The Scapegoat in Organizations

Psychologically, we carry over these purgative traditions in a metaphorical form that is less obvious and often unconscious, making it less apparent that a human offering is involved. As such, scapegoats are common in groups.

Personnel in organizations appease their leaders and protect themselves by offering up a sacrifice of one of their own. The survival of a group depends upon many things, including leadership, purpose, and success; lacking these, a scapegoat is sought. If the members of the group do not understand the direction of the organization, or sense trouble, they will feebly attempt to make sense of the operation.

Often, they will turn against one of their cohorts rather than the leader. Conveniently, some people willingly sign on to be the sacrificial lamb or scapegoat. In these cases, the combination of group and individual needs align nicely to preserve the system.

There is no guarantee, however, that the operations of an organization that meshes well are rationally designed or that the business will survive. Dysfunctional companies, like dysfunctional families, often appear untroubled. Our behavior in groups harks back to childhood when parents were idealized and a necessary protector of the family against outside forces. Therefore, it was necessary that they be defended. In some dysfunctional families, a particular child is singled out to be an “identified patient” to absorb the family’s pathology by being sick.

Likewise, the organizational scapegoat protects the leader and the group from facing the emotional upheaval that accompanies serious problems. By focusing the anxiety on one person or thing the members are able to externalize their fears. Draining off the worry allows the group to resume its day-to-day operations unchanged and continue to operate in the same way they had all along. Blissful ignorance, however, does not change the reality of what caused the difficulty in the first place.

Sometimes, the surrounding environment can temporarily support, maintain, and enrich a poorly constructed system. The trouble does not surface until the business grows. As a system gets larger and branches beyond its neighborhood, new demands and errors cannot be corrected by personal involvement, cover-ups, and favors. Then, the scapegoat becomes a more powerful force, although its calling was there all along.

My personal experience with the universality of the scapegoat process was in psychodynamic training groups. In these situations, about eight participants, with some psychology or human relations training, join together with a leader for several hours. During their time together, the leader says nothing or very little. Long periods of silence are broken up by members compensating for the lack of leadership. Silence and lack of direction creates anxiety. The participants struggle to establish rules and relationship norms. The amazing thing is the leader is protected from the anger of the group and a member is selected to bear the brunt of the group’s hostility.

Once chosen as the scapegoat, you can do no right until the leader points out what is happening. What amazes me is that the members of these training groups have book knowledge of what will go on in groups. As the hours drag on, however, basic humanity takes over. When the leader finally points out what is happening, the group is startled by the obvious nature of the process and impressed by the intensity of their emotions. Only after the defenses of the group are realized can the group start to work on the very difficult job of facing reality and changing itself. This story shows the compelling nature and universality of human process in groups.

When someone is sacrificed, the organization is searching for something. If the company is foundering badly, neither the leader nor the troops want to face basic problems. By draining off the worry and anxiety from the source, the boss is protected and the problem goes on. Without the scapegoat the uneasiness and anxiety would be too great for the organization’s members to contain. For example, on a nonprofit board, my pointing out mismanagement and inconsistencies on the part of the general manager made people angry with me, rather than him, for several years, and the manager survived. During the year I was excused to attend my clinical internship, this general manager was terminated by my colleagues.

The ritualistic sacrifice of someone or something with intent, such as a holy day of atonement, is one thing. It is another thing to believe the scapegoat is the cause of the organizations problems. The scapegoat in a business serves a similar purpose to the identified patient (IP) in a dysfunctional family and that is to enable the system dysfunction to continue. By focusing on the IP as the “sick” family member, other family members can ignore their own pathology and dysfunction in the family system.

Organizations resorting to scapegoats usually welcome rescuers—a guru, a maven, a consultant, or a method. Some new person, policy, or program is going to allow the group to survive and prosper. They believe nothing is so wrong that it cannot be changed with a good dose of motivation. The illusion that the problem has been identified and the solution found perpetuates the status quo.

Because of the basic drive toward preserving the dysfunction, fads and fashions are assured a place in management consulting. It is easier to find a “fix” than to find a solution, because the latter require us to face ourselves. We must be careful to not equate atonement with change and a palliative with a cure and feeling good with being good.