showed you mine, you show me your's.

Highly manipulative.

I have to say...and, you won't like it, but, people who voluntarily attend 3-day workshops in search of experiencing DEEPER MEANING in any aspect of anything...are prime targets.

Please join my cult, I can accomplish same in FOUR DAYS...

As we say in Japan, I can deliver better "cost performance"...just kidding, of course.

bakkagirl

bakka - mailbox...