The Change-Dazed Manager

by Tim Havens, M.D.

Following are excerpts from the diary of George Stanton from September 9, 1991 through January 4, 1993. September 9, 1991 Who knows when you begin to notice that things have changed? This morning, when I looked back over my diary for the past year or so, the traces were there, but its really just this week that Ive been able to admit to myself that Sannas Pharmaceuticals is not the place it used to be. Now I wonder whether its still the place for me. Thats a tough question, especially after six years of building the company, working with Carl to help take it private, and then trying to pick up the same pace with Ralph when he stepped in as president last year. When Carl promoted me to vice president and director of risk management, I figured I was home. But it sure doesnt feel that way now. Ralph is a lot more aggressive than Carl ever was, and the business is really growing. But its not the same as it used to be. When I talked to Barbara about it at dinner this evening, she put her finger on it right away: Carl used to ask your opinion about a lot of things, George. You two were close. You just dont seem to have the same relationship with Ralph. Maybe thats it. September 22, 1991 He did it again. Yesterday Ralph changed some of the insurance cost numbers Id given him for a report to the board. When I mentioned it to him last time, he thanked me and said hed take care of it. But now the numbers are off by a much greater magnitude, and the numbers for his travel and entertainment are suspiciously low. The guys dishonest. Hes figured out how to maintain his cushy lifestyle without having to answer to anyone. Barbara said a supervisor pulled some fishy stuff like that at the bank once, but someone called attention to it, and the supervisor was canned. She thinks I should confront Ralph or report him to the board. But its not so simple when the supervisor is the CEO. If I say something, my career at Sannas is over. But, of course, if I dont speak up and the board finds out later, theyll think I was in on it. Either way I cant win. October 19, 1991 Lately, when I talk about possibly changing jobs, Barbara takes me seriously. Ive told her that Sannas is just not my kind of company anymore, and Ralph is not my kind of guy. She doesnt say much, but I can tell shes worried. She keeps reminding me that changing jobs probably means moving again, which means there goes her job at the bank, which she likes, our friends here in Cincinnati, the community, and all the ties that our kids have made. For the time being, Ill try to hang in there, but I have a feeling its just postponing the inevitable. December 20, 1991 They say that Christmas is the wrong time to change jobs, but I cant put it off any longer. This aint working, and it aint going to work. December 21, 1991 Last night, when I told Barbara I had made up my mind to leave Sannas, she blew up at me for the first time in a long time. I promised to do my best to find something in Cincinnati, but we both know thats pretty unlikely. She said shed go along with a move one last time, but this is it. She wont do it again once the kids start high school and she reestablishes her career. I cant say I blame her.

January 9, 1992 I made a phone call to a headhunter I know, and he said my timing couldnt be better. Apparently, theres a lot of change at Atwater-Jordan. I had never really thought of them, even though theyre financially strong, totally ethical, people oriented, and multinational. Theyve made a lot of acquisitions lately, but theyve been able to grow without becoming bureaucratic, I hear. I think I could adjust well to being in a big company, and the Raleigh-Durham area should appeal to Barbara and the kids. January 23, 1992 Im on a roll. My visit at Atwater-Jordan went better than I could have imagined. In just a day and a half, I met a squad of people, all great. Two really stand out: Harold Bloom, vice president, corporate finance, and Joan McCraw, financial VP for U.S. operations. In AJs new chain of command, Joan reports to Harold and Id report to Joan. I met Harold before I met Joan, and I liked him immediately. He reminded me of Carl, the same kind of honest, straight-from-the-shoulder approach. Friendly but completely professional. He said the shakeouts, reorganizations, and delays are behind them. Theyre filling a few key spots but dont expect any major reshuffling, and things are on the right track. Joan was pretty impressivehigh-powered, outspoken, expansive, high-energy. We talked for over an hour, mostly about her plans for the department. Shes very optimistic and excited about the new opportunities at AJ. She talked a lot about empowerment, collaboration, and mutual trust, all of which sounded good to me. At the end, she made a point of walking me around the office to show me the layout. I think she was genuinely interested in my experience at Sannas. February 9, 1992 Ive had several long phone calls with the folks in Raleigh, and it feels like were close to a deal. The other day, Joan sent me a pair of sunglasses in the mail with a note saying that I should get used to wearing thembecause the future looks so bright for you. February 15, 1992 The offer came today. Barbara asked me again if I was sure I wanted to do this, but she knew the answer. Barbaras great. She doesnt want to move, but shes doing it for me. I owe her big. May 11, 1992 The last three months have been a whirlwind, tying up the loose ends at Sannas, saying good-bye to friends, selling the house, buying a house, starting the new job. Its been chaotic, but things are falling into place. Barbara got a great job at one of the fastest growing banks in the area. Shell have more responsibility and more authority than before, and shes making more money. Im still learning the ropes at AJ and getting used to all the meetings and memos. Everybodys aiming for less formality and more teamwork, but it takes time. June 15, 1992 In April, Joan started having regular weekly meetings with me and two other direct reports. The idea was for everybody to bring along the most important information, so nobodys out of the loop. She keeps saying she wants people to feel free to bring things up at the meetings, but she always does all the talking. Today I tried to ask her for some background on a contract I was asked to help negotiate, but she kept brushing me off. June 19, 1992 I had lunch in the cafeteria with some people from the old guard. When I told them what I did, one guy said, Lucky you, George. Youre working for Phony Joanie. I hear shes been in rare form since

the restructuring. The other man said, Yeah, just what she neededone more reason to be uptight. The conversation left me with a bad taste in my mouth. June 28, 1992 Yesterday Joan pulled me into her office with two other people standing there and chewed me out for going to a meeting with Harold and not telling her about it. She says thats precisely the kind of thing she needs to be in the loop on. Dont ask me why. The real message is she wants to know what Im doing all the time. If I have any questions, Im supposed to ask her, even though she never gives me an answer. And if I have any ideas, Im supposed to go through her. Its not because Im relatively new; apparently, shes like that with everyone. At least Barbaras job is going well. The bank wants her to go on a fact-finding trip to some of the operations theyre thinking of taking over in other parts of the South. She says the bank is going gangbusters, and she loves it. Thank goodness, Barbara and the kids are happy here. September 5, 1992 Joan came back from her week off and started undoing all the work I did while she was away. She said she had to get back on top of things. Then she starts rattling off a series of memos, letters, and decision documents that Im supposed to read. Half the paper she sends me is irrelevant or just copies of letters to show me how important she is. Does she think I have nothing better to do with my time? September 16, 1992 Today Joan called Sheila Barry in marketing and said there was a problem with some projections I had prepared for them. The problem was that Joan hadnt seen them! When I found out, I lost it. I marched into Joans office and told her that she was pouring my time down the drain and damaging the credibility of the whole department. If she wanted to control everything, why had she bothered to hire me in the first place? The weird thing was, she actually seemed pleased by my little temper tantrum. She said sometimes people have to melt down before they can fuse, and she promised to try to back off. September 20, 1992 We had an interdepartmental meeting yesterday morning to go over new fiscal year numbers and programs. Afterward, Harold asked me to lunch. When he asked how things were going, I tried not to criticize Joan, but I did say something about how she needed to be involved with every aspect of the department. I couldnt believe how up-front Harold was. He said, We all know Joan has her problems. Shes talented and makes some terrific contributions here, but sometimes she tries too hard. Besides, shes been through a lot this year. She didnt think she was going to survive the cutbacks. But Im sure youve figured all this out. The way I see it, youve got the people skills Joan lacks, so Im sure you can handle her and keep her off other peoples backs. Thats a big contribution you can make. I was flattered, but I wondered how I was supposed to manage her. That afternoon, Joan asked me how my lunch went. I know she was fishing for me to tell her all about it, but of course I didnt. October 2, 1992 Every time I try to press Joan for information I need or try to defend my own decisions, she gives me these subtle and not so subtle digs, like excluding me from meetings or making snide remarks in front of other people. Why doesnt Harold get on Joans case? The more I think about it, the more it bugs me. I didnt take this job with the understanding that Id also be doing part of Harolds job.

October 10, 1992 What is it about this time of year anyway? Last fall, I was angry about Ralph. Now its Joan. This morning, she pulled me into her office to show me an article she wrote for a trade magazine. Guess what the subject was! Trust and empowerment. It was so hypocritical. I told her that I agreed with the points in the article but that I thought AJ was a good example of how hard it is for corporations to change. People at AJ may have her number, but, with an article like this, the outside world probably thinks shes enlightened. November 14, 1992 Joan still insists on seeing everything I do. She hasnt lightened up at all, and from what I can tell, she isnt going to. She treats everyone like a trainee, even people who have been in the department longer than she has. I dont know how they can stand it. Every time I confront her, she finds some way to get back at me by sticking herself in the middle of something else. November 15, 1992 Another sleepless night. Barbara asked me what was up, but she really doesnt want to hear me talk about it. Shes pretty quick to remind me that I said I could make things work at AJ. December 7, 1992 Unbelievable! Today I got a call from one of my best new vendors asking me what the deal was with Joan. Apparently, she had heard of a meeting involving the vendor, me, and two other financial people from here that she hadnt known about, and she called the vendor to complain about him being there! In a way, its more of the same, except that now shes affecting relationships outside the company. How can AJ afford to let her do this? Am I the only one who sees this as a Big Problem? January 4, 1993 I made a New Years resolution to solve the Joan problem. If only I knew where to start. Maybe Barbaras right, maybe I expect people to be more rational than they are. But then, things at AJ would be fine if Joan acted like a regular person. And everyone knows she doesnt. Plus, Harold has to take some blame. He knows the whole department is fouled up because of Joan, but he doesnt do anything about it. He wants the subordinatenamely, meto manage the supervisorJoan. Great. I wonder what he thinks hes getting paid for! Solve the problem? I guess I really dont know what the problem is. Is it Joan? Or is it Harold? Or is this whole company messed up? And why do I keep finding myself in situations that keep me up all night when everyone else seems at ease? Is there something wrong with me? Barbara has always said I see things in black and white, whereas she sees them as shades of gray. Ill have to tell her that, after 18 years of marriage, shes finally rubbing off on me. Its as if Im looking through her eyes when I think about work these days: nothing but gray in every direction as far as I can see.

Is George a victim of circumstance, or is he creating his own problems? Mitchell T. Rabkin, M.D., has been president and chief executive officer of Bostons Beth Israel Hospital, a major teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard Medical School, since 1966. The heart of this case is not whether George sees things in black and white in contrast to his wifes many shades of gray. Rather, it lies with the company. Atwater-Jordan has a problem defining and clarifying roles. Georges own role is ill-defined, and Harold, his ultimate boss, doesnt seem to

recognize the implications of Joans performance. His ideas about how to fix its deficiencies are naive, at best. Heres what the companys leaders dont seem to understand. Work is impersonal and can be defined in terms of quality, quantity, and timing. Accountability can and must be defined equally clearly. Each employees role must also be clearly defined. Employees must understand the arena of their responsibilities and the exact point at which they must seek approval from a higher authority. Conversely, supervisors need to know when their subordinates are making decisions within acceptable parameters, and they should not interfere with normal work flow. Without this clear definition, there is no way an organization can operate effectively and efficiently or maintain any semblance of good employee morale. It seems painfully apparent that these conditions were not met in Georges appointment at AtwaterJordan, and it follows that trouble was in the making from the start. If a person takes on a new role without its definitions stated clearly in writing and well understood, the situation is ripe for personalities to take over. Indeed, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to remedy any ensuing conflict short of replacing the people involved and hoping the new actors will perform better, even though theyre working with the same old script. Georges personality conflict with Joan may have surfaced even under the best organizational conditions, but, in this scenario, the company hasnt given either of them a way out. When our protagonist tried to express his problems with Joan to Harold, for example, Harold urged George to keep her off other peoples backs because he has the people skills Joan lacks. Handling a managers inadequate performance by asking a subordinate to manage upward and to bolster his or her immediate superior is off base in theory and will not succeed in practice. While a good manager may well learn from a good subordinate, and while many employees manage their bosses at some level of interaction, there is no way a subordinate can be held accountable for a managers performance. In responding to Georges concerns by offering the reassurance that he has the qualities to shape up his superior, Harold has set a course for disaster or, at best, for a continuation of the present pathology. This augurs another move for George and his wife, a move she may make less affably than the last and heunless hes very luckyequally unsuccessfully. Clear definitions of role and relationship, of autonomy and its limits, and of accountability are all critical. In a hospital setting, for example, a physician may feel that he or she is the nurses manager because the physician writes orders and the nurse carries them out. A doctor who believes this may object if a nurse questions an order, perceiving an assault on his or her boss status. Even if patient care is not directly compromised, an attitude like that hinders effective communication between care givers and ultimately affects the care given. If, on the other hand, a doctor understands that the nurse is accountable to a nurse manager for carrying out doctors orders, the possibility of such conflict is reduced. Because roles and responsibilities are more clearly delineated, the doctor should appreciate that the nurse, as a professional, is expected to question an order that doesnt seem appropriate. Reasonable dialogue will likely follow, and the issue will be resolved jointly. When such criteria are met, managers are also better able to review their employees performances without feeling they are attacking them personally. They can speak to them in terms of the work done and not done and about substance and timing. Similarly, managers who work with clear-cut criteria have an easier time identifying and commending superior performances. If this situation is representative, its likely that no one in this company really knows where he or she stands. As a result, beyond the likely general confusion, there is also, probably, marked inefficiency, mediocre to poor morale, and a relative incapacity for the organization to move forward in changing times.

As for George, if he doesnt understand how he got into this mess, he may well repeat the pathology in his next placement. I suggest he read Requisite Organization by Elliott Jaques and Executive Leadership by Elliott Jaques and Stephen D. Clement, both published by Cason Hall in 1989. They are not the easiest bedtime reading, but they are a lot easier than changing cities, jobs, and maybe even spouses. Michael A. Diamond is professor and chair of public administration at the College of Business and Public Administration at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is past president of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations. His book, The Unconscious Life of Organizations, was published in July 1993 by Greenwood Publishing Group. Many factors contribute to the problems in this case. First, Harolds company division is dominated by an implicit norm of conflict avoidance, and his own resigned attitude perpetuates this culture. He doesnt even attempt to hold Joan responsible when she mistreats her staff. Conflict avoidance at the top translates into ineffective management throughout the division. Moreover, if these behaviors proliferate in one division, chances are they are typical of the entire company. With Harold, a resigned person at the top, and Joan, an expansive type in the middle, a lot of damage could occur. But George is also part of the problem. Weve seen from his experiencesfirst at Sannas Pharmaceuticals and then at Atwater-Jordanthat he tends either to idealize or to despise the people he works for. He idealized Carl and then despised Ralph; he first idealized Harold and Joan and then came to despise them. His wife may be right when she says he views things in black and white, and thats something he should work on if he expects to get any satisfaction out of being an integral part of a large company. George also seems to have a problem with authority. After six years of working with Carl to build Sannas, he found himself workingfor Ralph, the new company president. The most important interpersonal relationship of his professional life had been altered in a way that made him disappointed and angry. Ralph, who is aggressive and apparently dishonest, was not a good match for George, who needs mutual respect and recognition in his relationship with his boss. But Georges self-effacing character discouraged him from either confronting Ralph or blowing the whistle on him. Georges identity with Sannas, as he saw it, had been damaged irreparably, and despite the anguish it would cause his family, he felt his only course was to change jobs. Based on his wifes response, it appears this was not the first time George had considered a move under such circumstances. At Atwater-Jordan, the cycle has begun again. Whatever Joans faults may be, George doesnt seem to be able to handle an environment in which he has to report to someone. When Joan chewed George out for going to a meeting with Harold and not telling her about it, George thought that meant Joan didnt want him to take any initiative. And, when Joan called Sheila Barry in marketing and said there was a problem with some projections George had prepared for them, it led to a confrontation between George and Joan. Once again, George felt disrespected and mistreated by his immediate superior, and his professional self-esteem was in jeopardy. George seems uncomfortable, even anxious, about having to depend on his boss, who, in this instance, doesnt seem to appreciate his talent and skills. And failing to get immediate action from Harold, his reaction, once again, is to contemplate a move. George needs to take a good look at his own behavior and feelings and see if he can identify the kind of work environment that will suit his personality. Maybe he would be better off heading his own small company. Certainly, if he plans to continue working in large organizations, he should find some way to deal with the many personalities he is likely to encounter.

That said, Georges annoyance with Harold and Joan is probably legitimate. And, aided by Barbara, he may be reaching a stage in his personal development where he is beginning to be more accepting of imperfections in people and organizations. There is something depressive about the way George resigns himself to the flaws and inadequacies of Atwater-Jordan, a sense of powerlessness as well as acceptance of an irreconcilable problem. But, in the final analysis, his depression and midlife transition may help him to accept the circumstances and adapt better to the human constraints and limitations of his company. It is unlikely, however, that any significant change will occur at Atwater-Jordan under the present leadership. It looks like nothing short of a crisis will move this particular organization to reexamine its leadership and culture. Linda R. Greenbury is a womens career counselor and expert on partner relocation, author of Portable CareersSurviving Your Partners Relocation (Kogan Page, 1992), and coauthor with A. G. Munton of Job RelocationManaging People on the Move(John Wiley, 1992). Todays dual-career couples face a number of complex relocation dilemmas, and George and Barbara Stanton are no exception. Moving has affected not only their careers but also their social and economic lives. Relocation takes a toll on personal effectiveness, family ties, friendships, and community and support networks. And transfers are especially disruptive for working spouses because the trailing partner must plan his or her next career move in a vacuum, sacrificing employment continuity and, possibly, promotion opportunities. Financial independence, business contacts, lifestyle stability, and control are all, at least temporarily, at risk. There is no magic solution to the Stantons dilemma. As a couple, George and Barbara have not established clear career priorities, nor do they have a joint decision-making process. Both need to develop individual and joint employment plans that are more flexible, equitable, and portable. In particular, they need to communicate more effectively with each other. Before making a move, many couples find it helpful to draw up a balance sheet of individual goals and aspirations, work and home commitments, compromise possibilities, and mutual action plans. These are matters that each pair must decide for themselves, and if the individuals find they are not able to negotiate without conflict and accusations, then they need professional help. As Suzan Lewis and Cary L. Cooper suggest in their book Career Couples (Unwin Hyman, 1988), it is much healthier for couples to control their own careers than to follow routes prescribed by organizations. The last time relocation was in the air for this couple, the move was more or less imposed on Barbara. All too often, organizations, relocation personnel, and the person initiating the move overlook a partners needs. Barbaras lack of enthusiasm was virtually guaranteed when George visited the new surroundings alone and made all the decisions. She said that it would be her last move, and now, with George restless again, she may dig in her heels and stand by her words. Who could blame her? Furthermore, since Barbaras job is going so well, this could be the right time for George to become the trailing spouse. He should consider taking a specialist course, going to graduate school, or changing career tracks completely. Charles Handy in The Age of Unreason (Harvard Business School Press, 1990) suggests that, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, full-time jobs and continuous careers will be rare. Recent research strongly indicates that multiple careers will continue to proliferate in the 1990s and beyond. George should take that into account. Or, if its financially feasible, maybe he could volunteer his expertise to a nonprofit organization for a while. Perhaps he is aching to write a booknow is his chance.

If George is determined to seek another post, he should try to find one in the same area or at least nearby. Alternatively, the couple could consider a commuter marriage. Many couples view living apart some of the time due to careers as difficult, but it may work for this couple. George could also consider pursuing a flexible work option, such as freelancing, contract work, consultancy, job sharing, or telecommuting. And what about George and Barbaras respective companies? Too many employers believe that relocation is simply a work issue attached to an attractive financial package. They argue that intruding into the soft side of job mobility is an unwarranted interference in their employees personal lives. A survey of spouses and partners on domestic and international assignments conducted jointly by Organization Resources Counsellors, Inc. and the Confederation of British Industries Employee Relocation Council (CBIERC) found that although many respondents felt that working-spouse issues were an inhibiting factor in relocation, very few companies offered formal employment-assistance programs for spouses. Such attitudes are outdated and unfair. Whats more, they affect a corporations image. About six years ago, Marks & Spencer changed its domestic-transfer policy from a system in which senior management decided who moved where to one in which all management vacancies are advertised and employees themselves decide whether to apply. By offering such choice the company has substantially reduced relocation resistance and introduced a welcome family orientation to transfer decisions. Recent research by Nicholas Forster and Anthony Munton at the University of Sheffield reiterates the need for job transfers that organizations initiate to be based on encouragement rather than coercion. The authors monitored over 200 employees and their families through the relocation process and developed corporate guidelines to facilitate the experience. Their recommendations include giving employees a minimum of 11 weeks notice of relocation, offering assistance programs that respond to individual needs, providing easy access to information and the people involved with the transfer, and, most important, making sure employees feel involved personally in the whole process. One final note on the Stantons. I doubt if Georges company will remain satisfied with his performance. Arent his supervisors wondering why their relocation investment seems to be having adjustment problems? And Barbaras stellar performance at her new job is unlikely to continue, given her stress. Soon her bosses may start asking about her job commitment. Joint 1991 research on stress and international mobility by University College London and the CBI-ERC places loss of spouses career as one of the most stressful mobility events. Damaged family relationships are recognized widely as affecting work performance, and spouses concerns are known to be prominent reasons for relocation failure. But the couple cant expect their companies to be corporate nursemaids. Relocation costs are immense, and I suspect few organizations would rush to return this couple to Cincinnati or move them to another area soon. The responsibility for this decision must remain with George and Barbara. With guidance, support, and common sense, I believe they can make it. Mary Ann Palmer is director of organization development for Capital Holding Corporations Accumulation and Investment Group in Louisville, Kentucky, where she also works in the areas of team building and executive development. George Stanton refuses to take responsibility for managing his own career. Everyone must learn to manage change, whether it involves a new company, position, location, or outlook. And successful professionals anticipate and manage such changes; they dont act like the victims of circumstance.

Even Georges earliest journal entries seem to imply that someone other than George is in charge of his destiny. Of course, when he worked for Carl, this passive approach didnt hurt. George relied on Carl to guide his professional development, and Carl worked well with him, even promoting him to vice president of risk management. But when Ralph joined Sannas, Georges passive attitude quickly got him in trouble. Its obvious from his comments about Ralph that Georges expectations were no longer being met. But did George ever know what those expectations were? Did he define and clarify them with Ralph? Did he discuss his goals, negotiate responsibilities, anticipate problems, try to come to an understanding? Was he willing to stand up to Ralph when he found reason to question Ralphs integrity? No. Instead, George opted to leave the company. What if, instead of leaving, George had tried to assess his own responsibility in his failed relationship with Ralph? What if George had tried to pinpoint what he would have to do to make things right, rather than feeling that his unhappiness was the companys fault? Eventually, he may still have left Sannas, but at least his self-perception would have been positive, not riddled with self-doubt. Unfortunately, it seems that George has never taken the time to assess what he wants from his career, let alone what is important to him and his family. Obviously, all he saw before leaving Sannas was a picture of himself and his life that he didnt like. He figured that if he moved on, he could start with a clean slate, despite the fact that he is the same person, with the same attitudes, personality quirks, strengths, and weaknesses. What a terrible way to start a new job. George knew that Atwater-Jordan had suffered a recent shakeout, yet he eagerly accepted Joans pronouncement that the future was so bright, hed need sunglasses. Ugh! Quite simply, George didnt do his homework. He may have listened to Harold and Joans portrayal of life at AJ, but he didnt get a true picture. George should have had frank conversations with other AJ senior managers about the upheaval. He should have talked to other industry players. Harold and Joan told George all the things he wanted to hear, and, essentially, George allowed these two strangers to manage his life and the lives of his wife and children. By moving under those circumstances, George condemned himself to repeat the mistakes hed made in the past. A mere five months in, the same feelings are surfacing that led him to leave Sannas. But this time, Barbara and his children may not accommodate a move. Also, changing jobs this quickly may do his career irreparable damage. The Author Responds The challenge for managers is to view situations from several perspectives at the same time. In writing this case, I tried to illustrate the complexity of corporate life today by including personality conflicts, issues of organizational structure, and the stresses of a dual-career marriage. Many of these issues become problematic at times of significant organizational change, a phenomenon that is becoming the norm in the 1990s. Each commentator focuses on one or another of these issues and explores it in depth. The challenge for managers is to view situations from all those perspectives at the same time. Every one is relevant, and its the managers task to integrate all points of view and make the best decisions. Personal and organizational change is challenging for all levels of management. In corporate life, it intensifies a natural need for organizational structure, clarity, and accountability. If that need is not met adequately, people tend to act predominantly on their own unconscious or unspoken

expectations about their jobsoften drawing on past relationships that fulfilled those needs. George, for instance, began to dwell on his desire for the kind of working relationship he had had with Carl at Sannas. To keep individual employees and the corporation as a whole functioning well, managers must be able to define roles and expectations clearly. They must also be attuned to what motivates each person to contribute his or her best to the organization. Managers must also become more aware of their own psychological needs, for several reasons. For one thing, doing so can lead to greater job satisfaction. George knew what he required of a job technically, but he did not stop to consider precisely what kinds of working relationships would satisfy his psychological needs. For another, such awareness permits a manager to identify and focus without distraction on the problems others may have regarding roles and accountability. George perceived that Harold was shirking his role by not holding Joan accountable for her performance. But instead of talking with Harold about it and pushing him to accept responsibility, George let his own inhibitions get in the way and spoke only to his own diary. Finally, managers must often adapt to change themselves while simultaneously helping others in the organization. If they do not understand their own needs, they will have limited ability to offer valuable guidance to subordinates. Neither Harold Bloom nor Joan McCraw dealt with the aftermath of sweeping organizational change. Their own denial inhibits their subordinates ability to rebound. It also contributes to their lack of understanding of what motivates George and other managers. Without that understanding, Harold and Joan cannot set the appropriate context for role expectations. George is a valuable employee; Atwater-Jordan is a successful company. Yet, as several commentators emphasize, misjudgments can lead to individual and corporate dysfunction and paralysis. Corporations function better if they are led by managers who develop the capacity to understand both the individual and the organizational forces that exist in the world of work. Georges question in his last diary entry, Is there something wrong with me?, is the first indication that he may be ready to address the real issue. He must take responsibility for assuring his own job satisfaction and managing the inevitable changes he will face as a professional in todays workplace. Let the real work of self-exploration and self-understanding and acceptance begin. George doesnt need a new job. He needs new self-understanding. Tim Havens, M.D., lectures to business and professional organizations and consults with senior managers concerning issues of effective leadership during periods of significant change. He is a practicing psychiatrist, a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and senior consultant at the Levinson Institute in Waltham, Massachusetts.