Stop Enabling

This is a guest post by JC Hewitt, founder of Fail Often and contributor to NYC 3.0, a new site covering startups in NYC.

Bad habits end themselves without outside support. Every alcoholic has a small network of little people keeping them running. It’s usually the romantic partner who ensures that the ne’er-do-well gets out of bed every morning for work. They keep them fed while they’re unemployed.

This extends beyond intimate relationships. Dysfunctional people often require a large hierarchy under them to function. When the drunk walks into the office hung over, there’s someone who’s willing to expend heroic efforts to cover for the lost productivity due to self-destructive habits.

Most of us have an array of vices that prevent us from achieving our full potential. The role of the enabler in a social network is to bear the toxic pain that would otherwise be felt by the irresponsible members of the tribe.

This is intensive emotional labor, and necessary to maintain malfunctioning corporations, families, and other groups.

A typical enabler casts themselves as “supportive,” playing the role of the amateur therapist or pseudo-parent. Enablers are stereotypically females, but the behavior is practiced by both genders.

Steve Jobs, for example, is well-known for his verbally abusive managerial style. In order to function, Jobs, no doubt, must vent his rage on his subordinates on a regular basis in order to maintain his psychic equilibrium.

Apple is a successful corporation, and I don’t begrudge it. Much of the success of the company has been attributed to Jobs’ leadership, and with good reason. I’ve never been impressed by Apple products, but I can respect the quality of the workmanship and the marketing mystique the company created.

The trouble in these sorts of dysfunctional systems only becomes apparent over time. It’s challenging to remember this, but the success of Apple is a recent phenomenon. Apple’s shift to a design-conscious consumer electronics firm only began with the release of the iMac in 1998. The continued success of the enterprise isn’t guaranteed, and is rather unlikely.

Look at the iPad. The immediate reaction of thousands of outside observers was to ridicule the brand name.

When you make a habit of dumping your toxic rage on your subordinates, over time, they begin to resent it. Usually, those feelings remain unconscious. Subtle rebellion creeps in. The public humiliation of Jobs following the iPad announcement seems to be the fruit of passive-aggressive rebellion from all the co-workers that Jobs has insulted over the years.

To a certain extent, we all have bad habits. Some of these are more virulent than others. Striving to eliminate all of our self-harming tendencies can be a life-long task that most of us have no time for.

Yes, you should quit heroin if you’re an addict, but the energy that you’d need to expend to become a tee-totaler that never eats cookies or watches TV and only eats a diet of protein powder, vitamins and flavored air might be more intensive than it would be worth.

However, there are some habits that you must excise from your personality if you’ve ambition. While accruing a network of sycophants can be a profitable survival strategy, it’s fraught with long-term risk, and typically results in profound misery.

Like Lindsay Lohan. Or Josef Stalin. He died in 1953, surrounded by his lackies, after living decades in stupendous luxury, successfully getting away with the murders of millions of people, lauded by a terrified population. He was perhaps the most successful Machivellian ever.

He was also unhappy, unloved, and perpetually wracked with violent moods of fear and loathing.

Lifestyle design is about the hunt for happiness.

This isn’t a cute-and-cuddly process in which everyone comes out ahead.

Dysfunctional people require slavish poison-sucking behavior from their enablers. Severe alcoholics abandoned by their families end up homeless, institutionalized, dead, or (in some rare cases) clean up their acts.

While life as a whole is not a zero-sum game, in many cases, some people must be abandoned to their own self-destructive ends.

Mutual exploitation is an unstable relationship style. It can provide short-term benefits to both parties, but in the long run, it corrodes the integrity of everyone involved.

Bear in mind that most people around you will be incapable of forming mutually nurturing relationships – in business or in personal life. Look for the little hints that people (and clients) give off about the gaping voids in their personality. These are market demand signals for other people to rush in and fulfill their unmet needs.

There’s nothing strictly wrong with helping other people in this manner. It’s what keeps the economy moving. I have no idea how to fix broken plumbing, so I’ll hire a plumber to do it for me. It only becomes a problem if the enabling person becomes trapped in a relationship without adequate compensation.

Beware of people who will ask you to accomplish something that you can’t. It’s beyond your capabilities to repair a broken business model for a client. You might be able to polish up the surface for them, collect a fee, and then depart, but avoid getting sucked into a never-ending process of remaking an entire company unless you’re getting paid McKinsey-like money.

This is a process of negotiating professional and personal limits and boundaries.

Clients that give off red flags will fit solidly within the 80% of people that aren’t worth your time.

For example, if a client fails to explain their business model when asked, it’s probably not worth working with them. You might be able to learn from working for failures up to a certain extent, but in the long run, it’s healthier to work with rational clients, regardless of the short-term benefits of skimming from the bottom.

This includes working for startups funded by profligate investors that have no actual customers. I doubt that there are many of these out there still breathing, but it still stands as a good rule to follow – even if you’re desperate.

Bad management teaches you poor work habits. The marketplace itself is the ultimate teacher. Companies without an established market are more like hobbies than enterprises.

The Wage System

The wage system functions because so many people are willing to be exploited, so they can lubricate the cogs of the grandiose machines of the powerful for pitiful rewards. They gain a lukewarm sort of satisfaction out of their place in life from doing so, metered by an all-encompassing misery.

I also think that such people are better off working than they would be otherwise, but I can understand that their training into subordinacy (which they’re not responsible for) makes them more willing to work for less.

Simultaneously, I understand that this socio-economic system is unsustainable. There are too many perfectly capable people out there working far below their potential. Anything that we can do to unlock that dormant human capital will create a happier, more productive world.

When a customer comes to you with a nebulous array of problems, your job is not to save them from themselves. Like a combat medic, you perform triage. Take care of the life-threatening problems first, within the budget. Leave the rest alone.

Break down those problems into next-action lists. The mind can’t make sense of incoherent concepts.

Never accept abuse or harassment from a client, superior, or co-worker. It’s not worth the stress and fall-out, even if you might lose out on some cash in the short run. If you’re worried about them, rest assured that they’ll find another punching bag on the labor market.

Photo Credit: agitprop


Related posts

  1. How to Stop Procrastinating and Start Living the Life You Want
  2. Taking Control of Your Life Once and For All
  3. All It Takes Is Persistence
  4. Developing an Online Business in Bursts of Madness
  5. How to Guarantee Success


10 Responses to Stop Enabling
  1. JC Hewitt
    March 3, 2010 | 3:01 am

    Thanks for the opportunity, J.D.

    This article from the Harvard Business Review discusses some of the pratfalls of the narcissistic leadership style with reference to Apple and other major companies:

    http://www.maccoby.com/Articles/NarLeaders.shtml

    I think that “narcissist” is an out-dated Freudian label, although understanding some of the psychological mechanisms commonly associated with it can be worthwhile. .-= JC Hewitt´s last blog ..Change Yourself First =-.

  2. Jay Horowitz - OurTakeOnFreedom
    March 3, 2010 | 10:11 am

    Ok, ok. Bad management is bad management.

    But, “The wage system functions because so many people are willing to be exploited.” – what?!

    The ‘wage system’ is just a way of trading labor for a something that is a medium of exchange, unit of account, and a store of value. This removes a lot of inefficiencies in a barter system.

    What exactly do you propose replacing it with? .-= Jay Horowitz – OurTakeOnFreedom´s last blog ..Haitians, an Iraq War Vet and an Upcoming Trip to Cabrera =-.

    • J. D. Bentley
      March 3, 2010 | 10:32 am

      I don’t mean to put words in JC’s mouth. He can answer for himself if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think he was suggesting we replace the wage system at all. Rather, he was saying that those in the wage system need to realize that they are actually (for lack of a better term) “little entrepreneurs.”

      That is to say, even though they are employees they are selling their skill and their time and should be aware that they have the right to be treated with respect and to be fairly compensated. Many people just accept whatever job they come by and get a “slave” state of mind.

      You can argue that the wage system isn’t full of people willing to be exploited, but I wouldn’t buy it.

      • Jay Horowitz - OurTakeOnFreedom
        March 3, 2010 | 10:52 am

        @JD – Thanks for the reply!

        I wouldn’t call it exploitation, but I’ll certainly agree that many people just accept whatever job they come across and become trapped in it.

        What I disagree with is the statement that the wage system “functions because so many people are willing to be exploited.” The wage system is fantastic and would function just fine under any circumstances.

        Remember, the wage system and what this blog calls ‘wage servitude’ are very different things.

        Cheers, Jay .-= Jay Horowitz – OurTakeOnFreedom´s last blog ..Haitians, an Iraq War Vet and an Upcoming Trip to Cabrera =-.

        • J. D. Bentley
          March 3, 2010 | 11:12 am

          I certainly see what you are saying. There could be enough people who actually like being employees without feeling exploited that the system would work anyway. But I’m not one of those people so it’s really hard to relate. For me it was exploitation and I left. Did the system collapse when I left? No.

          I wouldn’t consider the wage system exploitation if kids were presented with other options in school. For the most part, we are all pushed through a kind of conveyor-belt education that puts an unfair amount of attention on getting a job. By the time you graduate high school or college, it’s pretty much expected that you’ll work under someone else for a particular price, and like you said a lot of those people accept whatever job comes along and get trapped.

          It’s true that you can’t look out for every person. They need to learn and do for themselves. But I think it’s a great disservice to leave entrepreneurship out of education.

          Do I think it should be replaced? Not if it’s what people actually want to do. Do I think it’s the ideal? Absolutely not.

  3. JC Hewitt
    March 3, 2010 | 12:22 pm

    I mean “exploitation” more in the emotional sense of the word. They’re willing to work for far less than what it’s worth in order to gain a measure of emotional security.

    Of course, these relationships are purely consensual. There’s nothing immoral in hiring a worker on a wage or taking a job.

    I agree that the wording is imprecise, especially with the political history involved in mislabeling employment as exploitation. I actually edited a version of this post to remove that sentence and replace it with something clearer, but I screwed up and sent an earlier draft to J.D. without first checking.

    Don’t you think it’s a little silly for people to be paid for attendance rather than compensated based on production, as most contractors are? Hourly and annual wages create such perverse incentives in the majority of cases.

    Even with commissions and bonuses, time-based wages reward a reversion to mediocrity and generate collectivism in the workplace. It punishes efficiency and innovation.

    I’m an arch-capitalist, so it certainly wasn’t my intention to posit that cash-for-labor is improper. .-= JC Hewitt´s last blog ..Change Yourself First =-.

  4. Robert
    March 7, 2010 | 12:01 am

    Heh, keep stirring stuff up JC. Challenging post as usual. Awareness is key as usual! .-= Robert´s last blog ..Watch This and Get Free Support! =-.

About JD
Hey, I'm JD. I'm a writer, web designer and contrarian entrepreneur. Wage Slave Rebel is a place where I (and others) explore alternative and ethical ways to earn a living apart from the corporate hierarchy. The goal of this site is to help people escape wage slavery and start reaping the full rewards of their skills and passions.

Learn more about Wage Slave Rebel

Feel free to contact me or follow me on Twitter.
Fresh Thoughts