Not all organizations collapse due to bad leadership decisions. Many decompose from withineroded by an excess of complacent approval. The flatter survives. The organization ruins, the leader wears out, but he is still there. Change office, style, victim. Is a professional cynical. He does not believe in anything but his ability to please the power on duty.
And we are not talking about the applause of genuine recognition. We talk about others. Those who come from fear. Of convenience. Of the need to be seen as loyalalthough the common purpose is betrayed.
The corruption of the loop
When the teams deform, it is not always for the boss. Many times it is for those around him. By that internal choir that replaces critical thinking with phrases made. That raises his voice just to congratulate. Which transforms the conversation into a alignment drill.
The organizational psychologist Robert Hogan warned that one of the greatest dangers in institutional life is the political survival based on please, not to contribute (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). He called it Managerial derailment: The derailment of leaders for environments that deny them the contrast.
Because the flatter not only deforms the boss. Deforms the ecosystem. The dissident returns suspicious. It punishes creativity. Reward the complacency.
Maltrate with smiles
Strategic halago is a form of soft violence. It is not presented as an attack. But damage. Because it imposes a standard: To be inside, you have to please.
That generates a culture of elegant fear. No one shouts. No one threatens. But Everyone knows what can be said and what is not.
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called him symbolic violence: a form of domination accepted as natural by those who suffer (Bourdieu, 1999). In the corporate world, This violence is expressed in silences, in omissions, in the informal exclusion that does not applaud.
The “Good Climate” trap
In these environments, the “good weather” is measured by superficial harmony. There is no conflict, because there is no real conversation. There are no friction, because no one risks a different idea. And so, while the team seems to work, it is actually blurred.
The theory of Groupthink (Janis, 1972) I had already warned: Groups that avoid dissent tend to make worse decisions. Because the fear of conflict leads them to ignore warning signs, to reinforce errors, to shield yourself to reality.
Adulation as a norm produces that: hollow consensus, simulated efficiency, and a silent deterioration of collective criteria.
Damage Engineering
The flatter is not naive. It has strategy. He knows when to intervene, how to show loyal, how to isolate the one who bothers without dirtying hands. He disguises himself as an ally, but thinks in terms of power. It does not contribute, it accommodates. Does not build, calculate.
And the worst: many times, He does it with friendly gestures. With feigned empathy. With an emotionally correct tone.
Examples are not missing. One of the most documented is the environment that surrounded Elizabeth Holmes in Theranians. Constant exaltation, lack of critical voices and a culture of unconditional They contributed to a company without scientific livelihood to end up cheating investors, patients and employees.
The flatterers not only protected it: they enhanced her. And when the scandal exploded, many of them were already elsewhere, ready to applaud someone else.
Thus a work space is disarmed. Not with screaming or scandalous renunciations. With lunches, with winks, with silences. With the skillful administration of exclusion.
An ethic of collaboration
For a team to be healthy, It needs an ethical way to link. That includes being able to disagree without fear. Point out errors without implying losing relevance. Value the contribution above the liking.
Amy Edmondson, teacher at Harvard, defines it as Psychological security (Edmondson, 1999): The perception that in a team one can speak without fear of being punished.
Where this security erodes, there is no sustainable innovation. And where applause replaces honest conversation, there is no leadership that resists.
How is it reversed?
First, With lucidity. Detect when the compliment is a tool, I do not affect. Distinguish between the criticism that builds and the obedience that stagnates.
Second, With courage. The courage to bother. To say what is necessary even if it is not sympathetic. Of asking ideas to those who are not in the radar of flatterers.
Third, With decisions. Because flatterers are not corrected with speeches. They are corrected with structure. With dynamics that reward the real contribution. With processes that transparent the criteria. With leaderships that value the challenge, not just loyalty.
An organization is not destroyed overnight. It is emptying from the inside. And those who empty the most are not the ones that fail. They are the ones who applaud without thinking. Those who make the leader untouchable. Those who sell enthusiasm in exchange for power.
In the corporate culture of the 21st century, It is not enough with inspiring leaders. It is also necessary to deactivate the halago industry. Because if you don’t stop on time, applause can also kill.
Analyst and director of mentorpublico.com
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
