The fine art of organisational self-sabotage

Do you remember Master Confusion, the quiet strategist working behind the scenes? That grand master of disarray whose influence is rarely acknowledged openly, yet whose traces can be found in almost every organisation?

If you’ve never heard of him before: Master Confusion is that unknown mentor who has shaped organisations for generations like no other. Although hardly anyone knows him by name, one encounters his disciples in almost every company, every government department and every institution. They are at work wherever there is a great deal of regulation, little clarity and even less accountability.

Through his tenets, Master Confusion contributes daily to organisations remaining far below their potential, reliably maximising non-value-adding work and turning their own self-sabotage into a silent routine. Some now even suspect that his successors have long since infiltrated the highest offices in politics and administration worldwide, where they are particularly successful in their work.

Now, new tenets of the great master have emerged from a forgotten archive. Let’s take a look at which treasures of confusion have been rediscovered.

Busyness without purpose

“Busyness without purpose is what we strive for. The important thing is that everyone is constantly busy. The result is irrelevant if we want to maximise Muda.”

A classic from the school of Master Confusion. And more relevant than ever. After all, we live in an age where self-optimisation, rhetoric of efficiency and hectic management are omnipresent. Above all, it is important that everyone involved appears as busy as possible. Whether this busyness actually leads to a useful result is secondary. Or, in the Master’s words: completely irrelevant.

Generating genuine added value and then using that as a yardstick for one’s own work? Where would that get us? It is far more effective to undertake as many activities as possible, fill up diaries, schedule meetings and generate tasks that in turn create new tasks.

This has several advantages: no one gets a moment’s rest, everyone looks important, and there is hardly any time left for the most dangerous of all questions: are we actually doing the right things? For it is precisely this question that would be detrimental to waste. Anyone wishing to maximise Muda must ensure that movement appears more important than impact.

Organised irresponsibility

“Organised irresponsibility, where everything appears to be sorted out but nobody is in charge – that is the highest art of confusion. That is what you should strive for.”

Taking active responsibility? Good heavens. That would be far too dangerous. In the end, someone might actually spot a problem, identify it clearly, come up with a solution and perhaps even put it into practice. For Master Confusion, that would be a serious setback.

There’s a better way. And it’s quite simple: you regulate as many details as possible, create areas of responsibility, interfaces, approval loops and committees. Ideally, in such a way that it looks to the outside world as though everything is neatly organised and someone is in charge. In reality, a system emerges in which everyone is involved, but no one is in charge.

There is nothing better than being able to say that, unfortunately, you are not responsible for it because the responsibility lies elsewhere. The specialist department waits for management’s decision, management for the specialist department’s proposal, the working group for the next committee meeting, and the committee for a sound basis for decision-making.

So everything remains in motion without anything actually moving. The fine art lies in feigning competence whilst reliably avoiding responsibility. This is precisely where Master Confusion comes into his own: everything appears to be under control, but as soon as something needs to be decided, improved or actually resolved, the responsibility is guaranteed to lie elsewhere. Self-sabotage could scarcely be organised more elegantly.

Decisions divorced from reality

“If you want to make decisions that are as divorced from reality as possible, never go to the scene of the action to observe. Always make your decisions in the quiet of your office, far removed from the action.”

As is well known, decisions are made particularly well from an ivory tower. In the quiet of his own office, far removed from the action and without any disruptive feedback from the operational level, Master Confusion unleashes his full power. No one contradicts him, no one points out flaws in his thinking, and no one raises the uncomfortable question of whether the whole thing is even feasible.

The scene of the action is dangerous anyway. There, one might observe how things really work. One might discover what is actually needed. In the worst-case scenario, it would even become apparent what impact a decision has on work, processes, customers or staff. That would, of course, be disastrous.

It is far better to keep one’s distance. After all, decisions can be made much more undisturbed from a safe distance. Whether the whole thing can be implemented operationally plays no central role. Nor do the consequences it may have. What matters is that the decision has been made. Others will have to deal with the fallout anyway.

This is how that particular form of clarity arises, which is only possible where reality reliably remains outside.

Lack of transparency as a strategy

“The more lack of transparency you create, the more everyone will be busy spreading rumours. That’s a good way to fuel a free-for-all competition within the organisation.”

But hello, that’s exactly how it should be. Transparency is completely overrated in organisations anyway. If everyone knew where the journey was heading, what had been decided and why things were happening, they might end up actually starting to work together effectively. In the worst-case scenario, they might even get the idea to develop and implement improvements. That, of course, is out of the question.

It is far better to create as much ambiguity as possible. No one should know exactly what is going on, what the objectives are, who is working on what, or what decisions have already been made. This creates scope for wild speculation, office gossip and the particularly valuable discipline of mutual mistrust.

This reliably distracts from solvable problems. Energy, time and resources no longer flow into clarification, improvement or value creation, but into interpretations, assumptions and tactical behaviour. In this way, non-value-adding work can be increased immensely.

And the best part is: a lack of transparency ensures that everyone is kept busy without getting too close to the actual problem. Rumours grow, rivalries flourish, and no one gets the dangerous idea of rocking the boat. Self-sabotage is not practised openly here, but is elegantly facilitated by ambiguity.

Tools instead of results

“The more tools and methods there are, the greater the likelihood that everyone will focus on the tools and methods rather than the result.”

We’ve all been there, haven’t we? Even before it’s clear how the collaboration should be structured, the big debate begins about the right tool, the right method and the next promising approach. Master Confusion knows: the sooner you talk about tools, the later you have to talk about results.

The whole thing can be ramped up brilliantly by bringing as many tools and methods into play as possible. The more, the better. Then everyone is busy shuffling data from tool A to tool B, gathering information, aligning formats, clarifying permissions and discussing interface issues.

This also makes it very easy to increase the number of errors. Because where many tools are in use, there are many handover points. Where there are many handover points, there are many misunderstandings. And where there are many misunderstandings, a wonderful field opens up for sham debates.

And the work results? Oh yes, there are those too. Unfortunately, we don’t have time for that at the moment. First we have to transfer data, evaluate the next method, introduce the new tool and find out why the information isn’t where it’s needed yet again.

And so, little by little, what was actually meant to be achieved slips into oblivion. And that is precisely where the particular beauty of this principle lies: one deals intensively with everything that organises work, but not with what work is supposed to achieve.

Constant busyness as a barrier to thought

“Anyone who runs round like a hamster on a wheel won’t stop to think about what they could do differently. So always make sure they never get a moment’s rest.”

With this, Master Confusion truly exceeds all expectations. If you want to prevent improvements, you simply need to ensure that everyone is kept as busy as possible, all the time. Ideally to such an extent that no one stops, thinks or even briefly asks whether the direction is still the right one.

For anyone running round like a hamster in a wheel will not think about what they could do differently. This is precisely where the elegance of this principle lies. Movement replaces reflection. Working through tasks replaces understanding. Reaction replaces creation.

Reflection and the development of genuine solutions require breathing space. And, of course, this very breathing space must not be allowed to emerge if the proliferation of waste is the overriding goal. After all, those who are constantly operating in reactive mode will never think to look upstream for the source of the problems.

And since everyone is kept busy, no one can claim that nothing is happening. On the contrary: something is happening all the time. Just nothing that really helps. But that can be concealed perfectly well, because we have no time, after all, as we are so hard-working. And that is precisely how self-sabotage likes to disguise itself: as a willingness to work.

Conclusion: Systematic self-sabotage

Now that we know how to reliably increase unnecessary, non-value-adding work within organisations, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and put Master Confusion’s teachings into practice.

For the possibilities are virtually limitless. You can create a bustle without achieving any results. You can organise responsibility in such a way that it is nowhere to be found. You can make decisions as far removed from reality as possible, replace transparency with rumours, prioritise tools over results, and keep people so constantly occupied that there is guaranteed to be no time left for reflection, improvement or tackling root causes.

This creates an organisation that appears highly active on the outside, but on the inside perfects one thing above all else: the art of getting in its own way. Everyone is busy, much is regulated, numerous methods are in use, decisions are made, and yet actual progress remains astonishingly limited. A masterpiece of confusion.

Of course, it would also be possible to look at things differently. One could ask which work actually creates value. One could clarify responsibilities, bring decisions closer to reality, create transparency, treat tools as a means to an end, and create space in which people can think about better solutions.

But beware: that is precisely where the danger lies. For anyone who asks such questions could ultimately reduce waste, improve collaboration and make organisations more effective. For the followers of Master Confusion, that would be a severe blow.

There is still much to be done before we get there. And that is only the beginning. After all, there are many more inspiring maxims from the master strategist to discover. The art of organisational self-sabotage is steeped in tradition, and its future seems, judging by the state of many organisations, well and truly secure.

Notes:

Thomas Michl regularly publishes the latest insights from Master Confusion on his Gedankenblog. Definitely worth a visit!

Would you like to discuss self-sabotage in companies as an influencer or opinion leader? Then share this post on your social media channels.

Thomas Michl has published more posts on the t2informatik Blog, including