Information is more than lifeblood to any organization, from corporation to volunteer non-profits. He or she who directs the flow of information to the boss is the actual controller, not the named ‘boss.’ As long as the source remains constant and non-threatening, this can be a positive. It rarely is in practice because people’s biases tend to come out in the info they pass along — from type to content to delivery. The voice of prejudice will out, every time. It doesn’t matter what his ambition is, or isn’t; if Craig’s ambition were to be the person who controls the boss and the way work gets done, he’s where he wanted to be and now all he needs to do is not slip up and reveal his real prejudices.

In practice I find this rarely happens. Sooner or later miscommunication comes either up or down and the info source stands revealed either as the boss’s patsy/spy, or a creep playing God with the employees. This impression is impossible to remove. Even firing the info source does not quell the mistrust and resentment. People will look for the replacement ‘Craig’ in old hands as well as new hires, and respond accordingly, eliminating the usefulness of the role — and the informant.

Craig is playing a very dangerous game, whether he knows it or not. The thinnest of organizational high-wire acts.