PUBLISHED IN: Australian Journal of Communication • Vol 38 (1) 2011 Grappling with the dark side of organisations Colleen Mills ABSTRACT: ʻThe dark sideʼ is a poorly theorised term that is widely and variably used to refer to negative phenomena across many topics and disciplines. This paper grapples with the question of what is being addressed when we refer to the dark side of organisations, using concepts and ontological arguments familiar to organisational communication scholars. The result is the foundation for a new conceptual framework for understanding the dark side of organising, which, by its process orientation, goes beyond existing definitions and categorisations of dark organisational phenomena, and, in so doing, represents a map that could guide those who seek to diminish this darkness. Introduction Organisations are ubiquitous to the extent that it can be argued we live in an organisational society (Presthus, 1978). We are born into an organisation (i.e., a family) and we go on to be educated, work, play, and eventually die in organisations. These organisations provide security, employment, fellowship, fun, and essential services. They also monitor and enforce social mores and societal laws. By virtue of the facility they provide for collaborative action, they also give us the means to achieve more than is possible on our own. Without them we would be condemned to a life of subsistence and limited agency in the world. To appreciate this point, we only need to reflect on how the development of organisations like tribes, guilds, and factories revolutionised life for our forebears. These types of organisations harnessed individual enterprise in ways that resulted in unprecedented social and economic advancement. Such organised collective action brings both intended and unintended outcomes (Durkheim, 1966, pp. 47-75; Merton, 1936). While it extends the possibilities for the individual and the group beyond what would otherwise be possible, it also introduces structures and processes that shape and in many cases curb personal freedoms. These structures and processes also have the potential to impact upon individuals and groups in negative ways, while at the same time providing them with theatres in which their own behaviour can negatively impact upon others (see Robinson & Greenberg, 1998, for a review of employee deviance). These negative impacts are widespread and can take many forms. For instance, abusive behaviour is one example of a negative behaviour that occurs widely in organisations (and elsewhere). This behaviour is referred to as harassment, aggression, mistreatment, victimisation, mobbing, and bullying and can be direct (e.g., insults) and indirect (e.g., sabotage). According to Harris, Harvey, and Booth (2010, p. 608), the majority of employees can expect to encounter abusive behaviour, either as victims or observers, during their working life. According to Durkheim, this is not unexpected. Every social system has a pathological side, because the normal state provides the conditions for the pathological to emerge (see Vaughan 1999, p. 274). Psychologists (e.g., Furnham, 2007; Furnham & Taylor, 2004; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985) propose that this pathological side emerges as a consequence of bringing together individuals with different perspectives, motivations, personalities, and styles of operating in order to create the processes that constitute an organisation and allow it to realise its objectives. On the other hand, sociologists (e.g., Vaughan, 1999, p. 274) and political scientists (e.g., Abel, 2005) consider negative organisational effects to be the product of power differentials and political action. In contrast, management scholars, who are notoriously optimistic in their approach to organisational processes (Furnham, 2007, p. 614), tend to say comparatively little about the dark aspects of organising, except where there are public scandals that can be attributed to inappropriate leadership or questionable business ethics (e.g., the Enron case). In the communication discipline, it has been interpersonal communication scholars (see