Corporate Psychological Defences: An Oil Spill Case

Abstract

Organisational psychological defences protect the self-esteem and moral integrity of the organisational personality even at the expense of sacrificing the morality of actions. This paper analyses the spectrum of defences used by an oil refinery and its parent company during an oil spill incident. A hypothetical model of defences built on Swajkowski’s four responses to accusations of organisational misconduct – refusals, excuses, justifications and concessions – is tested through this case. On the basis of empirical findings it is obvious that defences delay, impede and interrupt the mitigation and recovery actions of incidents. It is not possible to break the defence behaviour of individuals because it is a built-in psychological mechanism in all humans serving a valuable purpose of dosing the pain of injury. However, it is possible to separate individual and organisational behaviour so that automatic organisational procedures mitigate, recover and, ultimately, prevent incidents. The organisational psychological task of crisis management is to mitigate the organisation’s ego defences, recover from its emotional turmoil and prevent further traumas by making its ego stronger and more flexible. The argument of this paper is that in practice organisational defences act as bumpers against becoming too conscious of the gap between the corporate rhetoric and reality, as subconscious breaks against too fast change demands, and as batteries in their preconscious effort to prepare for the change. Organisational refusals act as bumpers, excuses as breaks and justifications as batteries, while concessions imply that a change towards a more responsible corporation is taking place. Copyright Springer 2006crisis management, defence behaviour, oil spill, organisational concessions, organisational psychological defences, organisational excuses, organisational justifications, organisational refusals,

A Holistic Corporate Responsibility Model: Integrating Values, Discourses and Actions

“…This article develops further the results of another article published in this journal (Ketola, 2006a). That article investigated corporate defence discourses.…”

Rhetoric and argument in social and environmental reporting: the Dirty Laundry case

“…We build on the literature focusing on the role of social and environmental reporting following organisational legitimacy threats or crises caused by organisational 'wrongdoing' (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) or misconduct (Ketola, 2006(Ketola, , 2008.…”

Rhetoric and Argument in Social and Environmental Reporting: The Dirty Laundry Case

“…First, we conceptualise verbal interaction as a series of conversational units or moves which have a specific communicative purpose, such as accusing, demanding, requesting, threatening (Greenpeace) and denying, excusing, and conceding (sportswear/fashion firms). Ketola (2006Ketola ( , 2008 classifies organisational response to charges of misconduct based on whether the organisation (1) admits the misconduct and/or (2) admits responsibility for the misconduct. Combining the two possible responses, namely (1) admitting (or not admitting) the misconduct and/or (2) admitting (or not admitting) responsibility for the misconduct, results in four moves by the sportswear/fashion firms: denials, excuses, justifications, and concessions (see Figure 2).…”