Surely you’ve all seen one of those police procedural movies, where two cops are teaming up to interrogate the suspect.  One guys always plays the part of the “Good Cop” while the other takes the role of the “Bad Cop,” right?  The Bad Cop tends to be direct, aggressive and accusatory, firing questions at the suspect with just that little hint of imminent violence. In a sense, the Bad Cop is the torturer, the inquisitor.  By contrast, the “Good Cop” is sympathetic, gentle and understanding.  He’s your buddy, your potential deliverer from the hands of brutality and duress.  Of course, both cops are working together for a specific result, either to wrench a confession from the suspect, or at least to get some needed information.  The scene is one of the oldest movie clichés – but it works, I think, because we recognize how effective this kind of “teamwork” might be.  Heck, if we were in the suspect’s chair, wouldn’t we be flinching from the Bad Cop and looking for aid and assistance from the Good Cop?  In dire situations, who doesn’t cast around desperately for an ally, a friend, any friend?

Good cop/bad cop is an extreme model of teamwork; I’d be perverse, indeed, to recommend it as a direct business strategy, although I’m sure that some of you may have experienced something like it at work from time to time.  Good cop/bad cop is about as manipulative as you can get, although it does seem to work – at least in the police station.  But I think something like good cop/bad cop can be utilized in a positive way, as well.  In a 2004 article, I wrote about “Thinkers” and “Feelers”, terms taken from the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator developed by the mother and daughter team of Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, respectively.  In that article I wrote:     

“Thinkers make their decisions by reason and logic. At their best, they work independently, take charge, like control, and get results. At their worst, Thinkers put results ahead of feelings, are in too much of a hurry, keep their reasons to themselves and overemphasize competition. Feelers, on the other hand, tend to make decisions based on personal relationships. At their best, they listen actively, work cohesively with others, consider others' feelings, and have good counseling skills. At their worst, Feelers have their loyalty taken advantage of, won't push for what they want, and are afraid to change what is comfortable. (From Baron and Wagele's Are You My Type, Am I Yours (1995, Harper Collins, pg. 160)).”

Good Cops tend to at least represent themselves as “feelers,” listening patiently to your story and paying careful, almost tender consideration to your plight.  By contrast, Bad Cops tends to pose as “thinkers,” pushing urgently for fast results and a speedy confession. In the police procedural movie, this archetypal duo uses their diverse skills and approach for control and subjugation.  But what if a “thinker” and a “feeler” got together for positive reasons?  What a powerful combo they might make!  “Good Manager” would use his powers to empathize with his supervisees, developing amazing degrees of departmental harmony and unity.  “Bad Manager”, on the other hand, would utilize his powers to focus on logical, efficient processes and procedures. 

Myself, I wouldn’t mind at all working for “Good Manager/Bad Manager.”  I’d always know there was the right person to go to for whatever needs – thinking or feeling – that might come up for me.  The team would have someone to keep projects moving forwards toward the prescribed goal, and someone else to make sure everyone’s human needs are met. 

That would be no cliché at all.