Recent experience has shown me that there is a form of management that even outstrips the ignominy of micro management. We have all heard it, perhaps even experienced it ourselves, the dreaded constant presence of a manager or supervisor, breathing over the shoulder of the over worked and oppressed employee. They do so in the hope that some sort of slip up or purposeful malevolence would become apparent, leading the overbearing leader to the gleeful prospect of performance management.

Let’s be clear, Micro management is horrible. A throwback to the indelicate approaches to business and management popular in the 80’s and 90’s, it truly only illustrates a lack of decisive leadership and communication skills on behalf of management. Likewise it does not improve performance. It creates an atmosphere of dread and mistrust with the employee base as well as alienating people for the sole purpose of a managers need to feel involved and in control.

However, a new insidious approach to maintaining control over employees has emerged in today’s business. It seems to me far worse than micro management as it has the ability to impact a group of employee’s, sometimes entire teams….. without their knowledge. I call this new water boarding of management (because it does amount to a form of torture) “Cocoon Management”. It seems particularly prevalent in the professional services, where building internal relationships and creating a “personal brand” is essential in getting ahead.

The premise of cocoon management is quite simple. Employees are isolated within their function/ service line/ group by a segment of management. This means that the employees have no visibility or contact with:

• Other functions within the organization
• Decision makers within the organization
• Decision makers on the client engagement side
• External parties

Imagine, if you will, a microcosm state in which a group of employees is placed under which all information, decision outcomes, performance requirements and feedback is controlled by a singular or small number of managers. This can create a vacuum of misinformation which feeds an environment of helplessness on the employee’s part. When in place cocoon management:

• Prevents the employee from being involved in and understanding wider strategic decisions;
• Misaligns outcomes required for employee deliverables as key messaging is controlled by one party;
• Can falsify the messaging and performance outcomes of employees to senior management; and
• Raises the perpetrator into a position of perceived trust as they are seen as the only outlet to promote an employee’s best interest (similar to “Stockholm Syndrome”).

Like Stockholm Syndrome, cocoon management can force an employee to “express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.”[1]. If the employee or groups of employees feel that the management in place has their best interests at heart, they will take their word on any perceived feedback coming from external to the cocoon as gospel, regardless of any conflicting messaging of its content.

This is, of course, a dangerous proposition for the employee. Oft times in these situations, without an ability to explain or elaborate on any work or outputs delivered, the employee can be made the scape goat for delivery failure. Communications delivered by the creator of the cocoon can lead the employees to make the wrong decisions or be perceived in a negative light. In this way the perpetrator of the cocoon is free to pursue their own agenda with little regard for the impact it has on the individual employees and their career aspirations.

So how do you identify a potential cocoon situation and how best to avoid it? It is quite simple. There are three steps to take in order to prevent being cast into this environment:

• Do you have direct contact with senior management or a line of communication with the decision makers? If you do not then make a point of creating one. Spend time, even just a coffee occasionally with the leadership in your function. Join internal project teams which both interest you and serve a purpose of bettering the company. This way you will have an opportunity to show the senior leaders who you truly are, not based on one person’s assessment.
• Are you involved in your own professional development reviews? Rather than rely on one person to speak on your behalf in relation to your performance, take control and be involved in those discussions. If your organization does not allow that (after asking the question why) seek out a champion who is unrelated to your direct management who can feedback on performance review processes and where necessary speak to your ability to deliver.
• Do you have an avenue for checking the accuracy of the messaging coming from direct management? If the direction and feedback being delivered to the employee is coming from one source this is cause for concern. Reach out into the organization to test the accuracy of statements made or direction given. This is not to openly question your supervisors’ ability or understanding but with anything in life, understanding more than one point of view will more often lead to a truer path.

Fortunately, this approach to management seems to be in its infancy but it does present a unique problem for those who are unlucky enough to find themselves in such a situation. Understand the management environment you work in and never apologise for creating a network for yourself, as this will save you the heartache of being lost in a cocoon.

[1]  de Fabrique, Nathalie; Romano, Stephen J.; Vecchi, Gregory M.; van Hasselt, Vincent B. (July 2007).“Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” (PDF). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (Law Enforcement Communication Unit)76 (7): 10–15. ISSN 0014-5688. Retrieved 17 November2010.