Original Article

This paper characterizes the reactions of superiors in social systems to a reform-minded subordinate as a series of intimidation
rituals. Each successive "ritual of control": represents an escalation in the efforts of authority to discourage an individual (and
those who may support him or her) from continuing to seek reform.

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT'S MECHANISM OF CONTROL

The rituals of intimidation satisfy the two primary concerns of authorities confronted by a subordinate who appears not only
able to articulate the grievances of a significant number of other system members but also capable of proposing solutions to
them. Their first concern is, of course, to control the reformer so that he does not succeed in recruiting support. Their other
concern is to exercise this control in ways that absolve them of any wrongdoing in the matter. The individual in question must
be controlled in such a way that he neither continues to be an effective spokesman nor becomes a martyr. When superiors are
confronted with a reform-minded subordinate, they want his silence or his absence, whichever is easier to achieve. The
"authorities" must also preserve their carefully managed image of reasonableness, and would prefer that the reformer leave
voluntarily rather than be removed officially.

For purposes of illustration, this presentation will describe intimidation rituals used by various organizations in the service of
protest-suppression, for organizational authorities prefer to intimidate a reform-minded individual rather than commit
organizational energy to the structural and personal changes required to transform a "nonconforming enclave" into a legitimate
subunit(1). It is further suggested that an organization undergoes major changes that incorporate and accommodate a group of
dissidents only when the indimidation rituals do not succeed in silencing the individuals who constitute the "leading edges" of the
reform movement.

In the discussion that follows, I will be concerned primarily with the reformer who emerges from the lower hierarchy in an
organization and challenges the middle hierarchy. A reformer threatens middle management in three distinctly different ways.
The first threat is a function of the validity of his accusations about the inadequacy of specific actions of middle-level members
and his suggestions for correcting them. If the reformer is correct, those in the middle will fear that those at the top will punish
them when they discover the truth. The second threat comes from the moral challenge presented by such a reformer, for his
demand for action will reveal the strength or weakness of middle management's commitment to the organization. And thirdly,
the reformer's challenge may indicate to people at the top that middle management is unable to maintain order in its own
jurisdiction. To protect their interests, middle-level bureaucrats therefore feel their only defense against reform-minded
subordinates is intimidation(2).

The rituals of intimidation involve two phases: Indirect Intimidation, which has two steps, nullification and isolation; and Direct
Intimidation, which also comprises two steps, defamation and expulsion.

PHASE I: INDIRECT INTIMIDATION

Step 1: Nullification

When a reformer first approaches his immediate superiors, they will assure him that his accusations or suggestions are
invalid--the result of misunderstandings and misperceptions on his part. His superiors, in this phase, hope that the reformer will
be so awed by authority that he will simply take their word that his initiative is based on error. If, however, the reformer insists,
his superiors will often agree to conduct an "investigation." The results of such an investigation will convince the reformer that
his accusations are groundless and that his suggestions for enhancing organizational effectiveness or revising organizational
goals have been duly noted by the appropriate authorities.

Bureaucratic justification for this response usually rests on the argument that this method copes with the system's "crackpots"
and "hotheads," discouraging them from disturbing the smooth, routine functioning of the organization with their crazy ideas
and their personal feuds. But middle management also uses these rituals of nullification to handle a potentially explosive (for
them and others in the organization) situation quickly and quietly, in order to prevent unfavorable publicity, maintain the
organization's state of pluralistic ignorance, and prevent the development of a sympathetic and concerned audience for the
reformer's ideas. The explicit message is: "You don't know what you're talking about, but thank you anyway for telling us. We'll
certainly look into the matter for you." Members of the middle hierarchy then proceed to cover up whatever embarrassing (for
them) truth exists in the reformer's arguments.

The protest-absorption power of the ritual of nullification derives from an element inherent in bureaucracies: the
always-attractive opportunity to avoid personal responsi-bility for one's actions. Thus, if people attempt reform at all, they
generally do not proceed beyond the first ritual, which is a process designed to quash the reformer and allow his superiors to
reaffirm the collective wisdom of the organization, while clearing their consciences of wrongdoing. Nullification even gets the
would-be reformer off the hook--and he may remain grateful to the organization for this added convenience. This shedding of
personal responsibility allows the reformer and the authorities alike to compromise in the belief that although it might not be a
perfect organizational world, it is nevertheless a self-correcting one.

Repeated exposure to the nullification ritual (the "beating your head against the wall" phenomenon") is expected to convince any
sane organizational member that a reformist voice or presence is unwelcome. He is expected to take the hint and stop pestering
his superiors with his misguided opinions. Gestures of generosity on the part of the middle hierarchy are not unusual if he
decides to leave the organization--and such concern is usually expressed by offering to help the individual find employment
opportunities elsewhere.

Step 2: Isolation

If the reformer persists in his efforts, middle management will separate him from his peers, subordinates, and superiors, thereby
softening his impact on the organization and making it extremely difficult for him to mobilize any support for his position.

Middle managers argue that these procedures represent the exercise of their rights of office in the service of protecting the
organization. But these attempts to isolate the reformer can also be seen as a show of force, as a way of reassuring their own
superiors (if they are paying attention), their subordinates, and perhaps themselves that they can maintain order in their own
jurisdiction.

Attempts at isolating the reformer include closing his communication links, restricting his freedom of movement, and reducing
his allocation of organization resources. If these do not neutralize the reformer, he will be transferred to a less visible position in
the organization. In these rituals, the bureaucratic message is: "If you insist on talking about things which you do not
understand, then we will have to prevent you from bothering other people with your nonsense."

Systematic unresponsiveness to a reformer's criticism and suggestions is a particularly interesting form of isolation. This lack of
response is meant to convince the reformer of the invalidity of his position; but if he presses his right to be heard, it may be used
to create a feeling of such impotence that the reformer overreacts in order to elicit a response from his superiors. This
overreaction may then be used to demonstrate the reformer's psychological imperfections.

When subjected to organizational isolation, most people come to see the error of their ways or the handwriting on the wall. When
an individual learns that there is still time to mend his ways, he usually steps back in line and becomes a silent participant in
the organization. When he realizes his career in the organization is at a standstill, he may decide to leave as gracefully as
possible while he can still leave under his own steam. Middle managers closest to him then often offer him assistance in finding a
new job, with the assurance that "we only want what is best for you."

Most forms of isolation are designed to persuade the reformer of the futility of trying to initiate change until such time as he is
instructed by his superiors to concern himself with change. The reformer practically guarantees his defeat if he reacts to
systematic organizational unresponsiveness by confronting his superiors in ways that violate policy or law. The temptation to
confront administrative unresponsiveness in dramatic and often self-defeating ways stems in large part from the intense
frustration induced by the reformer's belief that systematic unresponsiveness violates his basic rights of freedom of expression
and carries with it the implication that he is personally ineffectual (Turner, 1973). Administrative unresponsiveness to what
the reformer believes are crucial issues both for himself and for the organization may be sufficiently frustrating to compel him to
act, however rashly, in order to clarify the situation. From the administration's point of view, this can be seen as "flushing the
rebels out into the open," "giving them enough rope to hang themselves," or, more formally, deviance-heresy conversion
(Harshbarger, 1973).

PHASE II: DIRECT INTIMIDATION

Step 3: Defamation

Should the reformer refuse to remain silent, and instead mobilizes support for his position, middle management will begin to
impugn his character and his motives. "when legitimate techniques fail--the middle hierarchy might resort to illegitimate or
non-legitimate ones" (Leeds, 1964, p. 126). Middle managers will often distort events or even fabricate instances of misconduct
in order to intimidate not only the reformer but also those who would listen to or believe him.

Defamation attempts to cut the reformer off from a potentially sympathetic following by attributing his attempts at reform to
questionable motives, underlying psychopathology, or gross incompetence. This three-pronged attack is meant to blackmail the
reformer into submission and to transform a sympathetic following into a mistrustful crowd of onlookers or an angry mob that
feels resentful at having been deceived by the reformer.

From the vantage point of the reformer, the Kafkaesque or Alice-in-Wonderland quality of the rituals of intimidation becomes
particularly evident at this time. The reformer finds himself faced with charges which only he and his accusers know are either
false or irrelevant in relation to the value of his reform initiatives. The reformer is in a double bind. His superiors will use their
offices and positions of trust and responsibility to create the impression in the minds of others in the organization that their
accusations of incompetence, self-interest, or psychopathology are true. If the reformer continues in the face of these accusations,
he risks being viewed as power-hungry or irrational. If he allows himself to be intimidated by the threat of lies, he allows his
superiors to win by default.

One tactic of the superior is to accuse the reformer of acting out his Oedipal conflicts. Such a personalization of a subordinate's
reform efforts (especially a younger subordinate) permits his superior to present himself as a harassed "father" faced with a
troubled "son," and blocks any examination of his conduct that might reveal provocation on his part. In this way the bureaucrat
hopes to persuade others in the organization to respond to the reformer as a sick person in need of therapy or as a child in need to
nurturing--a stance that allows him to take on the role of "good father" in relation to other subordinates and to the reformer, if
and when the latter capitulates and admits his need for help and guidance.

Rituals of defamation are undertaken by superiors in order to focus attention away from themselves and onto the reformer. The
superiors hope that by casting enough doubt on the motives, intentions, and personality of the reformer, enough people in the
organization will think that "where there is smoke, there must be fire." The message of this ritual is: "Don't listen to him (his
message) because you can't trust a person like him."

Like the rituals of nullification and isolation, the ritual of defamation is both an end in itself and a preliminary to the final ritual
of expulsion. The superiors hope by threatening to destroy the reformer's reputation and his character, he will retreat into
silence and passivity or leave the organization for greener pastures; if, however, the reformer continues his efforts, his superiors
have laid the groundwork for his expulsion.

If the ritual of defamation is undertaken, its target is usually indeed a reformer and not simply a nonconformist or a deviant. His
superiors would not need to engage in public tactics of intimidation if there were no substance to his challenge. It is precisely the
validity of his reform initiatives that leads his superiors to attempt to destroy his credibility. If this destruction of the reformer's
credibility with his peers, subordinates, and top management is effectively conducted, others in the organization will desert his
cause and he can be dismissed easily as an undesirable member of the intact organizational team.

Step 4: Expulsion

When neither nullification, isolation, nor defamation can silence the reformer or force his "voluntary withdrawal" from the
organization, the middle hierarchy seeks an official decision for his dismissal.

If successful, at least three aims may be achieved thereby. Obviously, by expelling the reformer, his superiors will cut him off
from any actual or potential following and weaken any opposition to their authority. An official dismissal also serves as a
warning to other budding reformers that middle management has the necessary power and authority to expel troublemakers.
Finally, the act of expulsion--a verdict of unfitness--supports the contention that the reformer is an immoral or irrational person.

Of course, the middle hierarchy would prefer the reformer to withdraw voluntarily. Managers want to avoid the public and
formal proceedings that often accompany an official request for dismissal of an employee, for the accuser (superior) can often
then be scrutinized as carefully as the accused, if the accused person wishes to avail himself of the opportunity. The expulsion
ritual involves the formal submission of evidence, the keeping of records, the establishment of independent investigative bodies,
and the right of cross-examination, which all function to threaten the image of managers as reasonable, honest, and
hardworking servants of the organization. Formal dismissal proceedings are also avoided by middle management because in
some fundamental sense they imply that the organization has failed and that they, in particular, have shown themselves
unable to maintain order.

THE RITUAL CYCLE ABSORBS AND DESTROYS

Indirect Intimidation attempts to absorb the accusations and suggestions of the reformer, first by depriving him of effectiveness
or validity, then by treating him as if he were an "invisible person." The object here is to define the reformer as "harmless." It also
attempts to absorb protest by psychologically and physically exhausting the reformer so that he comes to doubt his own
experience of reality, his abilities to accomplish the task he sets for himself, and its significance. The authorities hope that the
reformer will come to believe the task he has set for himself is humanly impossible and that his fatigue and confusion are the
result of his inability to accept human nature for what it is. Short of this, they hope that the reformer will come to feel so
inadequate that he will be grateful for continued employment by the organization, in any capacity. ("You're welcome to stay
aboard as long as you don't rock the boat.")

Direct Intimidation attempts to destroy protest through destruction of the character of the reformer (defamation) or, if
necessary, of his position in the organization (expulsion). Direct Intimidation represents middle management's active attempt to
destroy the reformer as a source of legitimate grievances and suggestions and to terrorize, if necessary, other organizational
members. Successful rituals of defamation create a "bad" person, enabling the "good" organization to close ranks once again and
benefit from the curative properties of solidarity when he is cast out of the system. In this sense, the ritual destruction of the
person (Garfinkel, 1956) necessarily precedes the destruction of his place in the organization

In sum, Figure I portrays the specific cycles of intimidation rituals. Cycle 1 is most preferred by all organizations, while Cycle 4
is the least preferred. Cycle 2 is preferred to Cycle 3.*Unfortunately we were unable to reproduce Figure 1 in this online version
of the article. If you would like to see Figure 1 you can access the article at Sage Publications as the web address indicated at the
top of the webpage.

THE REFORMER IMAGE

Throughout this discussion, the individual subjected to the rituals of intimidation has been referred to as the reformer, a generic
term for any organizational member who resorts to voice rather than to avoidance when faced with what he regards as a
situation of organizational deterioration or imperfection. Voice is defined as

. . . any attempt at all to change, rather than escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or
collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention of forcing a
change in management, or through various types of actions and protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public
opinion (Hirschman, 1970, p. 30).

Therefore, in the sense in which it is being used here, "reformer" includes the various meanings contained in such labels as
"internal muckraker" or "pure whistle-blower" (Peters & Branch, 1972), "innovator in innovation-resisting organizations"
(Shepard, 1969), "crusader for corporate responsibility" (Heilbroner, 1972), "nonconforming individual" (Etzioni, 1961; Leeds,
1964), and "heretic" (Harshbarger, 1973); but it is not intended to include the various meanings inherent in the term
"organizational change agent."(3) Thus "reformer" refers to any member who acts, in any way and for any reason, to alter the
structure and functioning of the organization, when he has not been formally delegated authority to institute change.

Why Intimidation Works

From this definition we can see that it is the organization which has the power to define the "reformer" as such, and attaches the
stigma to many a well-meaning individual who does not see himself in a protest role. It is often the case that a potential reformer
initially thinks of himself or herself only as a hard-working and loyal member of the organization who is simply trying to make
things "better" and wishes to be "undertood" by busy but well-meaning superiors. However, by the time authorities begin the
rituals of defamation, the most naïve individual usually realizes that, at least in the eyes of his superiors, he poses a threat to the
established order (Herbert, 1972).

The inside reformer is vulnerable to all the intimidation rituals that his particular organization has at its disposal. The reformer
outside an organization is usually vulnerable only to the rituals of nullification, isolation (in the form of systematic
unresponsiveness), and defamation, unless the organization he is challenging is able to pressure the parent organization into
doing the intimidating for it (McCarry, 1972).

Authorities in formal organizations are rarely directly challenged by subordinates. As in the Hans Christian Andersen tale, most
individuals do not presume to stand in public judgment of their organizational superiors. Belief in the wisdom and power of the
people at the top serves to keep most individuals silent about their grievances concerning the status quo and their ideas (if they
have any) for enhancing organizational effectiveness or revising organizational goals. Subordinates do not generally demand, as
part of their organizational contractual arrangements, the power to hold their superiors accountable for actions in direct and
continuing ways. So intimidation rituals are held to be a last resort--reserved for organizational members who resist, for
whatever reason, the usual mechanisms of social control (Millham, Bullock, & Cherrett, 1972).

In their discussion of the obstacles to whistle-blowing, Peters and Branch (1972) include the "loyal-member-of-the-team" trap,
the feeling that "going public" is unseemly and embarrassing, and the fear of current and future job vulnerability. Thomson
(1968) and Peters and Branch (1972) also refer to the subconscious accommodative device of the "effectiveness trap," an
organizational argument that permits its members to avoid conflict on an immediate issue in order to ensure "effectiveness" on
some more important issue, at some future time. The curator mentality and emotional detachment generated by the
bureaucratic role; the tendency to resort to wishful thinking that organizational deterioration and the consequences of bad
policy must soon stop simply because they cannot go on; and the fear that one disagrees with a particular exercise of power only
because one is too weak to handle it further contribute to inaction on the part of most "loyal" organizational members (Thomson,
1968).

Reformer as Bad Guy

In point of fact, the protest-absorbing and protest-destroying power of intimidation rituals derives, in large measure, from their
infrequent use by organizations. Conversely, if more members were willing to turn their various dissatisfactions into reformist
activities, intimidation rituals would lose much of their power.

To understand the effectiveness of organizational intimidation one must examine the reasons why peers and subordinates
usually fail to support the reformer, withdraw support, or even actively resist his efforts. Their passive or active resistance may
indicate an increased desire or struggle for an organization's scarce resources (material benefits or status, power or prestige--or
even dependency). It may also indicate that they perceive themselves as cast in an unfavorable light by the reformer's
enthusiasm and heightened activities in pursuing present or changed organizational goals. Members of the organization may
secretly believe that the reformer's efforts will be successful, and fear its implications for their position in the organization. If the
reformer is successful in convincing top management to investigate the organizational "engine," many may fear that close
scrutiny of the performance of the parts will find them wanting. On the other hand, on the outside chance that the reformer
manages to seize the reins of power, peers and subordinates may fear that if they do not match his zeal in pursuing new as well as
old organizational goals he will turn them out of their present positions.

It frequently seems that practically everyone except the reformer has a personal stake in preserving the complicated fantasy of
the organization, even though conditions in the organization are in fact unsatisfying to all but a few elite members. Bion (1959)
has described a similar situation in therapy groups where members engage in a variety of neurotic attempts to resist and
discourage changing the structure and functioning of a group that is obviously less than fully satisfying. It seems likely, then,
that subordinates in an organization actively or passively resist a peer's reform initiatives because the pain of the status quo is
less intense than their fear of the unknown.

In general, the reformer finds himself initially with little or no support because there is an implicit acceptance of the
bureaucratic order in our society (Wilcox, 1968) and because most people find it difficult and improper to question the actions of
authority (Milgram, 1965; Peters & Branch, 1972). There is also the well-ingrained reflex of flight in the face of crisis and
change, which has characterized North American society since its colonial days (Hartz, 1955; Hirschman, 1970; Slater, 1970).

Most organizational members do not support the reformer at all, or they desert him at the first opportunity because they believe
he will lose in his struggle with institutional authority--and they want to be on the winning side. Moreover, as Walzer (1969)
has pointed out, most people accept nondemocratic organizational conditions on the basis of the argument of tacit consent and
withhold or withdraw support from the reformer, saying that he is free to go someplace else if he does not like it where he is.

Peers and subordinates may also resist a reformer because they suspect that he is committing the unforgivable sin of pride
(Slater, 1963). They may come to believe that in taking it upon himself to judge the organization and its leaders he is acting in a
self-righteous manner (Peters & Branch, 1972). Those who wish to desert the reformer on this ground often use as supporting
data the reformer's persistent efforts in the face of the rituals of defamation.

Since the reformers departure is usually associated with an immediate reduction or elimination of overt conflict, which in turn
relieves tension in the organization, members can wrap themselves in the organizational blanket and tell themselves that he
was the source of the problem all along. When the emotional ruckus dies down, most members therefore experience a heightened
commitment to the organization and return to their jobs with a renewed vigor. For those organizational members who continue
to harbor some doubt about the reformer's guilt, the fear of retaliation against "sympathizers" usually dampens their enthusiasm
for the reformer's cause and suppresses all but ritualistic expressions of concern for his plight.

SEIZE THE DAY

It is not possible here to do more than raise the issue of whether one should attempt to change organizations from within or
whether one should create alternative organizations. Large formal organizations are going to be with us for a long time to come
(Heilbroner, 1972), and their members are going to have to devise ways to make them more democratic, because there really is
no place to run to anymore.

The serious reformer should be prepared to take advantage of organizations crises. He must learn how to recognize, expose, and
make concrete those administratively designed arrangements that do not satisfactorily resolve critical problems. For it is in a
time of crisis that an organization is open to solutions to the basic problem of survival. Organizational members will be eager to
adopt new structures that promise to relieve the uncertainty and anxiety generated by a crisis (Shepard, 1969). If the
organization has become weak internally, if it contains corruption and indolence at various levels, if the organization is beset by
energy-consuming external pressures, and if the organizational elite lack the resources or the will to initiate changes essential
for organizational survival, then the organization might well be ready for successful reform from within (Leeds, 1964). Such an
organization might not be capable of successfully administering the intimidation rituals.

Internal organizational reform is a difficult process. The cause of reform as well as constructive revolution cannot be served by
deluding ourselves as to the ease of restructuring human society (Heilbroner, 1972; Schon, 1973). The reformer's life is not an
easy one. But neither need he feel doomed from the start by the inevitability of the success of intimidation rituals mobilized
against him.

ENDNOTES

(1) "Nonconforming enclave" refers to the existence of a number of organizational members who, through collective effort, ". . .
could potentially divert organization resources from their current commitments, undermine organizational effectiveness, or
form a front capable of capturing control of the organization" (Leeds, 1964, p. 115).

(2) In a related context, Etzioni (1961, p. 241) asserts, "Once deviant charisma has manifested itself, despite . . . elaborate
preventive mechanisms, counter-processes are set into motion. These are of two kinds: those which attempt to eliminate the
deviant charisma; and those which seek to limit its effect.

(3) It is possible, however, that an organizational change agent might find himself undergoing the rituals of intimidation if he
insists that effective action be taken on his proposals for change, particularly if such action would threaten certain
organizational power arrangements.

REFERENCES

Bion, W.R. Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Etzioni, A. A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: The Free Press, 1961.

Garfinkel, H. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 1956, 61, 420-424.

Harshbarger, D. The individual and the social order: Notes on the management of heresy and deviance in complex organizations.
Human Relations, 1973, 26, 251-269.

Hartz, L. The liberal tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1955.

Heilbroner, R.L. In the name of profit. New York: Doubleday, 1972.

Herbert, A. Soldier. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

Hirschman, A. O. Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Leeds, R. The absorption of protest: A working paper. In W. W. Cooper, H. J. Leavitt, and M. W. Shelly, II (Eds.), New perspectives
in organization research. New York: Wiles, 1964.

McCarry, C. Citizen Nader. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972. Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience
to authority. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 57-75.

Millham, S., Bullock, R., & Cherrett, P. Social control in organizations. The British Journal of Sociology, 1972, 23, 406-421.

Peters, C., & Branch, T. Blowing the whistle: Dissent in the public interest. New York: Praeger, 1972.

Schon, D. S. Beyond the stable state. New York: Norton, 1973.

Shepard, H. A. Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations. In W. G.

Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change, Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Pp.
519-525.

Slater, P. E. On social regression. American Sociological Review, 1963, 29, 339-364.

Slater, P. E. The pursuit of loneliness. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970.

Thomson, J. C. How could Vietnam happen? An autopsy. Atlantic Monthly, April 1968, 221 (4), 47-53.

Turner, R. H. Unresponsiveness as a social sanction. Sociometry, 1973, 36, 1-19.

Walzer, M. Corporate responsibility and civil disobedience. Dissent, Sept-Oct., 1969, pp. 395-406.

Wilcox, H. G. The cultural trait of hierarchy in middle class children. Public Administration Review, 1968, 28, 222-235.