E155 – Cultic Behaviours in organisations – Part 1: Introduction

Steve, hello and welcome to this episode of a world of work podcast. We've got something a little bit different today. We've been recording a series of episodes with good friend of the show, Stephen Mather. He was on our show in the spring of 2021 and we had a great conversation about high control groups, which is a little bit of a specialist topic for him. He's a organizational psychologist and has experience living in high control groups. We really enjoyed that conversation, and thought we wanted to explore it a little bit more, and we wanted to explore the crossover between high control groups and the organizations that we work in. So we've spent some time with Stephen, and we've recorded four different episodes looking at cultic behaviors in organizations. You can learn more about Stephen through his podcast, cult hackers and on the Internet. In the meantime, though, here's episode one of our series on cultic behaviors in organizations.

Welcome to the podcast. This is a special collaboration between the cult hackers podcast with me, Stephen Mather, and we've got, yeah, you've got James here from the world of work project, and got Jane from the world of work project as well.

Fantastic. So this is, this is the first of a collaboration. And we're we thought we wanted to talk about what we think is a really interesting subject, which is, I guess, broadly speaking, cults at work, or cultic practices at work. So organizations that seem to be quite culty or cultic, and we wanted to sort of pool our experience and our thinking on this. So we're from various different kind of areas, I suppose. So it might be useful to introduce ourselves to our various audiences and but we thought that it might be really interesting to dig into this subject and understand a bit about it, and then think about where there's things we need to do about it.

Yeah, absolutely. So just to quickly introduce myself, as Stephen said, my name is James. I'm James Carrier. I have spent the last, I guess, 10 years of my life looking at our experiences in the workplace and how we can shape and improve those for ourselves as individuals, or how we can as leaders or managers, change the way that we work so that we create better experiences for those around us. In terms of my career experience that might be relevant for this type of conversation, I've worked in all kinds of different places, so I did various jobs before I went to university. So I worked in things like supermarkets and restaurants and video shops. I then went through university, and I guess, started my career after that. And the first place I went into was a large consulting accounting firm, so one of the big four firms, I think there's some real relevance there. In terms of that experience. I've done a few other things, but then I spent about 10 years at a large bank as well. So that gives a bit of context as to what I'm bringing in terms of my, you know, working experience and the places that I've been in,

brilliant. What about you, Jane, would you like to introduce yourself?

Thanks. Yeah. So I'm Jane Stewart, and I have spent most of my career working in the nonprofit sports sector in the UK. And most recently, I have been focusing, like James, on people's experience work and volunteering as well. And I guess there's a couple of things that I'm particularly feel are relevant and kind of make me think about the stuff a little bit more. One is, I think that when organizations are thinking about exceptionalism, I hear that a lot in my sector, so sport quite often tries to pretend it's very, very different from other sectors. So I quite often like, I like to bring things from other other sectors and go, Hey, look at this. This is what they're doing over over in healthcare or over in community work. And they go, Oh, no, no, no. We're different. And I'm really interested in that, and how that relates to some of the things we might talk about. And also, we're very as organizations people. People like to stick once they've decided it's quite difficult to get them to move from the sport or activity they like, and that makes you end up with quite a lot of homogeneity within organizations and groups. And I again, think that's quite interesting, because certain types of activity appeal to certain types of people, and then you see that through their leadership and their management and all of that. And again, that kind of is one of the things I, having read and looked around this topic get interested in. So that's, that's why it tickles my intellectual let's go with that.

Great. Okay, so my turn. I'm Stephen Mather. I'm the co host of a podcast called cult hackers that I do with my daughter, Celine. I've had an interesting cults and high control groups for many years. I was actually raised in an organization that I consider to be a cult, and our podcasts and. Is really about trying to crack that cult code to understand what's happening and also how people leave these groups.

Leaving means you've got to sort of make sense out of your world. You've got to think again about a whole bunch of subjects that you were told what to believe, how to believe it, and so on. So it's quite it's quite difficult, actually to make sense of the world after all that. But I'm also interested in business. I'm actually a business improvement trainer, coach, management trainer, and that's what I do for my day job. And I've been doing that relief for the last sort of 20 years, since I've left my group after a few after a lot of other things. And obviously I met you, Jane at the we did a masters in Organizational Psychology. We're in the same group, and it was during that masters that I started to realize that I needed to, I mean, I've described it as address the elephant in my own room, which I'm not sure is a very good analogy, but it's, it's a clunky way of saying that I needed to look at a part of my life that I kind of left behind. So when I left the court, I just tried to get on with my secular job. I had a family, I had a daughter, and obviously I had my wife, and I was concentrating on all that really important stuff, and didn't really address how I'd felt about this cult life. I tried to be as good a person as I could. When I got to do the Masters, I started to feel, I don't know, I got angry about certain things that were being said on the program around the way that organizations worked and so on, and that sort of made me realize that I didn't really understand why I was feeling that way. And it made me realize that I had unfinished business. Really. I hadn't really addressed all of the feelings I'd had about the group, and I realized that I needed to sort of look at this part of my life again, and I obviously hadn't really left it all behind me. There was still stuff there I needed to understand and make sense of. The Masters helped me to look at it through an organizational lens, which I think is quite interesting, and that perspective is something I want to continue to do so it's the sort of framing that not that many researchers use, I think. So, yeah, that's a bit of a long winded answer, but that's, that's who I am.

Well, and you know, you might, may or may not know, but I those of us, those of our listeners who have heard what worked before, will know. I'm a big believer in what makes you angry is an interesting topic. I think if there's anything out there that you're angry about, A, you should work in it, because you're probably going to try and solve it harder than anyone else. And B, it makes for much more entertaining listening. So I am really looking forward now to hearing a little bit more about that, because I also got very angry about organizational practices after my master's. And I don't know, for those of you that are listening, I don't know if that's a deliberate return to education thing that happens to people over a certain age when they go back to education, but certainly that org, Psych group, I feel like there are lots of things we got very angry about in work. Yeah,

yeah. I think that's right. And no, I think it. I think they were, uh, trying to provoke us, weren't they? I think that was part, part of the idea behind the course. Now, I mean, I'm very happy that and that they did that. So it sounds like we've, you know, we've got quite an interesting little panel that we're gonna, we're gonna talk about this subject. Why do we care? I suppose, is, is the question that I often ask. You know, why? Why are we interested in this subject? We've perhaps touched on it a bit, but why do we think that we should be doing a podcast on cultic practices in the workplace?

Yeah, I mean, I've got some thoughts on it, and obviously I don't have a lived experience that you have of this. But my sense is that my hypothesis, I should say, is that there are a fair number of organizations out there that are adopting cultic practices in one way or another, or behaviors or or behaving in some ways that are sort of reflective of, at least my interpretation of what a cult is. And I'd like to dive into that and explore what a cult actually is in a bit more details, but, but I think that is happening, and I guess for me, I think that there is a risk around that, risks of negativity in multiple different ways. I think that there's a risk that the people who enter into working agreements with these organizations have their experiences of work changed, maybe their more broader experiences within the world change. Just as a result of this. And I think there's, you know, a lack of transparency in that. I think there's a lack of honesty, and I think that there could be detrimental impact to those individuals, and detrimental impacts through them, through crossover and spillover effects more broadly in the world, as a result of them working in those organizations. I'm not 100% sure that that's the case. I don't know that this leads to necessarily worse outcomes for people, but, but I guess it feels like it probably does. It feels like there's probably going to be wrapped up within this, somewhere, an element of exploitation is fundamentally what for me this gets down to at its core, and why? Why am I interested in that? I guess fundamentally, I think exploitation, if that's what's involved in these organizations, is an unfairness. It's an injustice. And I kind of have an inclination to find and try and surface where I see injustices. And I guess that comes back to some of my personal drivers around, you know, fairness and justice and things. So I guess for me, that's really the core of it. And as I said, like I'm learning through all this, I don't know, but I think that there is going to be exploitation in here, and sort of, you know, as a slight tangential thing, I also think, with another hat on, I'm very interested in sort of responsibility through business and whatever roles of businesses, and what license do we give the organizations that we create and give birth to through our legal systems? What license do we give to them to shape and influence our world? And I think we give them a lot, and I think we should understand the ecosystems and the environments and the incentive structures that we create for them, and the powers that we grant them, and what they do with those powers. And I think there's a chance that when they become cultic, they may use their power as organizations within these structures that we that we set up in ways that are perhaps detrimental to society as a whole. So that's, um, those are, I guess my interest in this really, Jane, what about you? What sort of draws you to this subject? Really?

Okay, well, if nothing else, I've remembered why I like to go first, because now I've got about 10 more things that I'm thinking about after listening to you so smart move, James. So I made some notes as you were talking, and before you even said the word exploitative. I had that word written down as well because I think, like you, I feel like that's something in there. And I'll say why I think that. It's because I think we're in a okay, go back to Victorian times, and a lot of work was measured by piece work, or by the amount that you outputted, right? And then somewhere along the way, because we started learning about inputs versus outputs, and we started regulating work through manufacturing and stuff, we started counting inputs, right? So the number of hours that you used the machine, the number of hours you wrote up the books, whatever it was, and I think we're in this really weird place in the world at the moment, particularly in knowledge work, where we're trying to regulate both the inputs and regulate both the inputs and the outputs. So no, you must work this number of hours, but also you will be held accountable for your KPIs, and you'll lose your job if you don't do them. And I think that's, I think that's a dodgy deal, right? And the reason I think that this topic is particularly relevant and interesting to that is that I think when organizations are successful at convincing people to put in more effort than they have to, I think we live in a society, certainly in the UK and similarly in the US, where there is some level of regulation about what you can and can't do. You can't whip us, you can't bully us, you can't fire us for being productive but not being the most extreme productive. So you have to convince people to work till 10 at night, and you have to do it ideally, without letting them know that they are going above and beyond, and make them feel good about it. Because if you make them feel good about it, they're not going to winch at it, they're not going to sue you, they're not going to demand better pay, they're just going to be smiling. And I think for me, that's the exploitation that I can feel is around there's something slightly nerve wracking for me about my behavior in my 20s as a manager, where I convinced myself and my team that it was a brilliant idea to be working all hours that God sends and we were on some kind of higher mission to do something special. Now I love that team and I loved that work, but I am conscious now, but it probably, almost definitely, wasn't as balanced and wasn't as boundaries as it would should have been, and that that was partially driven by the fact that I didn't want those boundaries at that point, so therefore it kind of inflicted on my teams. So why are we talking about it? Well, because 27 year old me would have liked someone to say, hey, you might want to look out for these signs. These aren't you know this, this wonderful world where all 10 of you are wrapped up in this dream scenario, and you love this work, and you're working beyond all of your normal boundaries, that might not be the good sign you think it is. Is. So firstly, I think that's really important. Secondly, I think James is James's point is really spot on about the power of organizations in our modern society and the place they occupy and what they're meant to do for society. And I worry that our regulation systems, and I don't mean laws. I mean like the systems that regulate our norms, behaviors and stuff are so open for organizations to do what they like, that there is a lack of acknowledgement in a society of what power that has over people's lives and purpose and all of that. And I think so that's a roundabout set way of saying. I think I want individuals. I think I'm interested because I want individuals. To be able to spot these organizations and avoid them. I want managers to spot when they're doing it themselves, and it's not done deliberately or with a bad intention, but it's it's done from good reason and gets out of hand. And I also want organizations to, in some senses, be regulated, if only by people choosing not to work for them, such that they recognize these practices where these practices are not helpful for the individual. And I acknowledge that we might talk about this, and that might not be the case. Might go actually, there's some situations this is really great. It's really helping people. So yeah, that's my that's my word salad.

No, that's, that's, that's really interesting. I think they're both interesting perspectives. I suppose for me, I'm interested because I'm interested in in cults. But organizations, or, sorry, cults are a type of organization, therefore a lot of the same things that everybody would recognize in a normal organization, cults do so. They recruit people, they discipline people, they get rid of people.

have rules about behavior and they have performance requirements. So actually there's a lot of crossover between these two groups. So actually the only the thing then we end up talking about is, I suppose, the way that's done. And so it's actually very easy, in my view, for organizations to start to do some of the things in the same way that cults would do them. And so I think there's a real danger there. And maybe we've also all seen, I think we've talked before about how we've we've seen activities in organizations where we've raised an eyebrow and thought, hmm, you know, is that? Is that really ethical? And maybe we didn't think about it as a cult, but maybe actually that there are some cultic elements to it, so I just think it's a high risk area. I think the other, the other reason why I'm interested is, during my early stage as a consultant, I worked a lot in the kind of behavioral change space, if you like. So health and safety was the first area that I worked in. So how do you change people's behavior around health and safety? And a lot of that is about changing the way people think about all sorts of things, as well as changing what they do. So behavioral health and safety is misnomer in many ways, because it's not just about behavior. It's about getting into their thinking so that they recognize activities, you know, in different ways. They intervene on people when they see people doing something they shouldn't. This is not a natural thing that people would do. So you're trying to encourage people to essentially behave in a way that isn't really normal or natural for them. So you start to dig into, I think, areas of motivation, influence. And actually, you know, saying to people, we want to change the culture. We actually want to, thoughtfully on purpose, change the culture and change people's thinking. Well, you know, that is almost a definition of a cultic activity. So, and I think it's for the right reasons, if you're talking health and safety, but it risks you're getting into an area that has sort of lots of mine fields in it. So I think it's really interesting that there's a lot of commonality, there's there's a lot of crossover. And as somebody who's been in both of these spaces, I can say that, you know, the language often is quite similar, therefore we need to understand it. And I think echoing what you said, Jane about, you know, we want to, I suppose, identify what we should be aware of, if we're employees or if we're going into an organization, but also. As managers, we want to think about, what are the risks that we're we might be creating some of these situations.

And I think, I think just listening to you talk about that, particularly the health and safety thing, which I think is really interesting and I hadn't thought about, but of course, that makes total sense for me. There is about, there is a, this is going to sound slightly side, side angled, but go with me. So I've been reading a lot about consent recently in lots of different ways, and I think there's something really important about a manager's responsibility to their team to ensure there is consent to behave in be influenced, be bought into certain issues, approaches, etc, and that I think goes a long way to sharing why I why I get nervous around this topic, and why I want to talk about it, because I feel like if you you can't consent, if you're not aware what's happening, and if someone hasn't said to you, you realize your organization is trying to get you to work more hours, and you say, I know. And I get that because I am conscious that we're trying. We're going through a particularly tough time. We are really driven by this, and I think it's a very different, different situation, and so I'm really interested in that intent and consent space, and I know that doesn't solve all the problems around it, but certainly for me, there's a real interest, certainly in the lack of awareness and consent that goes on in some of the organizational practices. I

think there's that whole piece about informed Right? Like, like, being aware of what's going on around you, and informed of the impacts it can have. And really, you know, going into these situations from a point of knowledge, I think, if we think again a little bit about, you know, the legal structure of these organizations, so many of our organizations are designed for a purpose, right? Or very designed in such a way that that they should maximize their resources, right? I mean, that's fundamentally what a lot of organizations are designed to do that's their role. Maximize their resources. If people are a resource or an input to your process, which they are, you want to maximize their contribution. And how do you do that? Well, you do that by influencing people so that you get the most out of them while contributing the least to them. And surely that you know that in built incentive within our organizations to to do both those things, maximize output and minimize input, leads to a drive towards influencing more powerfully with whatever tools you have. And I guess, for checks and balances, we have to control that our our sense of ethics, our leadership, belief in, you know, purpose and integrity and business are our roles as people to inform ourselves and challenge and trying to get to that sort of collective behavior within people who are working or owning organizations to regulate away from some of that. And I think that so many of the things that we do in the world come down to this desire to influence or exert influencer over others, and that's so embedded in our organizations that sometimes we don't even think about it. We just, we sort of live within that system and that world of influence, without the ability to step back and say, actually, pretty much everything that we're doing in these organizations is some form of influence one way or another. And that's what happens when people come together, yeah,

and that's completely normal, but if you're in that game, then of course, that there is a risk that it starts to go into a level of influence that is known as undue which is really where cultic groups sit. So once you get into undue influence, and what does that mean? That's, you know, that's a difficult question. So that's something that it would be nice to dig into a little bit. What do we mean by undue influence? And I think Jane's touched on that in terms of awareness and consent and so on. But there's more to talk about that. I think, I

think there is, and I think also, to go back to James point. I'm not sure where this is going to come up, but I know it will, because we've already, we've already mentioned it twice this. Why do businesses exist right now? I know there's one, one organization in particular used to, I don't know if it still does, John Lewis in the UK, which is a partnership model. So I hesitate to use it because I'm not familiar with its history in the last four last four or five years, but prior, prior to that, it was a partnership model where it was owned by the staff, and its entire reason for existence, it argues, is to provide meaningful work for its partners. Now, what that means is they have to stay profitable, because otherwise they won't be able to provide meaningful work. But the purpose of the organization is to provide meaningful work for the for the employees. And I think that is, from from my perspective, really interesting, because I think it completely changes the way you think about the work experience of the people that are working in the organization. And I think one of the challenges is that when when profit is the bottom line. Financial profit is the bottom line. I think you're asking a lot of boards and leaders to do anything that doesn't work in the short medium term profitable space, and I struggle. I just think it's such a powerful lever. How do you construct an argument and behavioral levers against something that is driving literally, is built within the fabric of the rules of the organization.

Yeah, I think that's where, you know, you mentioned about checks and balances. That's that's probably where we will need to discuss that and think, Well, are they, are they sufficient? You know, I guess the very basis of capitalism is a bit out of bounds for for us, although, you know, there's no reason why we can't talk about it on this podcast, but we can, but yeah, that maybe there's, there's some, there's some thing we can talk about there around exactly, what should those checks and balances be, and what is government's role? What is, what our bodies, you know, various trade bodies and so on, what is their role? What's the role of unions, maybe in this as well, to protect people? So, yeah, we can maybe talk about some of those, those areas too. I think one of the other things I just wanted to say as well is that we, I think we've started this conversation from the assumption that organizations start as something, but then, if they're not careful, they can become cultic. Actually, some groups themselves are right from the get go cults, but they are framed as commercial organizations. So in some of the literature that that I've read about cult so one of the most well known books is Margaret singer's book, cults in our midst, she devotes a whole chapter to cultic organizations that are actually commercial organizations. So things like self development, things like management training, stuff that, you know, is kind of, well, my bread and butter, in a way, it's kind of what I've spent my career doing. Some of those are, right from the start, very clearly structured to be cults. They use cultic manipulation to get people in. So, you know, there are some of those two that it'd be good to be able to notice and be aware.

And I'm assuming multi level marketing models would quite often sit within those spaces as well.

They come up a lot. Yeah, yeah. So there's some, some sort of, I guess there's some structures around pyramid structures and MLMs that that lend themselves to these approaches. That's not to say that all multi level marketing and pyramid schemes are cult. Some of them are not. Some of them are just illegal. And I guess some marketing groups are not either of those things, you know. So I don't know enough to be able to say that every single one of these structures is, is wrong, but we can, you know, that might be an area where we can just dig into a bit and get clarity on,

you know what? Stephen, we've been doing a lot of speaking here about sort of cultic organizations, and I've been sharing my thoughts and says, Jane, but you know, I'm not really close to specific definitions of a cult, so I'm just, I'm going on on this sort of like innate sensor that I have of what a cult is, and I know that you're closer to it. It'll be great to hear your thoughts on what it is, what actually makes a

cult. Yeah, so it's a, obviously, it's a really important question that we need to get nailed. I suppose if we can, because it's it's difficult to nail it down. And there are a number of different ways of defining courts, but they they have quite a lot in common. So I suppose the first thing that I would say is that I tend to use the term high control group more than I use the word cult. Although reality is is people don't know what you're talking about when you talk about high control groups, so you end up talking about cult. Yeah, so there's high control group, this coercive, coercively controlling groups. There's high control coercive groups, but they all kind of have that thing in common. So I think that's straight away starts to define what we mean by call. So there's coercive control and it's, um, it's high control also high demand. Tends to be another phrase that's put in there. There's a number of different researchers who have had a go at trying to define calls. So I can kind of talk about some of those, if you like. So I suppose the most well known at the moment is the researcher Stephen Hassan, who uses something called the byte model, and so he defines cults as as being basically using behavior control. So that's the B of the bite, information control, thought control and emotional control. So it's really about controlling the behaviors of people. Control. The access to information from the outside, so that the only source of information is through the group. Thought control, so you actually, you know you're you're trained to only think in a certain way, so your beliefs, your thoughts, your ideas, come through the group. And emotion control. You know, you're taught what you can feel. You're only allowed to feel certain things, and not other things and so on. And this is done systematically. So it's a systematic application of those things in this group. So that's one way of describing it. Another one, which I quite like, is one by uh. Yania lalich, who is a researcher into cult she's been on our podcast. A very interesting guest. She talks about something called bounded choice, which itself is actually really nice phrase, because people often think, Well, why don't why don't you just leave? You know, why don't you just leave? Why do people stay in calls? And also, why do people stay in abusive relationships? It's the same sort of dynamic. And she makes the point that it's like, well, I suppose we might say Hobson's choice. It's like, you know, you have a in theory, you've got a choice, but actually, your choices are bounded and constricted because of the way that you've ended up within this, this framework. So you actually can't make a real choice. You've only got one option, and that is to stay so for her, there's four elements again. So if you're looking at what a cult is, then you might look for what she described as a transcendent belief system. So some way of thinking about the world that somehow got the secret, you know, the secret to something that you didn't know before that you're gonna know, if you're part of this group, it's it's a it's higher knowledge. It's knowledge that has been discovered by somebody or something that other people don't know, and that you're going to know if you're part of this this group, charismatic authority is the second one there. So often you see cults headed by some figure who's very charismatic, and that itself is an interesting subject that we probably should dig into. What does charisma mean? Something we studied on the on the Masters, wasn't it? Jane? So there's a there's a figure there, often, not always, but who is charismatic and who somehow is able to influence and whip people up into an emotional state. Three is systems of control. So they, they have very clear systems where they control all of this stuff. So again, if you went back to the bite model, control people's behavior, their thoughts, their emotions, and their systems that that make that happen, and the systems of influence, which is how you kind of get people to do those things. So how you influence people to do what you want them to do. So, so that's boundary choice. There's others. There's Robert J Lifton model, which has eight different elements to it, which, again, is very interesting, but that's probably, you know, a decent little potted history or overview of of what we're talking about with courts. But I think the main thing to go away with it's it's systematically controlling people in a way that is not necessarily in their interest, but is in the interest of the group. And by the group, we normally mean the leader or the leadership, not not the group as a whole.

Yeah, very lovely definitions or models to use to think about this. And bite is particularly memorable. It's very good. I think that the I've got some really kind of interesting questions on this is, would you say that the sort of cultic nature of an organization is a binary thing, or do you think it's scalar? Can Can one drift towards it? There's Question one, I'm going to hit you with a double barrel question here. And question two, can you be a cult if you are doing something that is deemed to be hugely beneficial to society at large?

Yeah, yeah. So that's that they're both good questions the I think everybody agrees that it's a continuum, not not a point, if you like. So, yeah, I think it's dangerous when you just simply say, you know, these are the things. If you see any of these things, then you're in a cult. And in fact, Daniel Alicia, in her book escaping utopia, which is a great book, actually, really good bit of research, if you want to, to look into that, she makes that point that you know it's, it's, if you see a lot of these things within your within the group you're in, does. Necessarily mean you're in a court. It just means you should look at it. You should you should ask some more questions. Think about what that means. So in her book, she actually goes into these four in a lot more detail, and there's a set of questions after each chapter to sort of get you to think, you know, am I what sort of group is this? So that's that's definitely worth noting. Margaret singer, again, one of the the original researchers in this area talked about the continuum of influence and persuasion. And actually what she does is like is she splits it into, if you think about a continuum or dimension on which cults operate, or in fact, any organization operates. At one end, you might say, you know, you've got education. So at the benign end, you've got what you might be seeing as education, and then next to that, a little bit further up, you've got advertising, because this is all like a way of influencing people. And then a bit further on from that, you've got propaganda. And then a bit further on from that, you've got indoctrination, and then right at the end, you've got what she describes as thought reform, and that's really where your cults really sit. But I think a lot of these groups sit between indoctrination and thought reform. So there's, you know, there's bits that relate to basically, they're just, they're just giving you all the good stuff and none of the none of the bad. They're limiting the information that you get. And then the one step further than that is where they punish you if you actually ask any questions or think anything different. So, yeah, I think it is absolutely, it's absolutely a dimension which makes it very tricky, I think, for anybody to firstly identify whether something is a cult or whether you're in one. And it is one of the reasons why the use of the word can be can be a bit well, it's become a pejorative term. So you know, any group that you don't like you just call it a cult. And that kind of says everything that you think needs to be said. But then you get, you know, the counter is that, well, no, I'm not in a cult. You're in a cult, and it's all a bit childish. So that's one of the problems with the term, and that's why, you know, it's good that we're trying to nail what that is actually like. So that's, that's the first thing. Yes, it is a, it is a dimension. It's it's not a fixed point, and I've forgotten you. So yes, the second question was

benign cause, yeah, can it be for good cause? Because, I mean, a lot of the things that you talk about, about behavior, you know, information, it leads into that control space, which is bad with thought control, emotional control and things like that. But, but my sense, and I'm just gonna, like check it out there, is that certain political parties probably pull together aspects of this type of behavior, or that even things like certain, I guess, environmental groups might have some self policing behaviors around this. You know, lots of specific strong advocacy groups could bring together some of these aspects, but be doing so for what is deemed to be a socially beneficial cause at the big level. And I just was wondering about that. I don't know if you've got thoughts on that, or Jane, do you have thoughts on that?

It's not that I have thoughts on it. It's that I struggle with anything that is either is a binary choice, so either something's a cult or it's not. And I think this lends itself a little bit to what Stephen was saying earlier. How can we keep people informed to decide what, where, where are the boundaries of what we're okay with? Because fundamentally, there will always be some areas which will have strong arguments for why people shouldn't act in their own interest for the betterment of the group. Right now, we're currently recording this at the, you know, year and a half into a healthcare issue in the UK with COVID where absolutely they've had to identify ways in which they want to influence us to behave in a way that is conducive to the mass right communities, human communities have needed to do that for generations. You only you know, I always love the stories from Aboriginal communities in native communities in Australia, because they they tell really interesting how storytelling is used to help individual members conform to the norms, right? And so for me, there's something really important, not in Is it a cult? Isn't it a cult? And does that matter? But to what extent can we recognize the practices that might inform or cause people to behave in such a way that they would identify as being part of a cultish group? And how do they maintain their ability to critically think, to decide when to move away from those practices, because it's no longer serving them and some number members of their community, yeah,

yeah. I think, I think that's that's right, and I suppose I would say I. Think by using the term cult, if we if we use that term, then essentially we are saying it's gone so far up that dimension that it's no longer ethical for that individual to be in that group. So because it is on the dimension, you'll see things like self sacrifice, and you'll see things like loyalty to the group,

and you'll see certain amount of propaganda and bending of the truth and all of that sort of stuff. You'll see some of that in organizations that are doing good things. Once it goes too far, it's at that point then I think we, we can call it a cult. But where that that is on that dimension is, is a is it absolutely a matter of opinion? And so it's always going to be a difficult one to to definitively say, you know, but I think by definition, we, if we're saying something is, it's like saying, are harmful? Things always harmful? You know, my answer is, yeah, because they're harmful. So, so yeah, so there's, there's definitely cultic or there's definitely things around influence and, yeah, suspending one's belief, even at times, and making sacrifices that perhaps others wouldn't understand that, that, you know, people might do that and still be doing that, things for the common good and for their own good, but, but once it tips beyond that, then it, then it becomes a call, and at that point, it's, it's no longer appropriate that. That's my view of it. But, you know, that's just my personal feeling about that.

That's, that's interesting. Do you think? Do you think most organizations have the leverage to do these things, whether they choose to or not? Is there something structural, structural about our relationships with organizations where, by having our sort of contractual relationship with them, they can control our behavior, they can control our information, they can influence our thoughts. They can control our emotions to some extent. Do you think those, those abilities are latent within our typical relationships with organizations?

I think I mean this, this is one of the areas we can, we can sort of explore, I think, over the, over the coming podcast episodes. Because I think that's, that's a good that's a good question. I would, I would guess that it depends very much on on the organization. So I mean Jane, in terms of sport, I'm guessing you've got people there who are very dedicated to what they're doing. So straight away, you've got a workforce, for want of a better word, or a group of people who have who are primed, if you like, to want to put in the extra work to want to do, to do more and more and more. If I'm working in, you know, stacking shelves or something. Then, then there's different pressures on me, and they they're going to more likely be fairly basic pressures about needing to earn a living to pay the bills, whereas, if I'm wanting to be a famous actor or, you know, a great sports person, then there's a lot more potential for abuse of that, that power relationship. So I think I would the answer to your question is, I think depends on the organization, but so I think some organizations have an incredible there's an incredible risk that they do exploit people just because of the nature of that that work. So

for me, I always, I always think about where I see, let's call it Poor practice, um, in anything, I always the phrase regulate for the worst and hope for the best and leave space for the best is always the thing that goes through my mind, right? You have to assume someone will do the wrong thing in order to ensure you get your the type of regulation to what extent they might do, that helps you decide how strong that regulation needs to be and but you need to leave space for people to be their best, right, and to do the things that that will do well. And the thing that always strikes me, and you asked me about sport, or you mentioned sport, thing that always strikes me about the sector that I've got most experience in is the stickiness of moving in and out of it, so recruiting for certain positions and certain parts of sport, it's very difficult to be recognized as having comparable skills and be able to move in it. Now that's not the case for everyone. So if you're in HR, it's easier, although it will still be harder than in most most industries, because people will argue, well, you don't really understand sport. People, and you don't understand coaches, so how can you possibly manage them? But I feel like organizations, so we talk about talent war quite a lot in HR and in op, and this idea of, you know, getting staff and stuff like that, and I feel like it is in the organization's interest to make it difficult and unpalatable for people to move away from that organization. And I think that without that being checked on, or knowing the signs of that, I think that it can become very easy to think you haven't got options. And I, you know, when I work with people in our sector, I hear, I hear quite a lot are my I would struggle to move now into corporate, or I would struggle to do this. And when you dig into why that is, it's because the sector has convinced itself it's different, right? And and also put up other barriers that make it difficult to move so, so, yeah, I think that, that piece, I think, is really interesting, and I would definitely, I think that's relevant for people listening around, being able to sort of think about their own because I don't think sports is anyone that does it, and I think big cultish organizations do it as well. James,

yeah, I was just gonna say even before you started speaking there, you know, your example, Stephen, about the maybe, you know, experience of somebody stacking shelves or in some of those more, I guess, labor oriented type of roles. One of the things that's in my mind that goes back to the systemic pieces, the increasing prevalence, you know, the rise of non compete clause clauses in what are fairly retail, high volume jobs. So certainly across the US, in the last 20 years, you get non compete clauses if you're working working in your local fast food restaurant, right? And so, so that, if we're talking about, you know, levers of control over people, if you can say that you're not allowed to work in another restaurant in this town for two years, even when it's such a otherwise fluid market with transferable skills, that seems to me like a real indicator of an overreach of control that I think wouldn't be in the interest of individuals involved. So I think what you were speaking about, Jane, I think there's the sort of creation of a belief system around non transferability or inaccessibility of all of that. But then I think we've also got the actual legal and structural mechanisms that bring into to force a barrier as well. That's another form of control. Yeah.

I think the other thing to think about is, the more the more desirable a role is or the more desirable an organization is, that the more power they potentially have over their employees. And again, it feels like, if I was to compare that to religious organization, why do I want to stay part of this religious group? Well, because they've, they've promised me, you know, that I'm going to live forever and I'm going to see all my dead loved ones again, and I'm going to, you know, and we're God's chosen people. So that's that's your transcendent belief system. Well, okay, let's apply that to an organization that sells computers. So now, actually, we don't sell computers. Steven, now what we do is we sell people the dream of being able to connect to people all over the world. And there's nobody there, does it like us? You know, we and there's a there's a story as well behind that. You know how it was started in somebody's shed and, and they, they battled through, you know, difficulties and challenges and and now, you know, we were more than just a computer company. You know, we give people a window into their lives. This is the future you're buying into the future. Being part of this organization means you are part of this trendy, cool organization that everybody wants to be a part of. You know, sure, if you compare the salary, you know, okay, the salary isn't as high as going working for, you know, computers are us over there. But you're not working for that lot. You're working for the the top notch, you know, God like figure, that is the person behind this wonderful organization that has transformed the world, and yet, you know, tomorrow, it's going to be fantastic. We're going to have computers on Mars. We're going to, you know, we're going to, we're going to be the the information source for all of humanity over the next century. So I'm humming it up a

bit here, but no, no, but you make a really good point, and you it's really interesting. You've just, it's what you've just said. And you said, we right and you're right. That's how they talk. We you are part of us, and yet the employment contract and the means and influence you have are. Over that world is not we. I work for you under a specific contract. I am not. You're not. You're this is not a community operation. You're not inviting me to be an employee owner, right? And this is why, I think also, when organizations offer share capital, but it's not actually ownership, they can't, you know if it's, if it's a public, limited company. It's there's no influence. It's just you're taking, we'd like you to gamble on the bonus that you're getting, on whether we're successful or not, right? That's really, really what it's saying. And so for me, there's something really interesting, and that's the danger of the language, I think, when they say, We, but what they mean, what they mean is, I, and these people who started it, would like you to come and join us. We've owned the risk at the beginning, so therefore you get no no say, and you get to just rub shoulders, and it's it's like being invited to join a friendship group, right? But you're told what to dress, you're told how to conform, and you get to hang out with the cool kids, but you don't get any of the benefits of actually being part of that

group. Yeah, well, I'm feeling a bit like that now, because obviously you're both wearing your hats, and I'm not. So

I'm feeling next time, next time you're there, next time you'll turn up with a hat, will not have hats, and then you'll feel like a fool. Let's

be very clear to the listeners, James and I have got hats on, because we're in a particularly cold part of the world, and there is nothing about the way we look that would suggest that we are the call too.

yeah. But I think that's yeah. So we're probably getting into a bit of the crux here of why this is such an interesting area. Because, I mean, the organizations that you know, that people want to work for. I mean, again, replace that with with football team. You know, do you want to play for? You know, Manchester, Albion made up football name, but you know this, this is a team that's won the European Cup. This is a team that's done this, this team that's done that. I've no idea what any of these football clubs are like in terms of their employment practices for their you know, everyday staff, the cleaners and the the chefs and the the people that look after the stadium and all of that. But if you if you are being offered a role in that club, then I'm not saying they do, but there is a there is a temptation or a thought, there is a tendency that you can think, well, yeah, I know it's not being paid quite as much, but it looks great on my CV. And actually, I'm part of this thing that is so important and so big, so you kind of, you're then, this is just a form of control. But, of course, there's other, there's other elements, of course, that we want to, we want to think about, but, but, yes, I think, I think the tendency there, or the temptation is there, the risk is there, the more charismatic an organization is that the better known it is, the the the sexier it is, the more risk there is that that that inequality of power is, is there

well? And I think I was just gonna say, one of the big indicators you can look for is how big is their volunteer program, and what kind of volunteer roles are people doing? So there's lots of regulation about what a job is, and it can and can't be a voluntary role. But in my experience, we went through it's got better now, since those regulations came in place, but we had organizations that were effectively replacing paid jobs with unpaid because it looked that good on your CV to have worked there, right? And that is basically saying, Hey, we're so good, we don't need to pay you, because you're getting something else out of it. Now, to an extent, that's okay, to some level, but if it's you, know you're doing your spare time, etc. But when you stop, when you start to run a business on that, that is, and you're and you're extracting value for the owners or the shareholders or the whoever it is, that starts to feel very, very open to exploitation. Let's go with

that, and that is what cults do. So that is a great example of what cults do. So if you think about many well known cults, high control groups, they you know they do everything through voluntary contributions, and you know that the buildings are built by volunteers. They'll, they'll perhaps use volunteer labor who are builders and experts in this area. So they'll, they'll, they'll give their labor for free. They'll, you know that the running of their buildings, the printing work, if they've got printing facilities, the IT stuff, a lot of that, if not most of that, will be done by voluntary labor. And this, again, is one of those areas that I've talked about on my podcast, which is that if you're an organization, normally you you'll come under the laws that restrict that sort of thing. But. But cults have a have a clever way of getting around that, and then there's likely to be some a bit of ground in between. I mean, one of the areas that perhaps we should talk about on this, on further discussions, is the charity sector, because that's an area where I think there's, there is potential for abuse, and a lot of religious groups, religious cults are actually charities, and that's how they get away with a lot of the the unethical practices that they do, basically running the whole organization, including getting money by voluntary labor. Yeah,

I think that would be a good route to take the conversation on. I just wanted to reflect on one thing then ask one question to maybe lead us towards looking forward a little bit. My observation is that I've spoken to quite a few people who've had jobs in the city or other places like that, where they've gone into these really prestigious organizations, right? These aren't the people that were making the ABC computer, but these are the people who were, you know, doing the big deals, keeping the world going in the news. So they had that, not always positive limelight on them, but certainly there was a sense of proximity to power and influence and authority and all those things. And I know a bunch of people who've worked in those spaces and and quite often, I think you get people who get to, you know, a few years later in life, sort of, you know, maybe in their 40s, and suddenly realize that actually this isn't what I thought it was. And so it feels like there's a sort of scales removal from the eyes time that people go through, where they suddenly think, actually, you know, this thing never lived up to what I thought it was going to be in terms of its reputation or or suddenly the specialness that I should feel from being part of this isn't really there. The other compensation that I get doesn't, you know, doesn't compensate for what I'm giving into this organization, and I just feel like there's probably a bit of a trend on that. As people, I guess, through maturity and experience and personal security and all those things, start to see the relationships that they have with their organizations as potentially exploitative, and look to make a change as a result of that. And I guess, to sort of move us forward a little bit, I was just wondering, you know, what can people do to have a better understanding of the, I guess, the fairness of a relationship they have with their organization? Is it exploitative? Is it not? How can you know? What can you think about and find as as, I guess, signs to be aware of and things you can do for yourself to help you get a better grip on on what's there. And yeah, I guess that's just a question to either of you.

Yeah, I think that's perhaps one of the things that we we should explore throughout this this series. But yeah, I think, I think obviously listening to this podcast is, is your first port of call. That's the first thing you have to do. But, yeah, I think that there seems to be, there's a lot of interest in in cults, actually, if you, if you look at Netflix and put calls into your search and or you look at books on cults, there's lots and lots of interests and podcasts. Of course, there's lots of interest in this subject. But I think people tend to think, oh, cults are for slightly sad people who are a bit easy to fool. You know, maybe they're searching for something, maybe they've they're a bit they're a bit foolish, and yeah, that it wouldn't happen to me. You know, I'm not going to get involved in in a cult, and so I think that's another, another thing to think about is actually being aware of actually what we're talking about is important. Because most, in fact, I've never met anybody in a cult who thinks they're in a cult. Nobody joins a cult, as far as they're aware. And the people in the cult Don't, don't see themselves as being that. So we don't want to kind of scare people into thinking, you know, you're all in a cult. That's not what we're saying. And we also want to be able to differentiate between just normal regrets that, you know, quite frankly, everyone has in life. When you get to 54 about the the wasted years that you've given to some organization. You know, we all have that, but I think we do need to be able to recognize when, when things have gone to to a degree that they shouldn't. And the other thing that I just wanted to say briefly is that I think, is also a risk for people I don't know. I don't want to speak for you guys, but so I'm going to say, like me. I'm I'm a trainer, I'm a coach. I've studied psychology, I've worked in behavioral change. I'm in a. I'm in a space that is, is you're paid to try and get people to change their behavior in certain ways. So it's very easy for professional trainers, coaches, influences, I think, to get sort of sucked into doing things that are actually, you know, perhaps not that ethical. So that's, that's another thing I think we should think about.

Yeah, I think, I think it is, and I think that is one of the reasons I'm always keen to talk to people who feel they've stayed too long in roles, or who have feel like they've had to, in some ways, adapt their behavior in order to fit afterwards, because I think, actually that's where that's in for those conversations have informed quite a lot of my thinking about this, like, how is it because of something that's intrinsic? So for example, is that person been other stuff going on in their lives? And actually, it's just been easier to not go through a difficult transition and or is it because, actually they felt in some ways beholden to the organization, or because they felt like they were the they were irreplaceable? And I think, I think there's something really interesting in that whole narrative between organizations as well that can be very helpful. It gives a lot of people lots of confidence, but can also be quite dangerous. And so it's always like you say, it's not necessarily as straightforward as you know this is good and this is bad and but it's about looking out and helping people notice those signs that make you go, Oh, hang on, yeah, I'm not careful. Yeah, I could accidentally create something here, or I could do something here that could leave itself vulnerable to affecting people in a way that I perhaps didn't intend.

Yeah, absolutely so. So we said this, this first discussion that we wanted to do on this podcast was kind of almost like behind the scenes, you know, the the original discussion, if you like, and I think we've, we've kind of covered quite a lot of that. What, what we also wanted to do, though, is to think about a way forward and what we wanted to do in subsequent discussion. So have we got any kind of subjects that we've that have fallen out of this discussion here that we think, yeah, actually, that's, that's a that's a little mini podcast. And these podcasts don't have to be an hour. They can be shorter. They can be whatever we think is appropriate. But are there any areas that we think, yeah, actually, I want to dig into that a bit more.

So something I'd love to sort of put on the table that we might want to discuss is the role of purpose and the creation of purpose in organizations. I think that that sort of creation of a value through purpose is interesting, and the direction that goes with that, I think is something that's that's quite interesting. So I'd like to pop that one out there. Jane, is there anything on your mind that you want to bring

nicked my one? No, you haven't nicked it. I knew you were going to say that. I think, for me, I am really interested in the level in which people who work for all good so employees have space and confidence to speak up and to truly challenge, not just from a business case point of view, but from a moral and ethical case. I think there's something really interesting in organizationally, how and why would you do that? Would you give your employees space to do that? And whether that's also whether that's a way of mitigating against some of this? Because I think, firstly, some employees, there's cultures where they can't speak up and they can't criticize, and we recognize those, and we talk a lot, you know, in the sector about psychological safety and things like that, right? And employee voice, but when it's not the business case, and when it's not in the interest of the organization, where is there space and who is listened to about whether organizations can and should adopt a moral or an ethical point of view, and where is the space for that conversation in the organization, and to what extent employees are empowered to have that conversation, I think is really interesting, because I think groups can somewhat regulate themselves if they have the power and space to do so.

Cool. I think one of the things that I'd like to investigate are some case studies of organizations that we think may have slipped into cultic practices. And, I mean, there's some quite well known examples that, you know, there's films and stuff about some of these groups. So maybe we, we pick some of those and do some a bit of a analysis of actually, what, what was it that happened there, and do they really fit that cult narrative, or is it something different that was going on there? I think that'd be really useful. Because, again, this, the word is banded around a lot, and there's, there's lots of accusations, but exactly what, you know, what was happening and how. Did it get to that? What actually did happen? And does it? Does it fit these models of courts? I think that would be really useful, because then we can sort of be on the lookout for those sorts of groups, both as employees, but also, you know, from a I suppose, if you're thinking from a societal perspective as well. So I'd like to look at some case studies on that. And I'd also like to dig into a little bit the psychological processes that that are being invoked by these groups. So how they're doing it, you know, how are they, how they actually getting people because again, the assumption is, I think, in most of society, that people in courts are in that group because they are particularly easy to fool, and it wouldn't happen to me. So I think it's really important to to be very, very aware. It's it's likely that we are moving into an era. So maybe this is another thing to discuss. I'm making a statement. Maybe I'm not correct, but I think we are moving into an era of more and more people being free agents, which in in its in itself, could mean that they have more freedom. But with that, I think, comes also some risks that they, they they get attracted to more unusual, less structured and less controlled, less legislated, structures where it's not quite so clear, am I an employee, or am I not an employee? Do I have this protection, or don't I have this protection? So I think that probably sits in there as well, because that's another whenever you got whenever you get these gaps, this is where cults and others can exploit that. So that's probably an area too. So

that's really interesting, and yes please, because I think there's been a really I don't know if those of you listeners who follow sport will know there was a case a couple of years ago where a Olympian challenged whether they were an employee and therefore fell under work regulation of one of the governing bodies of sport in the UK. And they, it was, I think it was decided they weren't. Well, I know it was decided they weren't, but it brought up an immense, immense amount of thought and provocation about how that person and people like that are influenced to behave in certain ways based on their non employment relationship. And I think, I think there's some really interesting gaps that are highlighted by that, but exist everywhere, right? So I think there's lots and lots of other places where freelancers and Single, single staffers. The power dynamic is so low that there's definitely, there's definitely organizations that are good at making them feel like if they work for them, they can do it. They can get less, more out of it than the financial reward.

Absolutely, I've been contacted in the last month by two organizations that were kind of offering me some very attractive thing to be, you know, a part of, but I had to pay some money up front in order to to be on their, you know, on their list of approved people. So, you know, it's, I think these things are likely to happen more and more as as, yeah, it feels like, oh, I work for myself. I can, I can make my own decisions. But as you quite rightly say, that the power differential is such that it's, it's not quite like that. So yeah, we've got a few things to to discuss, I think. And yeah, I'm certainly up for for doing more of these. I think we've, we've set the scene quite well. Brilliant I look forward to getting stuck into the next ones whenever we do that.

And just a little reassurance to our world of work listeners, we're not saying that just because you you're really keen to help your employees find purpose in work, you suddenly need to worry that you're automatically behaving in a way that would suggest for a cultic business. We were just introducing the topic to get you thinking a little bit about what kind of things we should look out for. Cool. Okay, well, great. I've really enjoyed that conversation. Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to episode one of our special series on cultic behaviors in organizations. We hope you enjoyed it very much, and hopefully see you for the remainder of a series, we've got another three episodes on this topic coming up. You.