Enabling – the role of the middle man or woman

Thanks to Spiderman, even though the adage “with great powers comes great responsibility” has become a cliché there’s still wisdom in those words. Just as this phrase was uttered by Winston Churchill and others who have held positions of power, our examination of history tends to focus on those at the top. After all people who hold power make for interesting subject matter. Yet behind every great man or woman is an army of supporters and much less, if anything, is written about them.  And examining their role in shaping events becomes more important when power is used in harmful ways. In applying the moral code of the phrase now known as the Peter Parker Principle, I’m sure Peter would agree, that with any level of power comes responsibility.


The term enabler is used to describe someone who supports or encourages another’s dysfunctional or bad behaviour. It was bandied around during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell as media and lawyers debated whether she was an ‘enabler’ or a ‘pawn’ to Jeffrey Epstein. Fortunately, in my view, the jury decided she was neither as society tends to view a person who is labelled an enabler (or a pawn) as weak, rather than responsible. Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking and other related crimes. She was therefore deemed to have taken an ‘active’ and ‘coercive’ role with Epstein. This is opposed to being an enabler, which often happens through omission.


Through examining the wider context in cases where historical figures have been particularly divisive and destructive, we have come to learn more about the important role of supporters in seeing the misuse of power go unchecked.  For example. Barbara Kellerman in her book the Enablers: How Team Trump Flunked the Pandemic and Failed America, discusses how members of Trump’s inner circle, as well as law makers and media hold some responsibility for the high death toll that resulted from the mismanagement of the pandemic.


While power often motivates those who act ‘badly’, fear is often the reason we don’t stand up to someone. Sometimes this fear is real and justified. For example, in countries with tyrannical leaders or in relationships with physical violence, people often fear for their lives. Their actions aren’t based around voluntary transactions. They’re doing what needs to be done to survive.


However it’s often fear of less ‘dramatic’ things that lead people to stay silent or support someone when they don’t agree with their actions.  In a workplace this might be fear of losing a job, not getting a promotion, or of being out of favour. This is what Barbara Kellerman says about those in Trump’s inner circle; “(they) were afraid that if they contradicted him, not to speak of crossed or countermanded him, he would fire them, demote, humiliate or exile them.”  


I’m sure many of these people came to their roles wanting to help make the lives of everyday Americans better. But in succumbing to their fear they often had to ignore their own values. In supporting Trump throughout his mismanagement of the pandemic which caused thousands of unnecessary deaths, they ended up standing for nothing other than their own survival. In doing so they helped cause great harm.


While the Trump example is extreme and high profile, the dynamic where middle managers don’t stand up to someone at the top is common.  This wouldn’t be such a problem if so many others weren’t affected by it. Staff can become increasingly stressed and unhappy if, for example, their leader doesn’t push back on unreasonable demands. While meanness or control may never be the intention of the middle manager, through focussing on their own survival they end up being a portal for the demands of their boss. And they often have no idea of their role in causing harm as they aren’t paying attention to it.


In a previous contract position, as we moved into lockdown, those at the top reiterated the words of Jacinda Ardern; that we needed to be “kind” to each other in order to get through. Yet as we began working from our homes, the demands increased. There was twice daily team zoom check-ins and constantly changing deadlines (always tighter), which we started to call “fake deadlines”. One day on a Zoom call with a teammate, out of the blue she said “OMG I feel like I’m in a Doctor Phil show”. I asked her if she was Dr Phil or a guest on the show. Without hesitation she said, ” nah  I’m in the audience. It’s like I’m sitting back and watching all this drama. It’s the story of my life.”


In our team meeting that morning someone had burst into tears. When it was her turn to give an update she was expected to report she was on track with deadlines. But she was struggling to keep up, having to juggle work demands with her young children at home also. The manager wasn’t an unkind person. She was just running scared of those at the top and therefore ineffective. The result was a culture that was frayed and fractious.


Those at the top (or overseeing and supposedly independent organisations) can also take on the role of enabler through failing to address “issues”. During another contract, a relatively new manager was clearly toxic, but also very good at smooching up. When a number of staff complained about her behaviour, which was clearly in the ilk of bullying, she was never called to task. Relationships and motivation got to an all-time low. But rather than deal with the situation himself, the CEO put the whole staff through mediation. An expensive undertaking that resulted in clear finding that she was the problem and needed to go “urgently”. Hence, when she left, she took a pay-out with her.


The ‘good managers’ I’ve come across are the ones who remain discreet, professional and resolute when they come up against a challenging boss or staff member(s) in order to support their teams to remain productive and positive. They’re also willing to address the ‘bad’ behaviour. After all, that’s why the word manager or leader is in their job title.  Standing up to someone will have risks. It also requires skill in knowing the best ways to push back as it’s well possible they’ll end up being out of favour in some way if they do.


If a ‘toxic’ culture is entrenched, a good manager will also likely end up leaving to find a workplace with a culture more aligned to their values. At least, during their time, they will have done their best for those in their team. They will have also taken a stance on what they believe to be right. And those are the people we think of with respect when they come to mind in the years to come.


Sometimes I can be like my colleague who felt like an audience member. But I’m not watching Dr Phil. I’m watching Coronation Street. That’s because I’m a Gen X (she’s a Millennial) and much more jaded. At first it’s alluring and interesting and then after a long while the constant drama gets to be really tiring. All the characters have constant misfortune and, in one form or another, engage in petty squabbles.  (BTW, when I last watched Coro Street about 20years ago, Hayley was the only female portrayed as being ‘nice’ and she was actually transgender). Just like the show that still goes on some 60 years after it was first aired, many workplaces remain a place of constant unhappiness and drama.  Give me a Spiderman movie any day.