The Devil's Deputy

 ‘He is full of pre-conceived notions and has a ready answer for the question, “Why will this not work?” or “Why should we not do this?”.  Never contributes any positive suggestion to the team and grumbles when I do not take his path.  Very irritating chap and has a damaging effect on others.  Can be sarcastic in a subtle way that I often do not understand (though I know he is being caustic and that make me angry!).’

‘Hmm. So, how did you deal with this guy?’

‘You know, he has been in the organisation for many years, so I had to tread carefully.  Have sidelined him in decision making.  I must tell you this: his command over English is excellent, much better than mine, and he flaunts it as a way of showing his superiority.  Does this often, in e-mails with stakeholders and in meetings.’

‘So, you think he is playing a game of some sort?’

‘Very much! I think – and now I am being truly honest – I think, he wanted to lead this team and was upset that I was brought in from elsewhere.  He believes – again, this is what I think – that he has superior knowledge of the domain than I do.’

‘This whole business of managing him seems to be stressing you out?’

‘Of course. I avoid meeting or speaking to him or making eye contact in meetings.  I have worked for so long that I can do this well, but it definitely stresses a person.’

How could I tell him – one who was much older than I was and senior in rank (my boss) – that he was the problem, not his deputy ?  That the game-playing, passive-aggression and sarcasm of the subordinate was the manifestation of dejection, yet his criticism (which I often heard) was analytical and incisive and that ignoring this counter-view was costing the team? 

Should I have told him that the Roman Catholic Church had a Devil’s Advocate role assigned to a person called the ‘Promoter of the Faith’, who had to make a case against the candidates that the Church was considering for sainthood – a role to be the wet blanket, the nay-sayer?  That the deputy should have been given extra prominence and attention to boost his esteem and involvement (the chap was known to be sharply intelligent)?  That the manager had to manage himself – his thoughts, emotions and biases in that order - to manage his subordinate ?

I never said any of this on that day twenty five years ago.  

Things unravelled in months.  The deputy left, but not before he had done substantial damage to his boss’ future, who was recalled to the parent organisation.  Over the next five years, under a new leader, what followed was sheer carnage as an organisation with market-leadership status found its key employees leaving and was reduced to a bit player.  Which it still is.

It all started with a Devil’s Advocate who did not have a jury to listen to him. 

(ps: much of that conv between boss and me happened in his room.  Some of it - my contribution - did not take place, but provides the continuity in the dialogue.  QED)