By Bill Youngdahl and Kannan Ramaswamy, Thunderbird Professors
Many bold new strategies hatched in executive conference rooms around the world never have a chance to gain traction. Something happens between inception and implementation loosely described as the “Dilbert Effect,” a nod to the farcical world of cartoonist Scott Adams.
In our consulting and teaching experience with Fortune Global 500 organizations, we frequently feel the pain of Dilbert empathizers trapped in their metaphorical cubicles. Lack of clarity, poor communication and insufficient resources sink some strategic initiatives. But a more fundamental problem is disconnected leadership.
Like the Pointy-haired Boss who torments Dilbert, many real-world leaders remain disconnected from the realities of strategy implementation. Despite their good intentions, these leaders often get in the way of progress — somehow limiting rather than enabling the full potential of their employees and partners.
Checking for the Dilbert Effect is not part of the official briefings we conduct with our corporate clients, but issues of strategy derailment come up in classroom discussions and interviews with people from various organizations. Many working professionals report cultures of fear and lack of support from leaders who seem to believe another layer of management can solve any problem.
We recently met one manager who sees the Pointy-haired Boss on cubicle walls as evidence of disconnected leadership. When she visits parts of the company adorned with numerous Dilbert cartoons, she knows the jokes are hitting close to home. She laughed when she told us her company could save a fortune in consultant fees if its leaders grasped the meaning of this simple visual signal.
The irony of some situations is hard to overlook. We heard of one organization that fired an employee for criticizing its new “speak your mind” campaign. Another company scrapped its simplification initiative after the process became too complex. In a third case an organization chose the name “Brighter Tomorrow” for an offshoring initiative that displaced 25 percent of the workforce.
Other examples of disconnected leadership are more subtle. Cross-functional and cross-divisional initiatives typically start with committed sponsors driven by long-term vision. But overlapping initiatives often emerge, resulting in confusion.
When everything is a priority, schedules slip and budgets swing out of control. The combined effect can be organizational paralysis and employee burnout. Go a few levels down and most employees are unaware of the strategy, let alone the supporting pillars that originated in the corporate C suite.
In an effort to understand the factors of strategy derailment, we have launched a formal study that will build on our background as global strategy consultants and educators. Our aim is simply to define the Dilbert Effect in greater detail so we can begin to understand the root causes and costs of disconnected leadership and provide insights into how leaders can overcome these dysfunctions.
We do not believe any leader wakes up in the morning and asks, “How can I become disconnected from the realities of my organization?” Something else is afoot, and we intend to define it and explore it so we can help leaders reconnect with their true missions — for the sake of Dilberts everywhere.
Take our survey: We hope you will spend 10 minutes to share your insights by participating in an anonymous online survey at http://www.initiativeleader.com. The link also contains a blog section that will host a discussion of the results.
Kannan Ramaswamy, Ph.D. is the William D. Hacker Chair Professor of Management at Thunderbird. Both professors teach extensively in Thunderbird Corporate Learning, the school’s executive education division. Bill Youngdahl, Ph.D., is an associate professor of project and operations management at Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale, Arizona. Follow his blog, Prosper in a Project-Driven World.
Ranked #1 in the World









February 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Most people working for us are Dilberts… or gofers
June 13th, 2012 at 7:48 am
From my years working for a Fortune 10 Company, and now in my post corporate consulting practice, I’ve met my fair share of V-P and C-level executives, who somewhere between authorizing an initiative and its demise, became isolated from the endeavor. I have no doubt that what has been adeptly described as the “Dilbert Effect” was in play at various points in time at my former company, and also recently in some companies who have engaged my services. Thanks to Drs. Youngdahl and Ramaswamy for your research in this vital area. If we could get the Dilbert Effect out of the corner office, the benefits to the organization would be felt far and wide.
Also, if I might, for all my fellow T-birds, I’d like to offer some questions I have provided to clients to consider, who were concerned with how they might foster improved leadership engagement and alignment:
• How did the leadership of an organization achieve their current roles? (Never assume that an understanding of the importance of leadership engagement and alignment inherently comes with the position.)
• Does the organization have a program which explains the role and importance of leadership engagement and alignment? (If no, an instructional program should be put into place.)
•What does the organization’s infrastructure to support leadership engagement and alignment look like?
• Does the organization have a culture of successful change initiatives?
• And if not, what are the lessons to be learned?
• What role did leadership play in the outcome of previous initiatives?
• What forums does the leader have in place to stay abreast of progress?
• Is leadership supported by staff and subject matter experts who have regularly scheduled forums to check-in to tell it like it is? (Leaders must be vigilant in asking, “Am I surrounding myself with accountable people who will provide timely and critical assessments of progress? Am I sure that people in the meeting room are not holding back dissenting points of view.”
• Does the leader create accountability at all levels within a change initiative?
• Does the organization’s leadership lend on-going support for changes initiatives in the form of communications to stakeholders offering a vision and how the change will work?
• If leadership is not doing so, does the infrastructure of the organization feel comfortable to go up the line to solicit that support?
• Does the organization have a vehicle in place to track change successes, failures, and lessons learned?
• Are the change evaluations communicated to involved leadership?
• Does leadership also benefit from 360 degree feedback?
February 18th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Great post.Very interesting and educational in the same time.
March 1st, 2013 at 4:16 am
Relevant post. Dilbert effect is strongly present in corporations. Where every employee focused on the performance of a narrow range of work is very limited cooperation.
March 14th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular article!
It is the little changes that will make the biggest changes.
Thanks for sharing!
April 21st, 2013 at 9:00 am
This post has taken the subject onto the next level, great writing skills and message conveyed by the author
April 22nd, 2013 at 1:11 pm
I was able to find good information from your content.