Peter Emmerson

 1.3

Two well known examples of research into ‘yes-saying’ or what is often called compliance are the works of Milgram and Janis. However, their work tended to focus on formal situations where authority was clearly demarcated such as obeying instructions from more senior ranks or conformity to group pressure in the decision-making processes associated with governmental/company task groups. By looking at pseudo-positivity I want to examine a quieter, more informal and yet pervasive illustration of the authoritarian process, which prepares the ground for the giving of orders and the making of corporate decisions. An example concerns the use of pseudo-consultation as a tactic in the battle to obtain high levels of yes-saying and correspondingly, low levels of resistance. It relies on giving people the impression that they have been listened to. I have been witness to many of these exercises where managers give the impression that corporate objectives are being pursued in an open, reality-oriented (relatively detached) manner. At the time of writing those in the UK government trying to change the NHS may well be using this very tactic to deal with resistance to their plans. Practices of this sort con people into believing that their views are important and have been included in a decision-making process that has the appearance of subjecting managers’ proposals to critical appraisal. In fact such pseudo-consultations are merely exercises in compliance where any potential resistance is drained of its potency: opinions that differ from those of senior managers are comfortably ignored by being stigmatized as negative. Consequently, consultation is too often merely window dressing where the pseudo-positive prejudices of more senior managers are given formal approval by a process that just rubber stamps decisions already made.

Another indicator of pseudo-positivity, that often ‘interdepends’ with the activities of pseudo-positive, authoritarian managers is the use of clichéic language known as ‘management speak’. One contemporary illustration of this phenomenon that is exceptionally popular in these more authoritarian times is the word ‘challenging’. Only the other day Sir Michael Lyons, the out-going Chair of the BBC used ‘challenging’ liberally during an interview in a radio feedback programme. This morning, May 19^th, the word was used on the Today programme in connection with the problems facing the new incumbent, John Patten. From my experience, whenever people with authority (high social influence) use this word they are employing it to hide substantial levels of psychosocial discomfort at being confronted with demands from above that they feel are impossible to supply. Clichéic language seems particularly prevalent in public sector organisations such as the BBC which have, certainly since 1979, been under constant attack as over-comfortable parasites upon the tax-payer. When put under constant pressure to justify your existence, even when you excel, anyone will become defensive. The same can be said for process of educating people.