High performance is often celebrated rhetorically but punished behaviorally, particularly in politically volatile environments where competence destabilizes fragile group dynamics. This article provides an analysis, grounded in organizational psychology, of how a flat leadership structure, collective insecurity, and narrative construction can converge to target a single high‑performing individual. Rather than a story about one insecure colleague, this is a case study in coalitionary threat response.
Collective Threat Response
In organizational psychology, groups sometimes form coalitions not to achieve excellence but to neutralize a perceived threat. Research on coalitionary psychology (Tooby & Cosmides, 2010), social identity threat (Steele, 1997), collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020), and status threat (Pettit & Lount, 2010) demonstrates that groups often react defensively when an individual’s competence challenges the group’s self‑concept.
A coalition typically forms when:
- one individual outperforms the group
- the individual is independent of group approval
- the individual has direct access to leadership
- the individual’s competence exposes inefficiencies
- the group fears loss of status or relevance
In such cases, the group’s behavior becomes less about performance and more about preserving the in‑group’s psychological equilibrium.
Flat Leadership as a Catalyst for Dysfunction
A leadership structure in which six directors all report directly to a single GM/CEO creates ideal conditions for role ambiguity and status anxiety. Flat structures often produce informal hierarchies, ambiguous power dynamics, competition for proximity to authority, and increased susceptibility to groupthink (Janis, 1972).
With no buffer layer, the CEO becomes the sole perceptual bottleneck. Whoever controls the narrative controls the leader’s perception. When multiple directors repeat the same subjective complaints, the CEO experiences cognitive overload, availability bias, and pressure to restore group cohesion. Repetition becomes “evidence,” and consensus becomes “truth.”
Although termed coalitionary, the narrative is often instigated and driven by a single individual who manipulates the group to become, or retain, the sole perceptual bottleneck to leadership.
While the others participate out of self‑preservation, motivated by fear of exclusion, status loss, or social punishment, the instigator leverages these dynamics to consolidate influence. In such cases, the coalition is less a unified front and more a collection of individuals responding to social identity threat, status anxiety, and conformity pressure, all orchestrated by someone skilled in impression management and narrative control.
This is not evidence‑based leadership; it is cognitive economy under stress.
How Competence Triggers Group Defense Mechanisms
High performers threaten fragile groups because they disrupt the group’s collective self‑concept. This is especially true when the high performer demonstrates clarity, ingenuity, systems thinking, independence, direct access to leadership, cross‑team rapport, and perceptiveness about group dynamics.
These traits activate social comparison threat (Festinger, 1954). The group experiences the high performer not as a colleague but as a mirror reflecting their own inadequacies.
The predictable response includes:
- reframing strengths as deficits
- weaponizing subjective complaints
- exaggerating minor behaviors
- constructing a shared narrative
- escalating concerns upward
- isolating the target
This behavior is not about the target’s performance; it is about protecting the group’s fragile identity.
Selective Enforcement and Confirmation Bias
Typing notes on an iPad or iPhone is efficient and unobtrusive. Yet in a politically charged environment, even neutral behaviors become ammunition. This is confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) in action.
While others typed on laptops or scrolled their phones, only one person’s device use became a problem. This selective enforcement is a hallmark of coalitionary targeting. The behavior was not the issue; the identity of the person performing it was.
The ADD Disclosure and Minimization Reflex
When concerns about “inattentiveness” reached HR, explaining the presence of ADD was intended to provide context. Many individuals with ADD exhibit internal processing, distributed attention, and atypical engagement cues. These behaviors are often misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with them; occasionally, these misinterpretations are not by chance. One must look at the totality of the situation.
The dismissive response, “maybe try sitting on your hands”, reflected a minimization reflex, not a constructive or evidence‑based approach. It signaled that the organization was more invested in preserving the narrative than understanding the individual or the true nature of what was transpiring.
This aligns with research on attribution bias, which shows that once a negative narrative is established, new information is assimilated to fit the existing frame (Ross, 1977).
Leadership Alignment With Group Narratives
When a leader eventually aligns with the group’s narrative, it often reflects social conformity pressure, desire for group cohesion, avoidance of interpersonal conflict, fear of addressing the real problem, and cognitive fatigue. The high performer becomes the “easiest” variable to target.
This is not malice; it is leadership under narrative saturation.
Lessons for High‑Performers
Recognize coalitionary behavior early.
- Identical language, repeated vague complaints, and synchronized narratives indicate a group‑level threat response.
Understand that competence can destabilize fragile systems.
- Competence exposes inconsistencies that others rely on.
Avoid defending yourself against subjective claims.
- Defensiveness reinforces the narrative. Focus on clarity, documentation, and outcomes.
- Using the HR interaction, pointing out the dismissive and unprofessional response of telling someone, “to sit on their hands”, is a prime example. It declared that the narrative had exceeded the managerial team and involved HR.
Build cross‑team rapport.
- Establishing direct relationships to counter misinformation can be enlightening, especially when the effort is met as though it were an act of war.
- Enlightenment can also occur as cross-team conversations unfold, and it becomes clear that many of the alleged “infractions” are either distortions or outright fabrications that were falsely attributed to others.
Document everything.
- Objective evidence is the only counterweight to subjective narratives.
- It helps one to analyze the totality of the situation and monitor its escalation.
Know when the environment is unsalvageable.
- When coalitionary targeting escalates, and leadership aligns with the group, the system is no longer evaluating performance; it is protecting dysfunction and largely incompetence.
Conclusion
High performance is not universally valued. In insecure environments, environments containing one or more sociopathic narcissists, with incompetence masquerading as authority, true competency is destabilizing. Understanding the psychological mechanisms at play, coalition formation, status threat, projection, attribution bias, and narrative control, allows high performers to navigate these environments with clarity.
Sometimes, the most strategic decision is recognizing when the system cannot be repaired from within.
References
Edmondson, A. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Golec de Zavala, A., & Lantos, D. (2020). Collective narcissism and its social consequences: The bad and the ugly. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917703
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B. (2010). Looking up and looking out: The impact of status on trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.04.001
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it—and others don’t. Harper Business.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). The evolutionary psychology of the emotions and their relationship to internal regulatory variables. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Missouri dBA 