A closer look at Denial of Fact

As anticipated, the first commercial casualties of the global
credit crunch are now appearing, and with them, one can readily discern the profile of defined symptomatic responses, intended to deflect responsibility from specific individuals. One of these response syndromes is termed "denial", a proven psychological reaction, first identified long ago by Sigmund Freud.

Stripped of its medical aspects, this is actually no more or less than an outright refusal by a person to acknowledge any responsibility for lack of foresight or failure to research possible outcomes of current and past economic and political events.

The basic version is Denial of Fact, and it has been likened to someone instinctively pulling their hand away from a fire.
It is simple avoidance of an uncomfortable truth. The sufferer (or perpetrator) either generates a falsehood or fails to correct one, just nodding it through without question. Related to this are several other forms of denial, where the "fact" may not be so blackand- white — more like evidence. One of these is Denial of Responsibility, where the subject tries to "move the goalposts" in order to disguise their role in a disaster, and to shift blame elsewhere.

Another is Denial of Impact, where the subject tries to ignore the sequence of actions that led to the disaster, and pretend that it was purely accidental. And all too familiar to us, who are familiar with British court reports, is Denial of Awareness, where some defence lawyers argue (successfully) that drunkenness or drug-addiction provides a valid excuse for evading responsibility.No doubt all of these factors are coming into play, as the effects of the Credit Crunch start to show up in the conduct of daily business.

In this column, I've pointed out that Change Management should be a continuing agenda that deserves to be treated as a formal study. Well, now it seems that the time for studying is past and your academic studies must now be applied to The Real Thing. One ofmyearliest clients was the third-generation owner of a family firm, manufacturing low-cost novelties for children's parties.

On one level, all in the company knew that they would be bound to be under- cut by overseas suppliers. But there was a strong feeling of "not accepting change" in the firm, partly because it still occupied the original factory. This encouraged a false sense of security among the management. They could believe — all too easily — that thingswould continue in the future as they always haddonein the past and there would be no need for change. Day of reckoning When the day of reckoning inevitably came, they had already lost whatever competitive advantage they had together with their last major customer — who had taken its business elsewhere.

The MD temporarily lost his reason and started talking wildly about relocatingabroad.

The writer is a BBC broadcaster and motivational speaker, with 20 years' experience as CEO of Carole Spiers Group, an international stress consultancy based n London