Today's theme is the negative impact of contradictory messages and the double-bind situation in the communication between boss and subordinate. This essay borrows analysis tools from Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind. However, I did this analysis not for proving the appropriateness of his theory but for understanding better the difficult business situations in which we might be put. We would like to take an example of the relationship between a Western boss and Japanese subordinates. This Western boss will be called "the boss" and his/her Japanese subordinates just "the subordinates" for simplicity. This essay will show that this combination could generate a double-bind situation.

First of all, we would like to describe how the boss continuously sends contradictory messages to the subordinates. 'Contradictory messages' means the contradiction between 'what he often says' and 'what he actually does', i.e. the contradiction between the words and behavior of the boss. The following four cases are the examples of the contradiction.

1. The boss usually feels it difficult to understand the 'high-context' communication of Japanese people. The 'high-context' means the communication style in which most information is implicitly hidden behind what is actually spoken out. In order to avoid misunderstanding, the boss repeatedly asks the Japanese subordinates to conduct the 'low-context' communication. The 'low-context' means the communication style in which most information is spoken out explicitly. However, the boss often uses sophisticated metaphors and complicated jokes while he is talking in the workplace. He usually uses metaphors without indicating that they are metaphors and says jokes without indicating that they are jokes. Metaphors and jokes are as such as long as the listeners don't understand them literally. For example, the boss explains the vulnerability of information systems by using a metaphor of the door lock of his house. If the listeners understand it literally and believe that the boss is really worrying about the broken door lock of his house, this metaphor will not work as metaphor. The listeners must not understand his words literally but interpret carefully them by searching an appropriate context. In this case the context is the message, "This message is only a metaphor". For another example, if he says, "Now we are lying on the beach" in a meeting room, the listeners must search the appropriate context as well. In this case, the context is the message, "This is only a joke". With the appropriate context the listeners can interpret his words as "Now we are in a relax mode".

2. The boss asks the subordinates to be creative because he believes that the creativity is the main source of added value of the work. However, when the subordinates request comments on their results, the boss makes too many comments for the subordinates. Even when the boss justifies the amount of comments by saying, "We should look for every opportunity to improve our work", the demand of the boss always exceeds the creativity of the subordinates. The boss implicitly continues sending the following message, "Your must have adapted your results to my demands from the beginning", by commenting on their results too much, even though the boss actually wants to foster the creativity of the subordinates. This implicit message is also a meta-message of the boss. To his explicit message ("Be creative"), the boss make an implicit comment ("Be adaptive"). His message and meta-message are contradictory with each other.

4. The boss often asks the subordinates to make their objectives as low as possible when they define objectives in the process of MBO (= management by objective). The boss means that it is an appropriate tactic when we negotiate the objectives with the management. The management naturally tries to make the subordinates put the objectives as high as possible. So it would be a good tactic for the subordinates to put the objectives as low as possible at the beginning of negotiation with the management. However, in daily business, the expectation of the boss regarding the quality of their results is much higher than the expectation of the subordinates. By expecting too high quality for the subordinates, the boss implicitly continues sending the following message, "You must have put your objective higher". This message is also a meta-message. His message ("Set objective lower") is clearly contradictory with his meta-message ("Set objective higher").

We described four examples of the contradiction between message and meta-message of the boss. The boss gives the contradictory and implicit comments on his own explicit messages. What he does is contradictory with what he says. And if we think about the outcome of these contradictions, we will find an interesting thing. In the first contradiction between message and meta-message, the subordinates try to find out the hidden meanings in the boss's metaphor and jokes but always fail because the boss himself denies the hidden meanings in his words. As a result, they usually misunderstand the meanings of the boss's words. In the second contradiction, the subordinates try to answer the demands of the boss and to adapt themselves to what the boss needs. However, they can't understand the demands of the boss correctly because they usually fail to understand the boss by the first contradiction between "Understand me literally" and "Don't understand me literally". This means the first contradiction prevents them from solving the second contradiction. As long as the first contradiction prevents them from understanding the boss correctly, they can't be adaptive either even though they are required to be adaptive by the meta-message in the second contradiction. Also In the third contradiction, the first contradiction prevents the subordinates from submitting to the boss's control because they are prohibited to understand the boss's intention correctly by the first contradiction. As we have just described, the contradictions are interrelated and strengthens each other. In a sense, it is natural because it is as if we always multiply positive number by negative number and negative number by positive number. The answer is always negative and continues increasing its absolute value. When there is only contradiction, no solution can come up.

However, we don't think that there is no solution at all. Two alternatives easily come to our mind. (i) Adjust what the boss says to what he does or (ii) adjust what he does to what he says. Let's think about what will happen If we take the solution (i). Regarding the first contradiction, the boss will stop asking Japanese subordinates to do 'low-context' communication and enjoy 'high-context' communication with them. In return for joyful high-context, both boss and subordinates must accept that they might be misunderstood at any time. This could be allowed in a casual relationship between foreigners and Japanese in the private life but very difficult for the workplace. For the business purpose, people should understand each other as correctly as possible. On the second contradiction, the boss will give up asking the subordinates to be creative and accept that he is the most creative person among them. On the third contradiction, the boss will never ask the subordinates to be independent and accept that they are dependent upon his directions. However, this is also difficult for the boss because his capacity is limited. On the fourth contradiction, the boss will ask the subordinates to put their objectives high from the beginning. This doesn't sound so strange compared to the cases of the first three contradictions.

Probably the solution (ii) will be more realistic. Regarding the first contradiction, the boss will stop the context-dependent communication (metaphors and jokes) or always indicate in advance that it is a joke or a metaphor. Such a communication will be monotonous but much better than continuous misunderstanding. Concerning the second contradiction, the boss will minimize comments upon the results of the subordinates and have to put up with their poor creativity. On the third contradiction, the boss will minimize the control over the subordinates and have to take responsibilities of their failure caused by their free wills. On the fourth contradiction, the boss will make the objectives of the subordinates very high from the beginning.

These two solutions assume that it is not the subordinates but the boss who must change. Of course, there is another solution that requires the subordinates to change. We would like to formulate this third solution as follows. (iii) Change the subordinates' interaction pattern from complementary to symmetric. When we look at how the Japanese subordinates react to what the boss does, we can always observe the same pattern. To the context-dependent words of the boss (metaphors and jokes), the subordinates try hard to interpret them deeply. To too many comments from the boss on their results, the subordinates try hard to fulfill the comments. To too much intervention of the boss, the subordinates try hard to follow his directions. To too high quality expectation of the boss, the subordinates try hard to reach the expectation level. The subordinates always try to answer to riddle by interpretation, to demands by adaptation, to control by obedience, to expectation by meeting it. This kind of interaction pattern is called complementary. We can say that Japanese tend to interact in a complementary way in the relationship with boss. If the subordinates can change their interaction pattern from complementary to symmetric, they will answer to jokes by jokes, to demands by demands, to control by control, to expectation by expectation. Actually we often observe the symmetric interaction pattern in the communication between Western people.

If the explicit messages of the boss seem to be contradictory with his implicit meta-messages, that is because the subordinates always react complementarily to his meta-messages. It often happens that the messages on the verbal level become contradictory with the messages on the non-verbal level. The contradiction between the boss's words and deeds should be considered as a personal shortcoming that everybody has to a certain degree. However, in our case, the boss implicitly expects the subordinates to react symmetrically while the subordinates react complementarily according to their cultural background. This incompatibility of the boss's expectation with the subordinates' cultural background makes the difference between the boss's words and deeds sharply contradictory. For the Japanese subordinates, the explicit messages of the boss always functions as norms that they should follow. At the same time, his implicit messages also functions as norms because in Japanese culture not only the words but also the deeds of the boss can become norms. In Japanese culture the rules and norms are not always expresses in words explicitly. Sometimes the implicit rules and norms that the boss shows in his behavior are even more important than the explicitly communicated instructions of the boss. On the contrary, Westerners seem to put much more stress upon the explicit rules and norms and assume that people often behave differently from the verbal norms. Westerners seem to believe that the stability of written words is naturally more appropriate as the norms than the instability of behavior while Japanese believe that the behavior is exactly as adequate as the word for becoming a norm.

Now we have three alternatives to solve the contradictions of the boss's messages. Whichever solution we take, we must do one thing before implementing it. It is to share the analysis of the current situation as described above. Boss and subordinates must understand that they are in the mess of contradictory messages. The analysis of this essay happens to depend upon Bateson's theory. But we might be able to reach a similar result by using another methodology. With whatever methodology, boss and subordinates must share the understanding of the current situation. If we implement any of the three solutions before sharing this analysis, the unannounced change of the attitude will increase the mutual mistrust.

Now that we have described three solutions to solve the contradictions of the message of the boss, it will be worthwhile to note that one message can destroy the effectiveness of all solutions. The message goes like this, "We should find out the middle ground between boss and subordinates". When we look at the three solutions, we notice that there is no middle ground. The solution (i) and (ii) requires the boss to change while the solution (iii) requires the subordinate to change. It is always either boss or subordinates that must change. The boss expects the symmetric interaction from the subordinates while the subordinates expects the complementary interaction from the boss. It is clear that their expectations don't meet each other. However, there is no middle ground between complementary and symmetric interactions. If both of them change, it results only in another contradiction. Let's use a metaphor. If we change the signs of both figures in the formula '-5 x 3' and make it '5 x -3', the answer is still negative. If we change the sign of only one figure in the formula and make it '-5 x -3' or '5 x 3', the answer turns into positive. Just like this formula the negativity of contradictory messages can be removed only by changing either boss or subordinates. In addition, when the boss says that they should find the middle ground, he means that he wants to solve the problem. His implicit comment on his message, i.e. his meta-message means that he wants to solve the problem although the content of his message, i.e. the reference to "middle ground", denies the possibility of solving the problem. Here again we find the contradiction between his message and meta-message. In this case this contradiction can't be revealed until we find the solutions described above.

Here appears the true double-bind situation finally, i.e. the sender of contradictory messages himself takes away all possible solutions of the contradiction. The first step to this complete double-bind situation was the contradiction between messages and meta-messages. We can describe it as follows. When the subordinates try to stop the high-context communication, they come across the high-context communication conducted by the very person who prohibits it. When they try to be creative, the very person who requests it suppresses it. When they try to be independent, the very person who requests it dominates them. When they try to lower the goals, the very person who requests it heightens the goals. Then the second step accomplishes the double-bind situation. This second step can be described as follows. When they try to solve the contradictions, the very person who proposes solving the problem together paralyzes the solutions. In this double-bind situation, everything the subordinates try to do generates the contrary effects. According to Bateson, such a double-bind situation is one of the causes of schizophrenia for young children. In our case, we don't have to worry that the subordinates might become schizophrenia because they have already fully grown up and it happens in the workplace. But it is sure that the double-bind situation is a seriously demotivating factor for them and it might make them depressive.

I wrote that Japanese tend to interact complementarily in the relation with the boss. We can also recognize a pattern in the boss's interaction. The boss seldom answers, "I agree", when he is asked something. He usually puts the questions in a different context intentionally and gives an answer that requires a few seconds to understand its meaning. This complicated communication process is conducted almost unconsciously. And the meta-message of this kind of communication pattern is also as follows; "Don't understand me literally" while he often says explicitly, "Please understand me literally". It seems to me that this boss can't stop playing with the context.

As long as the double-bind situation is limited within a small group, its negative effects are also limited. Even in the worst case the problem will disappear (not be solved) if the small group is dissolved. However, such a double-bind situation can happen across the whole organization and affect all members. For example, let's assume that the top management recommends all members of the company to maintain the principle of being proactive. If the same management requires the same members to do the business as usual even when they have already recognized some changes in the future, that will be a contradiction between one message and another message. The first message tells the members to anticipate the future and make change now while the second message tells them not to care the future and not to make change now. If the top management really requires proactive attitudes, it is natural that the members change their behaviors before the changes that they have already recognized actually happen. The fact that the second message denies the first message communicates a meta-message about the concept of the principle in general that the top management holds. The meta-message goes as follows; "Don't follow the principle". The principle includes any kind of visions, goals and guidelines defined in an organization. With this meta-message, it is possible that the top management denies every principle issued by itself. It is no doubt that this kind of contradiction increases the mutual mistrust just as in the case of contradictory messages in a small group described above.