Why do high potentials avoid large organizations ?

[Jaime]

Some clues may be found in this brilliant thesis. In large
structures, mutual recognition is much more difficult to obtain and
master-slave dynamics are often the only solution, preventing the
"slave" from having meaningful experiences.

http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:7051

http://adt.lib.swin.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-VSWT20060505.151504/public/02whole.pdf

Here are some extracts of this 300 page thesis.

JAIME

------------------------

Alford (1989), using Klein’s projective concepts, discusses the
importance of
large groups in protecting the individual from paranoid schizoid and
depressive
anxiety. Alford describes the large group as a blank screen upon which
individuals
project unwanted parts of the self, protecting them from their own
destructiveness.
In this way the large group acts as a receptacle for containment of
the individual’s
paranoid schizoid anxieties. Jaques contends that individuals who are
unable to
project their anxieties into social systems are at risk of being
overwhelmed by
psychotic symptoms (Jaques 1974). The group ‘holds’ or ‘contains’ the
individual’s paranoid schizoid anxieties through its splitting
processes, which are
projections and symbols of those anxieties (Menzies Lyth 1988b). The
group’s
structure and culture gives the anxiety name, locus and meaning
(Alford 1989,
p64) protecting the individual from having to manage his/her anxiety
alone.

-----------

This is in accord with generally
understood beliefs that unconscious primitive defense mechanisms, such
as those
described in this discussion, promote survival but not creative
learning (Turquet
1975; Alford 1989; Segal 1995).

-------------

Recognition gained through the effort of the backward and
forwards of assertion and recognition of mutual relation has
possibilities of
genuine emotional connection and learning from the other. This affirms
the
self in a real way. The master-slave relation undermines independence
and
agency of the other. The ‘real’ other is not recognised or supported.

The impact on the capacity of the large group to optimally work on
task is
diminished where recognition is partial and compromised. Recognition
of
the other in large groups is inclusive of recognition of the other’s
involvement in task. Where recognition is partial and compromised, as
in
the master slave dialectic, the slave’s contribution to task is hidden
by the
dominance of the importance of the master’s contribution. Further, the
slave’s sense of self and agency is diminished, decreasing capacity to
work
creatively. And further again, the absence of the subjectivity of both
the
master and the slave diminishes creative collaboration. This aspect of
the
master slave dynamic is very important in considering effects of
intersubjectivity in large organisations, undertaken in Chapter eight.

----------

The data suggest the group, through its conflicts established
generational
succession in maintaining patriarchal structures in the group. This is
in
contrast to case one where in the example of X, a female lineage was
not
allowed. In case two it was ultimately a female who identified N as
the
leader to which the group agreed. This symbolises the master’s
dependence
on the slave and the common dependence on the patriarchal structure.
Very
often large groups choose narcissistic leaders (Bion 1961, Alford
1989).
This type of leader, through their narcissistic characteristics, is
best able to
give internal anxieties external locus. In the dialectic of the master-
slave this
is understood as a retreat from mutual relation. The dynamics of
domination
and submission explored in both case one and case two illuminate the
complexity and difficulty in deviating from deeply held collective
defense
mechanisms.