When Good Companies Fall to Bad Actors

Bad actors exploit organisational vulnerabilities to advance personal agendas over collective success. This analysis examines two primary scenarios: manipulation during periods of change and coordinated campaigns by internal groups who've lost through normal channels. Both pose serious threats to organisational health and require different detection and prevention strategies.

Change is inevitable in modern business. Market pressures, technological advances and competitive dynamics demand continuous adaptation from successful organisations. Leadership transitions bring fresh perspectives, reorganisations unlock new efficiencies and strategic pivots open untapped opportunities. When managed well, change strengthens organisations and positions them for sustained success.

But organisational vulnerabilities extend beyond periods of change. Bad actors exploit various opportunities to advance personal agendas over collective success. Some capitalise on the uncertainty that accompanies transformation, whilst others manufacture their own opportunities by working around established processes when normal channels don't deliver their preferred outcomes.

The threat isn't always obvious. Unlike external competitors whose intentions are clear, internal bad actors operate under the protective cover of organisational legitimacy. They possess intimate knowledge of systems, relationships and vulnerabilities that outsiders lack. More dangerously, they don't merely exploit existing situations, many actively create the conditions that enable their success whether by manufacturing instability during transitions or coordinating campaigns to undermine current leadership.

This article explores two distinct scenarios where bad actors employ different tactics to seize control within organisations. Through examination of these scenarios, the characters involved and their motivations, this analysis reveals the mechanics of organisational manipulation. The following sections provide practical guidance for spotting these patterns early and responding effectively. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for any leader committed to protecting their organisation's long-term health and ensuring that necessary change serves the broader mission rather than individual ambition.

Two Scenarios: Different Tactics, Similar Outcomes

Scenario One: The Legitimacy Coup

The Setup New leadership arrives with a mandate for change. Perhaps it's a CEO brought in to modernise operations or a senior executive team tasked with digital transformation. There is a bad actor in the mix. The organisation expects change.. What wasn't expected was how quickly the narrative would turn against everything that came before.

The Execution Incumbent leaders suddenly find their span of responsibility reduced, their access to key meetings curtailed and their institutional knowledge dismissed as outdated thinking. What follows is a systematic campaign to delegitimise everything associated with the previous regime.

The gaslighting operation begins immediately. Previous successes are reframed as unsustainable practices or fortunate accidents. Established relationships are dismissed as insular networks that prevented fresh thinking. Current products and technology are suddenly declared unfit for purpose, requiring complete overhaul rather than evolution. Proven processes are rebranded as "legacy thinking" that held the company back from achieving its potential. The narrative extends to personnel decisions where existing talent lacks the skills needed for the future, necessitating the recruitment of new leaders who coincidentally happen to be former colleagues of the incoming team.

The Consultant Manipulation The bad actor then positions themselves to sponsor a consultant engagement. When the CEO or leadership team decides external validation is needed, the manipulator ensures they control the brief. They recommend prestigious firms based on brand credibility rather than analytical capabilities, carefully crafting terms of reference that lead toward predetermined conclusions. The substantial fees signal serious, objective analysis to Board and stakeholders, whilst the consultant's limited organisational knowledge becomes an asset. Consultants can't be accused of bias toward existing approaches because they have no emotional investment in them. Armed with consultant validation that they helped orchestrate, the narrative gains unstoppable momentum with the Board. Having invested their credibility in bringing in new leadership with a mandate for change, Board members have strong incentive to see that change succeed. When presented with professional analysis that confirms their decision-making was correct, that the organisation indeed needed dramatic intervention, the Board provides the ultimate validation.

Board support transforms what might appear as internal power struggles into legitimate organisational transformation, making resistance seem insubordinate rather than protective. The new team (including the bad actor) doesn't merely critique specific decisions, they invalidate the entire foundation of previous achievements with the highest level of organisational authority behind them.

Key Players and Their Roles Note: These roles often overlap - the New Leader may also be the Manipulator

• The New Leader Usually genuine but gets captured by advisors with hidden agendas.

• The Manipulator Presents as the helpful bridge between old and new whilst systematically eliminating rivals.

• The Board Unwitting enablers who provide ultimate authority because they're invested in seeing change succeed.

• The Consultant Unwitting accomplice whose "objective" analysis validates predetermined conclusions.

• The Victims Experienced leaders who built previous success but suddenly find themselves isolated and discredited.

Scenario Two: The Insurgent Network

The Setup This scenario doesn't require any external catalyst. A group of employees, having lost debates through normal channels, maintain their conviction and plot alternative paths to influence. They believe they know better than current leadership and see their actions as saving the organisation from poor decisions.

The Long Game The insurgent network begins with true believers who maintain their day-to-day contributions whilst meeting regularly outside formal channels to coordinate their campaign. These off-site gatherings serve multiple purposes: strategy development, narrative refinement and mutual reinforcement of their righteousness. Documentation becomes a weapon. The group creates "anonymous" analysis that articulates their vision whilst avoiding individual accountability. These documents are carefully crafted to appear objective and evidence-based, often highlighting real organisational challenges whilst proposing solutions that advance the group's agenda.

Building the Movement The network identifies their most credible member to serve as the public face of their campaign. This leader begins sharing the anonymous documentation with their leadership cohort, presenting themselves as a concerned employee bringing important issues to light rather than an agent of organised opposition. In parallel, any opportunity to start challenging and eroding trust in the organisation is taken. Diversion tactics and blame culture becomes part of their day to day.

Recruitment follows a calculated strategy. They target individuals who see greater opportunity in backing the movement than in maintaining current arrangements: recruiting the ambitious, the disaffected and the politically astute who sense shifting winds.

The Breakthrough The pivotal moment comes when someone from the established leadership table recognises opportunity in the insurgent narrative. This individual becomes the puppet wielding apparent authority whilst implementing the network's agenda. Their legitimate position provides the formal power needed to execute the takeover.

Key Players and Their Roles

• The True Believers Core conspirators absolutely convinced of their righteous cause.

• The Front Person Most credible member who presents the movement publicly as "concerned employee bringing issues to light".

• The Puppet Senior leader who provides legitimate authority whilst unknowingly implementing the network's agenda.

• The Stooge Gets pulled into the inner circle temporarily, helps create distrust, then gets discarded once usefulness expires.

• The Recruits Ambitious individuals who join because they see better opportunities than staying loyal.

• The Chameleons Politically savvy operators who simply follow where they sense the power is shifting.

The Dangerous Myth of Organisational Self-Correction

Many well-intentioned employees and leaders fall into a dangerous trap when confronting bad actors: the belief that good will naturally triumph over manipulation. This optimistic worldview assumes that most people operate with integrity, that company values will ultimately prevail and that the organisation's inherent strength will expose and neutralise bad actors.

Unfortunately, this rarely happens. Bad actors excel precisely because they understand how to exploit these good-faith assumptions. They count on colleagues giving them the benefit of the doubt, believing in second chances and trusting that time will reveal the truth. Meanwhile, they're actively reshaping the narrative framework within which all future actions will be interpreted.

Why Good Intentions Aren't Enough

Once bad actors gain control of the narrative, even legitimate concerns about their behaviour get reframed as resistance to change, protection of outdated practices or personal vendettas. Well-meaning employees who raise concerns find themselves painted as obstacles to progress rather than protectors of organisational health.

The manipulation often accelerates precisely because good people want to be fair. They hesitate to act decisively against colleagues, hoping that patience and dialogue will resolve the situation. This hesitation provides bad actors with the time they need to consolidate power, eliminate rivals and establish their version of events as organisational truth.

Controlling the Narrative

Once a narrative takes hold, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to dislodge. Bad actors understand this and invest heavily in early narrative control rather than waiting for their actions to speak for themselves. They know that perception often matters more than reality in organisational politics.

The longer you wait to address manipulation campaigns, the harder it becomes to distinguish legitimate criticism from coordinated attack, genuine concern from manufactured crisis. By the time the pattern becomes undeniable, significant damage has often already occurred. Relationships are destroyed, talent departs and organisational confidence is undermined.

The Action Imperative

You must act on concerning patterns rather than waiting for definitive proof of manipulation. This doesn't mean rushing to judgement, but it does mean taking early warning signs seriously and implementing protective measures before narratives become entrenched. The cost of false positives - temporarily constraining potentially manipulative behaviour - is almost always lower than the cost of false negatives - allowing successful manipulation campaigns to conclude.

Understanding the Motivations

Bad actors aren't uniformly evil. Their motivations vary significantly, which affects both their tactics and the appropriate responses.

Financial Ambition

Many are driven by economic incentives such as advancement opportunities, compensation increases or external financial arrangements. This can also manifest as financial jealousy - resentment that incumbents receive higher compensation or rewards whilst the bad actor believes they themselves are more deserving. They may genuinely believe their actions serve organisational interests, but their judgement becomes clouded by personal financial considerations or perceived inequities.

Ideological Conviction

Some operate from genuine belief that their vision represents the only viable path forward, or that they are the right person or team to lead the organisation. This encompasses both mission-driven individuals who view current leadership as incompetent and those with strong ego investment who cannot accept that others might be better suited for key roles. They see manipulation as justified by their righteous cause or superior capabilities. These individuals are particularly effective at recruiting supporters because their conviction appears authentic and often is. This motivation often drives the insurgent network scenario, where groups coordinate to install their preferred leadership or approaches.

Legacy Protection

Established figures sometimes become bad actors when they perceive threats to their historical achievements. They manipulate situations to ensure their contributions are recognised or to prevent new approaches that might diminish their legacy.

More subtly, some individuals have built their success around specific processes, methodologies or ways of working that have become deeply embedded in their professional identity. When organisational changes require different approaches, they face a genuine threat to their continued effectiveness. Rather than adapting to new methods where they might struggle initially, they work to preserve or reinstall their familiar systems. This isn't necessarily conscious manipulation, they genuinely believe their proven approaches are superior and that deviating from them will harm organisational performance. However, their resistance to change can become manipulative when they use their influence to undermine alternative approaches or create conditions that favour their preferred methods, even when those methods may no longer be optimal for current challenges.

Sociopathic Calculation

The most dangerous operate from purely predatory instincts, viewing organisations as systems to be gamed. They demonstrate superficial charm and manipulative behaviour whilst feeling no guilt about collateral damage.

How to Spot the Warning Signs

Early Behavioural Indicators

Information Pattern Changes

• Previously open communicators suddenly become selective about what they share and with whom.

• Key data starts flowing through new channels with the bad actor positioned as essential intermediary.

• Documentation habits flip dramatically - some record everything obsessively whilst others become deliberately vague.

Alliance Building Goes Into Overdrive

• Heavy investment in relationship-building with new leadership whilst systematically burning existing networks.

• Whisper campaigns multiply and back-channel communications replace open discussion.

• Factional thinking replaces collaborative problem-solving and everything becomes "us versus them".

Credit and Accountability Gymnastics

• Expert positioning to claim credit for wins whilst artfully distancing from failures.

• Volunteers for high-visibility rescue missions but avoids anything with constraining commitments.

• Quick to offer solutions that coincidentally expand their authority or eliminate rivals.

Structural Red Flags

The Consultant Briefing Process Watch who controls access to external advisors and how problems get framed:

• Same individuals repeatedly briefing consultants across different initiatives.

• Briefings consistently steering attention away from certain areas.

• Terms of reference that seem designed to reach predetermined conclusions.

  
  

Meeting and Communication Patterns

• Key stakeholders mysteriously unavailable for important discussions.

• Informal off-site meetings increasing amongst specific groups.

• Anonymous documentation circulating that advances particular agendas.

  
  

Information Control and Bias Patterns

• Critical information flowing through single individuals who become indispensable intermediaries.

• Recommendations consistently favouring specific people or departments.

• External validation being sought for conclusions already reached internally.

What Leaders Can Do

Immediate Actions

Diversify Information Sources

• Don't rely on single points of contact for critical information.

• Create multiple channels and cross-reference what you're hearing.

• If key stakeholders seem unavailable, insist on direct access rather than accepting intermediary reports.

  
  

Question the Consultant Brief

• Involve multiple stakeholders in framing the brief.

• Review who has access to consultants and ensure diverse perspectives are represented.

• Be suspicious of recommendations that perfectly align with one faction's interests.

  
  

Monitor Alliance Patterns

• Pay attention to shifting relationships and communication patterns.

• Off-site meetings and back-channel communications may indicate coordination bypassing normal processes.

  
  

Building Organisational Protections

Strengthen Decision-Making Processes

• Ensure important decisions involve multiple perspectives with clear documentation trails.

• Avoid allowing any individual to become indispensable intermediary for critical information or relationships.

  
  

Regular Organisational Health Checks

• Conduct periodic assessments of communication patterns, alliance structures and information flows.

• Look for concentrations of influence that don't align with formal organisational structure.

  
  

Build Resilient Leadership Teams

• Develop multiple sources of institutional knowledge.

• Ensure key relationships exist at multiple levels and prevent any individual becoming indispensable during transitions.

  
  

Create Psychologically Safe Feedback Zones

• Establish mechanisms for raising concerns about organisational dynamics without fear of retaliation.

• Regular, confidential pulse surveys and trusted intermediaries help surface concerns before manipulation campaigns gain momentum.

  
  

Cultural Defences

Transparency as Default

• Default to transparent communication and decision-making processes wherever possible.

• Makes manipulation tactics more difficult to execute and easier to detect.

  
  

Regular Succession Planning

• Maintain current succession plans and development pathways that don't depend on any single individual's favour.

• Reduces the leverage that manipulators can gain over ambitious employees.

  
  

Reward Collaborative Behaviour

• Consistently reward collaborative behaviour and cross-functional success.

• Make it clear that organisational health matters more than individual advancement.

Scenario-Specific Prevention Strategies

For Legitimacy Coups (Scenario One)

The most effective defence against legitimacy coups is rigorous internal analysis before external validation is sought. Leadership teams must engage in honest reflection about what has made the organisation successful and why those elements might or might not carry forward into the future. This process must involve incumbent leaders who possess institutional knowledge - the very people who might become victims of the manipulation campaign.

Complete transparency is essential. All stakeholders should participate in identifying genuine challenges and opportunities rather than allowing any individual to frame the problems for external consultants. When bringing in advisors, ensure multiple perspectives shape the brief and that diverse voices have access throughout the engagement.

However, this becomes complicated when the bad actor is the new senior leader. Incumbents face a genuine dilemma when challenging the person with authority over their careers whilst trying to protect organisational interests. In these situations, documented concerns raised through appropriate channels become crucial, even when the immediate response may be dismissive.

For Insurgent Networks (Scenario Two)

Prevention requires understanding why insurgent networks form in the first place. You must get to the heart of the complaints and issues that drive these movements. What genuine organisational problems are the insurgents highlighting? What do they believe they can achieve that current leadership cannot? Understanding their motivation reveals both the legitimacy of their concerns and the scope of their ambitions.

Critically assess what the insurgents stand to gain from their campaign. Are they seeking specific policy changes, leadership positions, resource allocation or fundamental shifts in organisational direction? More importantly, evaluate what they're holding to ransom. Insurgent networks often position themselves as gatekeepers of critical capabilities, relationships or institutional knowledge, making their cooperation essential for organisational success.

Beware of Populist Promises Pay particular attention to unrealistic timelines and oversimplified solutions. If insurgents claim they can achieve in months what current teams or leadership estimates will take years, question this deeply. These populist-style promises often ignore complexity, underestimate risks or rely on untested assumptions. Insurgents frequently gaslight their way to influence by making current approaches seem unnecessarily slow or complicated whilst positioning their alternatives as obviously superior.

Early intervention works best when it addresses legitimate underlying issues whilst preventing manipulation tactics from taking hold.

When You're Not in Control

Many readers may recognise these patterns but lack the authority to implement prevention strategies. If you're a middle manager or individual contributor who spots manipulation campaigns, consider these approaches:

Document Patterns Carefully Maintain detailed records of concerning behaviours and their impact on projects and relationships. Focus on observable actions rather than speculating about motivations.

Build Alliances Wisely Identify other colleagues who share your concerns but choose confidants carefully. Avoid creating your own insurgent network whilst seeking support.

Escalate Through Proper Channels Raise concerns through established reporting structures, focusing on business impact rather than personal grievances. Frame issues in terms of organisational risk rather than individual behaviour.

Protect Your Professional Interests Maintain external professional networks and keep your skills current. Be prepared for the possibility that the situation may not improve and your options may become limited.

Know When to Disengage Recognise when a situation has become a lost cause. The decision to continue fighting or to plan an exit should be based on realistic assessment of the organisation's trajectory rather than emotional investment in past success.

When Prevention Fails: Guidance for Victims

Unfortunately, even well-run organisations can fall victim to manipulation campaigns. When good people find themselves targeted, several strategies can help:

Recognise the Pattern Early Don't assume good faith will prevail. If multiple concerning behaviours align - narrative control, alliance building, anonymous back channel documentation patterns - trust your instincts about coordinated opposition rather than hoping time will reveal the truth.

Document Everything Maintain detailed records of decisions, communications and changes in treatment or responsibilities. This protects against gaslighting and provides clarity about the progression of events. Consider both formal documentation and personal records kept securely outside organisational systems.

Build External Networks Relationships outside the organisation become crucial when internal dynamics turn toxic. Maintain connections that can provide perspective, references and opportunities. Professional associations, industry contacts and former colleagues can offer valuable support.

Explore Available Options Depending on your jurisdiction and company policies, various support mechanisms may be available. These might include employee assistance programmes, ombudsman services or formal grievance procedures. Understanding your options early provides more flexibility in response.

Protect Your Wellbeing Being targeted by manipulation campaigns takes significant psychological toll. Professional support, trusted advisors outside the organisation and clear boundaries about what you can and cannot control become essential for maintaining perspective and health.

Plan Your Next Move Consider both staying and leaving scenarios. If staying, what would need to change for the situation to become tenable? If leaving, what timeline and conditions would optimise your transition? Having a plan reduces anxiety and provides clarity for decision-making.

Organisational Recovery and Healing

After manipulation campaigns succeed or fail, organisations need deliberate efforts to rebuild trust and effectiveness.

Acknowledging the Damage Leadership must honestly assess what has been lost: relationships, institutional knowledge, employee confidence and cultural cohesion. Pretending that manipulation campaigns haven't caused lasting damage prevents genuine recovery.

Rebuilding Institutional Knowledge When experienced people leave during manipulation campaigns, critical organisational memory departs with them. You need systematic efforts to capture and transfer knowledge before it's lost permanently.

Restoring Psychological Safety Employees who witnessed manipulation campaigns often become cautious about speaking up or taking initiative. Rebuilding psychological safety requires consistent demonstration that diverse perspectives are valued and that raising concerns won't result in retaliation.

Strengthening Systems Use the experience to improve organisational defences. What vulnerabilities enabled the manipulation? How can decision-making processes, information flows and governance structures be strengthened?

Future Considerations: The AI Factor

As artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in business operations, it introduces new opportunities for manipulation that leaders must understand:

Enhanced Persuasion Capabilities AI tools can help bad actors craft more compelling narratives, generate supporting documentation and identify optimal timing for their campaigns. The quality and volume of manipulative content may increase significantly.

Information Warfare Acceleration AI enables rapid creation of analysis, reports and presentations that appear sophisticated but serve hidden agendas. The speed at which narratives can be developed and refined may outpace traditional organisational defences.

Detection Complexity As AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from human-created material, identifying manufactured documentation or analysis becomes more challenging. Traditional methods of verifying sources and motivations may prove insufficient.

Plausible Deniability Bad actors may claim their recommendations come from AI analysis rather than personal bias, providing additional cover for their agendas. The black-box nature of many AI systems makes it difficult to challenge the underlying assumptions or data selection.

Scale and Sophistication AI may enable smaller groups to execute more sophisticated manipulation campaigns, creating the appearance of broader support or more rigorous analysis than actually exists.

You must adapt your detection and prevention strategies to account for these emerging capabilities whilst leveraging AI's benefits for legitimate organisational purposes.

Conclusion

Bad actors will always seek opportunities to prioritise personal advancement over collective success. By understanding the tactics they employ, recognising the warning signs and implementing appropriate safeguards, you can protect your organisation whilst still enabling necessary transformation.

The two scenarios outlined here - Legitimacy Coups that exploit periods of change and Insurgent Networks that coordinate around established processes - represent common patterns of organisational manipulation. You may recognise these dynamics from your own experience or current situation. The key is vigilance without paranoia: maintain healthy scepticism about motivations and methods whilst preserving the trust and collaboration that effective organisations require.

The Bottom Line Bad actors succeed because they exploit the good faith assumptions that healthy organisations depend upon. Your best defence combines systematic vigilance with decisive action when patterns emerge. In an era where AI may amplify both the opportunities for manipulation and the tools for detection, this balance becomes even more critical to organisational success.

The cost of preventing manipulation is almost always lower than the cost of recovering from it. Act early, trust your instincts and remember that protecting your organisation's integrity serves not just current stakeholders but everyone who depends on the institution's continued health and success.