The Umbrella Syndrome
By Raymond Walley MECI MBIM (circa
1990)
Consider the set of charts illustrated:
This individual is normally an aggressive but stable director of others, careful to maintain security, fiercely independent and stubborn. While under pressure these traits become magnified so that the individual can be extremely stubborn / nasty. Level 3 Analysts will also recognise that, despite the apparent extreme changes, this individual's underlying behaviour is stable and predictable.
The changes from the norm that Chart 2 indicate, at first sight, seem highly inconsistent. So much so that the analyst could be forgiven for assuming them to be a fairy story and that the individual is not behaving as indicated and probably could not do so.
Though the change is very significant indeed, involving as it does the complete reversal of two factors, it is not by any means impossible for this individual to be behaving in the work environment as indicated. This applies equally for any set of charts exhibiting a similar movement of the ‘C’ factor, whether the ‘S’ moves or not.
I call this the umbrella syndrome because in effect the individual, for whatever reason, is taking great pains to ensure correctness and accuracy. He or she is taking care to be visibly compliant and fit in with management's requirements or edicts. They are keeping their umbrella up, covering their rear or any similar colloquialism you prefer.
This individual feels sufficiently strongly about his or her current situation to deem the effort worthwhile (and for this person it is an extraordinary effort).
Since this requirement forces the only low factor to move above the line, another factor must move below to compensate (if no factor moved to compensate, we would have an elevated chart that tells us something completely different). It could just as easily have been the ‘I’ factor. Though possible, the ‘D’ factor is less likely to move.
The analyst should first prove that the individual is indeed behaving as indicated. There are several methods for achieving this and the analyst should consider perhaps using more than one.
Assuming we find Chart 2 behaviour to be true, what are the likely causes? They are, not in any particular ranking order:
If any of the above reasons are valid then the individual will perform as indicated provided no great pressure is applied. In many cases the results are beneficial to the organisation.
It is however very important to keep two further considerations in mind:
What does this change in behaviour cost the individual and can they afford it? We check this by measuring the stress levels. If the behaviour change is costing the individual excessive stress, then we can be fairly certain that this is either a very recent behaviour change or likely to be of short duration, weeks to a couple of months at most. If the stress levels are very high then the individual is paying a high price that may in turn cost the organisation an equally high price.
If on the other hand there is little or no cost to the individual in stress, then you may fairly assume that it is a long-term behaviour change that the individual is capable of sustaining.
Eventually the change or changes become reflected by similar changes on charts one and three. The change has then become permanent and the individual has a new, modified personality.
If you have measured anyone within the past year whom you consider satisfies any of the points I have raised, please contact me with details (made suitably anonymous). We would like to correlate this aspect of analysis further and your help would be appreciated and acknowledged in any further papers on the subject.
Consider the set of charts illustrated:
This individual is normally an aggressive but stable director of others, careful to maintain security, fiercely independent and stubborn. While under pressure these traits become magnified so that the individual can be extremely stubborn / nasty. Level 3 Analysts will also recognise that, despite the apparent extreme changes, this individual's underlying behaviour is stable and predictable.
The changes from the norm that Chart 2 indicate, at first sight, seem highly inconsistent. So much so that the analyst could be forgiven for assuming them to be a fairy story and that the individual is not behaving as indicated and probably could not do so.
Though the change is very significant indeed, involving as it does the complete reversal of two factors, it is not by any means impossible for this individual to be behaving in the work environment as indicated. This applies equally for any set of charts exhibiting a similar movement of the ‘C’ factor, whether the ‘S’ moves or not.
I call this the umbrella syndrome because in effect the individual, for whatever reason, is taking great pains to ensure correctness and accuracy. He or she is taking care to be visibly compliant and fit in with management's requirements or edicts. They are keeping their umbrella up, covering their rear or any similar colloquialism you prefer.
This individual feels sufficiently strongly about his or her current situation to deem the effort worthwhile (and for this person it is an extraordinary effort).
Since this requirement forces the only low factor to move above the line, another factor must move below to compensate (if no factor moved to compensate, we would have an elevated chart that tells us something completely different). It could just as easily have been the ‘I’ factor. Though possible, the ‘D’ factor is less likely to move.
The analyst should first prove that the individual is indeed behaving as indicated. There are several methods for achieving this and the analyst should consider perhaps using more than one.
- It will probably be necessary to conduct a counselling interview with the individual.
- One should also discuss this with the individual's manager. Describe the behaviour indicated in chart two and ask if the manager or supervisor recognises it in the individual. If they do not see changed behaviour during their daily contact with the individual, it is less likely to be present.
- Another, and often more accurate method available, is to have the individual and or the manager, complete a Job Scan of their perception of the job. If these perceptions are both different to chart two, then chart two really is a fairy story. Remember that chart two is a picture of the individual's PERCEPTION of how they think they should behave. Until you prove otherwise, it must remain so.
Assuming we find Chart 2 behaviour to be true, what are the likely causes? They are, not in any particular ranking order:
- The individual is new in the job.
- The job may have changed recently and the individual is still coming to terms with it and or learning new procedures.
- The individual is being forced by circumstance to achieve very high standards.
- The individual is being forced by circumstance to achieve very high standards.
- The individual may be considering leaving and is taking care to ensure they leave under their own terms, not yours.
- The individual may be studying for a work-related qualification, learning new skills or improving old ones.
- The individual works in a politically sensitive area of the organisation and is attempting to survive. This scenario of course indicates deep-seated management problems anyway, which will be evident in other members of the organisation in various ways.
- The individual believes that the hierarchy they work in is strong enough to make them comply.
- Very high standards are required of the individual who agrees with those standards and is making a genuine effort to attain them.
If any of the above reasons are valid then the individual will perform as indicated provided no great pressure is applied. In many cases the results are beneficial to the organisation.
It is however very important to keep two further considerations in mind:
- That this is most likely to be a temporary phenomenon.
- As soon as circumstances permit, the individual will revert to type.
What does this change in behaviour cost the individual and can they afford it? We check this by measuring the stress levels. If the behaviour change is costing the individual excessive stress, then we can be fairly certain that this is either a very recent behaviour change or likely to be of short duration, weeks to a couple of months at most. If the stress levels are very high then the individual is paying a high price that may in turn cost the organisation an equally high price.
If on the other hand there is little or no cost to the individual in stress, then you may fairly assume that it is a long-term behaviour change that the individual is capable of sustaining.
Eventually the change or changes become reflected by similar changes on charts one and three. The change has then become permanent and the individual has a new, modified personality.
If you have measured anyone within the past year whom you consider satisfies any of the points I have raised, please contact me with details (made suitably anonymous). We would like to correlate this aspect of analysis further and your help would be appreciated and acknowledged in any further papers on the subject.