In the last couple of issues of Practical Counsel I talked about the so-called drama triangle, and explained that it is a frequently encountered, dysfunctional, dynamic.
My comments resonated with several readers. My correspondent this week describes a situation currently placing out in his workplace. I share my thoughts about how it might be possible to cut through the difficulties that he is experiencing.
Last issue was the last in a series of summer issues (summer in the Northern Hemisphere, that is) in which senior in-house lawyers nominated their favourite leadership role models from popular culture.
Below I announce the winner. Thanks to all of you who wrote in; I really appreciate you taking the time, and I was impressed by the range of contributions.
It’s back to work for those returning from their summer holidays, and back to school for those who have kids of the relevant ages. My youngest is starting his last two years of school (that’s High School for those in the US) – I can’t believe that the era of school uniform in our family is finally coming to an end.
I’m looking to readers for suggestions for topics for the autumn / fall – I’m planning to explore relationships with the Board and to have a focus on diversity in coming issues, but would welcome your suggestions too.
Enjoy reading, and please comment and contribute to the debate by posting direct on Practical Counsel. Also, please write in with your unique people issues to me (practicalcounsel@substack.com) - I unequivocally undertake never to reveal your identity and will change key details of your situation so as to preserve your confidentiality and anonymity (unless you don’t want this). I also undertake to write to you personally with my own thoughts and comments on your situation and am always happy to follow up with a call on Zoom or similar.
‘Dear Jonathan’ … and Jonathan’s Reply
Dear Jonathan
I read the last couple of issues of Practical Counsel with particular interest, specifically your description of the drama triangle.
I hadn’t come across the concept of the drama triangle before, and was interested given the situation I’ve been experiencing at work.
I am a Deputy General Counsel (DGC) in a medium-sized legal department. There are around 50 of us in department as a whole, and we are mostly co-located, although most lawyers have been working from home since the pandemic started and there’s no sign of many wanting to return to the office.
There is an unhealthy dynamic between the three DGCs who report in to the GC, and aspects of that dynamic seem to follow the pattern you described when explaining the drama triangle.
Each of the three of us (let’s call us Tom, Dick and Harry – as it so happens we are all male) from time to time falls into the role of victim. There’s often some aspect of our work, or other contribution to the department, that is criticized by our GC - who has very high standards and who, to put it mildly, doesn’t suffer fools.
When this occurs, I’ve noticed that it’s quite common for one of the other DGCs to treat this an opportunity to try subtly to score points or to undermine the ‘victim’; and when this happens the third DGC tends to be supportive of the victim.
A couple of months back, for example, it emerged that one of the DGCs (Dick) had overshot on his budget for outside counsel. Dick was sharply criticized at a team meeting by the GC. A second of the DGCs, Tom, took the opportunity – not so subtly – to outline the steps that he had been taking to reduce reliance on outside counsel. When I started to defend Dick, on the basis that some of his spend was due to unforeseen matters connected with the conflict in Ukraine, Tom started to undermine me by questioning some of my points, and I found myself sliding into the role of victim, with Dick coming to my rescue.
Do you have any thoughts about how I could try to cut through this dynamic, which is unhelpful, to say the least.
Best wishes
Harry
(he / him)
--
Dear Harry
Thanks so much for your email.
You’re describing an interesting, and not unusual dynamic.
I’m wondering whether there is more to the situation you describe than the drama triangle I outlined in the last two issues of Practical Counsel. I’m wondering whether the key character in this particular psychodrama is not any of the trio of DGCs, but the GC.
What struck me when reading through your email was that you talked about how there is often some aspect of one of your work that is criticised by the GC, who, as you put it, doesn’t suffer fools.
It sounds like it’s the GC who is casting one of you into the role of victim, and that the other two DGCs then often fall into the role of either pursuer or rescuer.
This reminds me of the situation in a legal department I used to consult to, where there was a very domineering GC, who used to call out the DGCs on a pretty regular basis. The DGCs, rather than having a united front, jockeyed for position and each sought to be the GC’s favourite. In reality none of them was the GC’s favourite and when the GC left an outsider was appointed as GC, rather than one of the deputies.
So I think there are probably elements of the drama triangle in the situation you describe, but that what might be going on is that the GC is manipulating the three of you to consolidate his or her power. It’s classic ‘divide and conquer’.
If my hypothesis is correct, the reality is that the three of you will be stronger if you are able to step out of the drama triangle and present a united front to your GC.
(Incidentally, you don’t mention the gender of the GC - I’m not sure that’s particularly relevant but it’s an interesting dynamic if the three of you are male and the GC is female. Is the GC playing ‘Queen Bee’ in this particular game?)
I would suggest the following:
1. Step back from the situation and analyse what is really going on here. Am I right that the dynamic is being distorted primarily by the GC rather than by one of your colleagues?
2. Try to discuss the situation with your colleagues. I’ve no idea how good or bad the relationship is as between the three of you, but I would suggest trying to build bridges, both one on one with each of the DGCs and also, at the appropriate time, by having a three way conversation about what is going on.
3. Step out of the role of victim when you notice yourself being placed into that role. By adopting the role of victim you are emphasising the power imbalance between yourself and the GC and going along with the game, rather than stepping away from it.
4. Similarly resist the temptation to play the role of either pursuer or rescuer. By all means support your colleague in a peer appropriate manner, but do so from a place of objectivity. Don’t fall into the trap of turning on your colleagues to score cheap points. That’s just feeding the dysfunctional dynamic.
If the three of you manage to present a united front it is far less likely that your GC will succeed in manipulating you. If he or she has a narcissistic streak that tendency to narcissism will pick up on the differences between you and exploit them. It sounds like that’s probably what’s happening at the moment.
It’s a difficult situation, without a doubt. I wish you all possible luck in trying to manage it.
Best wishes
Jonathan
‘And the Winner Is ……’
Thanks again to all of you who wrote in with your nominations for role models from popular culture. What was intended as a whimsical summer diversion threw up some really interesting commentary, and an interesting range of role models – be they role of models of leadership, managerial or relational skills.
What shouldn’t have surprised me, perhaps – but did – was how many of the role models came from the world of film, specifically either Hollywood film or US TV. This made me think about how much our view of leadership is shaped by a bunch of screenwriters in LA and New York. Quite a bit I suspect.
The other thing that surprised me was the fact that - notwithstanding the diversity of Practical Counsel’s readership - all of the nominations were male and white. So zero diversity on a couple of key aspects, albeit plenty of cognitive diversity (a legal team consisting of Captain Kirk, Batman, Ted Lasso and Maverick would score high marks on neurodiversity, I’d suggest).
I wonder whether our leadership paradigms remain as male and white as this small sample might suggest. I hope not.
And so to the winner …
In a field of excellent entries, one stood out, both for putting forward an unlikely choice, but also for the brilliance of the writing and for making me laugh.
And the winner is ….
[drumroll, tense music, long, long, overlong, pause ………..]
Olly Buxton / The Jolly Contrarian - for his nomination of ‘Molesworth’. Olly’s unlikely nomination of a barely functional English schoolboy was not intended as a tribute to our outgoing Prime Minister – but rather as a paean of praise for his tendency to cut through the diplomatic niceties and to call a spade a spade. In a world of fake news and post-truth, I agree that this is a quality to celebrate (together with the other qualities Olly describes in his witty piece).
Olly will be receiving a suitable token of appreciation (quoffable) and I would highly recommend the Jolly Contrarian for anyone who has an hour or several to waste.
Leeving the finul sine off to Molesworth ……
Key Takeaways
1. This week’s correspondent is one of three DGCs in a medium-sized legal department. He describes a situation where the three DGCs from time to time find themselves playing the roles of pursuer, victim and rescuer.
2. Superficially this suggests that the three DGCs are caught in a drama triangle, as described in the last two issues of Practical Counsel.
3. Jonathan questions whether there isn’t in fact a fourth player in the psychodrama, the General Counsel. He hypothesises that the GC is manipulating the three DGCs in order to consolidate his or her position of power.
4. Jonathan suggests that the correspondent steps back from the situation to work out what is really going on. He also suggests trying to build bridges with the other two DGCs – and if appropriate to discuss what is going on with them.
5. He also suggest that the correspondent resists the temptation to play the game – by stepping out of whichever of the roler of victim, pursuer or rescuer that he might otherwise fall into.
And now …….
Contribute to the debate and write in with your comments and observations. Also write to Jonathan with any other people issues you face as an in-house lawyer.
Jonathan can be reached by email at practicalcounsel@substack.com
A note for you picky lawyers; and a plea for tolerance
I am a British lawyer by background and went to both school and University in the UK. So my English is British English. I have taken a conscious decision to write this newsletter in British English, but to try to avoid phrases that aren’t common outside the UK. Sometimes, though, I’ll use a phrase that isn’t commonly used outside the UK, without realising that it is a Britishism. I also endeavour to use the vernacular spellings of my contributors (e.g. to use US spellings for a US contributor), but won’t always get this right.
My plea is for you to tolerate the British spellings and grammar and the occasional Britishism. And to focus on the substance of the newsletter rather than the occasional (to you) annoying turn of phrase, bit of grammar or unorthodox spelling, or the occasional inconsistency in spelling as between, for example, UK and US ‘standard’ spellings.
Thank you and best wishes,
Jonathan Middleburgh