I Hate You: Psychological Projection in Business Relationships

Has something like this happened to you? You have been assigned to a project working with a person you just can't stand. Something about them really bugs you! They don't like you much either. Maybe you think the person is manipulative, overbearing, power hungry, sneaky, whatever.... Logic and the needs of the business don't seem to be enough in dealing with this person. You start documenting everything for the day when things fall apart and people are looking for someone to blame.

If you've been there, chances are you have experienced the power of psychological projection (we'll call it PP for short.) PP occurs when a person is operating in a social setting and unconsciously overlays some internal phenomenon on an external situation or person. The person then reacts to the internal overlay instead of to the external reality. To an outsider or to one on whom the PP has been overlayed, the person's actions and responses seem inappropriate to the real situation.

Let's look at a specific, real situation in which a two-way PP occurred. A few years ago I owned a company and had a huge client project with two project managers who ran differents parts of the project but had to collaborate on others.

They hated each other. Each night after work, I would predictably receive a call from each person complaining about the other. As I listened to each version of the story, it sounded like the angels were on that person's side. At first I was pulled this way and that as I listened, until I realized that neither person was presenting the complete picture.

Person A was a quiet, subtle, but assertive person from a family where there had been an abusive, loud father. Person B was an assertive, loud person from an assertive, loud family. Person A thought person B was abusive and crazy. Person B thought person A was sneaky and manipulative. Neither trusted the other.

Because of the importance of the project and my conviction of the basic competence of each person, I took some drastic measures--mainly, I made them have lunch with me and talk to each other. Good digestion was not the goal! Understanding was. The most effective tactic was to have each tell their side of a recent conflict. For example, Person A explained:

" I came up to B and told her that the current approach was just NOT working, and she clammed up and started working behind my back with her staff. "

"What do you mean working behind your back?" I asked.

"Well, she had meetings that I wasn't invited to where she told the team that I was out of control and that something had to be done about the situation in question or I'd go ballistic. I know she wants to get me, but I didn't think she'd go this far!"

I asked Person B if she had met behind person A's back. " Yes, but we just wanted to solve the situation, which did need work. Person A is such a drama queen, I didn't want to upset her, so I just got what she wanted done done. I don't know what she's complaining about!"

I thought about what I'd heard and realized that actually they had worked together effectively--there was a situation which Person B could affect but didn't recognize; Person A had recognized it, pointed it out and asked for action. She got it. The problem was their styles and PP.

I asked Person B, the quiet one, how she interpreted A's assertion that the current situation was NOT working? "Well, she was saying that it was my fault!"

Person A looked astonished! "No, that's not what I meant. I was concerned that the process we had set up together wasn't working that Person C (their client manager) wouldn't be happy. I was upset, but not at you. After all, it was my idea too!"

"What ARE you upset about then?" I asked. "Well, Person B tried to tell the team I was out of control and sneaked behind my back to form a solution without me and undermine me with the team."

It was Person B's turn to be astonished. "No, I was so taken aback by your anger over this that I was trying to get a solution fast to calm you down. Besides, you were right about the situation."

After a few interchanges like this one, both people realized that they didn't understand each other's motivations very well and were doing some PP. Person B was confusing Person A's loud behavior, purely an ethnic habit, with abusive behavior. (In Person A's family, if you weren't loud and assertive, you got nothing, and nobody trusted you. Quiet was sneaky.)

In Person B's family, loud was abusive and had to be managed to keep further upsets from happening. Members of her family worked behind the scenes to solve problems that caused upsets. There was a lot of blaming in her family.

After a few moderated interchanges, these two intelligent women realized they had gotten each other wrong. They began to call time-outs to hash out what they really intended when conflicts arose. They become fast friends and allies in the project--a very hopeful thing for us all!
David Orr