Passhole Wins: But Don't Use It to Blame the Victims of Broken Organizations or Bad Bosses

Or, in the words of Steve Jobs, the journey was the reward in this case.  As most readers will recall, this all started as a little contest in response to Mozilla's Asa Dotzler: Let's Invent a New Word or Phrase: What do you call someone who "opts out of participating in something but then complains about the outcome."  I have been overwhelmed by the number of suggestions, and even more than that, the quality and complexity of the conversation about the various candidates.  At the moment, there are a combined 80 comments on the post above and the follow-up post that listed the "finalists."   My reading of the votes is that -- although not everyone liked it --  passhole got the most votes.

I just submitted Passhole to the Urban Dictionary  as a new word.  I changed the definition just slightly to  "someone who opts out of participating in a decision, but then complains bitterly about the outcome."

In order to honor some of the other suggestions (I apologize if yours didn't make it, I picked them based on my biases, but of course, other will have different preferences), I added the following words to the list of synonyms and related words and phrases that ask for: passive-aggressive, Monday morning sniveler, detached dissident, douchenag, sour grapers, unconscientious objector, inverted  cheerleader, submarine, seagull, weenie-whiner, whampire, free-griper. I have never submitted anything to the Urban Dictionary, but I felt compelled given your remarkably thoughtful suggestions and comments. I understand that they reject a lot of submissions -- I will let you know how it turns out. Once again, I can't thank everyone enough for making so many comments, and make such thoughtful comments.

Indeed, as much as I love the fun of the names and all that, I was even more taken with the wonderful conversation about the dangers of labeling people passholes. Many smart comments were made, and although labeling people has advantages ( I would argue, for example, that openly talking about norms against assholes or passholes, and calling others or yourself when you violate those norms, are signs of a healthy culture), nonetheless, multiple commentors did a lovely job is calling out the risks of the label. Note these comments in particular, as I think they are especially wise:

Bob G. makes a great case that labeling people as passholes can, at times, be a case of blaming the victim:

If an organization finds itself populated with large numbers of the "non-participating disgruntled," perhaps a little self-examination is in order. Are they really all just a bunch of worthless whiners? Or is it *possible* that the organization has somehow attracted them, or even created them? Is this, in fact, a symptom of an asshole environment, rather than simple flawed characters? People who have been ignored, abused, and had their ideas twisted and/or stolen are easily dismissed as having a "bad attitude." Do not blame the victims, folks. This is a complex and nuanced problem.

Dave described such an asshole environment:

I think you are all jumping on the trashing bandwagon a little too fast. I happen to work in one of those very toxic environments where you are pretty much discouraged to contribute, when you do contribute, your feedback is pretty much disregarded and the administration does what they want anyways (meaning they "pretend" to want feedback, but only go through the motions), and very often decisions made do go down south, affecting those of us on the frontlines. So yes, after a while, those like us who actually care just stop giving the feedback or saying anything... I refuse to take the blame for asshats who make bad decisions in spite of getting good advice (ie they choose to ignore the good advice). So, you know, lay off a bit. It is not always as simple as you think.

Thomas raised an important concern about the labeling that really made me think:

What's the net effect of an exercise in this sort of "personality branding". Let's come up with a name for the sorts of people that annoy "us". Let's come up with something mean to call "them". What's up with that, Bob?

And I thought that CV Harquail did a great job of wrapping things-up:

I've gotten a kick out of the suggested names, but I have to chime in to support of Thomas's concern about the 'branding' of a person by applying such a label.There are several important and serious concern about labeling a person -- one of which is that depersonalizes them and makes them all about the behavior, not about who they are in toto.Plus, as Maren pointed out, once we attach a label to the behavior/person, it can lead us to "complain about the complainers" and let ourselves off the hook for acting to fix it.

So, let's find a good (and funny!) name to capture this dysfunctional behavior *and* also figure out a generous, positive way to respond to it when we see folks trying it.

I put C.V's comment in bold, because, after going through this exercise -- which was more involved and educational than I ever imagined at the outset -- that is pretty much where I stand.  For me, the upshot of all this is that organizations and leaders have a responsibility to remove obstacles to authentic participation and when they find that -- after decision has been made -- passholes surface and start torpedoing the decision, they should look in the mirror before blaming them.  On the other hand, a well-functioning team or organization will stop this kind of behavior in its tracks and in particular leaders will model the right behavior -- which includes resisting the temptation to be a passhole even though they have the power to do so and calling out their own sins when they act like one. 

Once again, a big thanks to all of you for individual and collective wisdom.

Comments

[davidburkus]

So. Are we going to see a No Passhole Rule?

[Ted Scott]

Very cool! Also pleased that my definition made it as a synonym...what's the definition of a person who is happy that his input made it into something cool?