Organizational Double Binds

Definition

A double bind occurs when a person receives contradictory messages (explicit or implicit) and is unable to comment on the contradiction without violating a relationship or organizational norm. Classic organizational examples: "You are in charge; but check with William" or "Be creative; but be careful." The bind arises because pointing out the contradiction risks appearing disloyal, immature, or difficult—while staying silent means accepting an impossible position.

In the Book

Argyris illustrates this with the case of a chief executive who tells subordinates: "We encourage everyone to be innovative and risk-oriented. This is what we mean by empowerment. Of course, we also expect you to keep out of trouble." This is a classic mixed message. The subordinates understand intellectually that risk-taking and avoiding trouble are contradictory, but they cannot say so without appearing to misunderstand or challenge the executive. The executive does not acknowledge or invite discussion of the inconsistency. The message's inconsistency is made "undiscussable by the very naturalness with which it is delivered, by the absence of any invitation or disposition to inquire about it."

The mechanism that creates and sustains double binds follows four rules: (1) craft messages that contain ambiguities or inconsistencies; (2) act as if the messages were not inconsistent; (3) make the ambiguity and inconsistency in the message undiscussable; (4) make this undiscussability undiscussable. Employees who have integrity and willingness to accept responsibility find themselves in a specific bind: if they do not discuss the contradiction, it will persist and multiply. But if they do discuss it, they will likely get in trouble. As one executive colorfully observed, these are "shit sandwiches"—damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Why It Matters

Double binds are self-reinforcing. When someone tries to engage them directly—to surface the contradiction and discuss it—the bind strengthens. Managers interpret the attempt as evidence of immaturity or disloyalty and distance themselves from constructive action. This creates a perverse effect: the very people most motivated to resolve the contradiction become the ones most likely to withdraw from engaging it. Over time, people accept these double binds as inevitable features of organizational life and develop cynicism about the possibility of change. This learned helplessness is more damaging than the original contradiction.