Carman, Thank you for offering the example of Orwell’s Oceania, as perhaps the ultimate example of a Dominator organization. Oceania is perhaps a pure example of a direction that human organizations can take when their core value is power (money and power-over) and there are no other strong mitigating values or externally or situationally imposed limitations.
Recently, I’ve been thinking about the role of “doublethink” and “newspeak” which are both reflected in the well documented phenomenon in which organizations say one thing and do another.
This gap between public communications and action can arise for several reasons:
1) Lack of self-awareness on the part of the leader (we are not always aware of our true motives);
2) Belief in an ideal but a lack of awareness of the true costs;
3) Cynicism.
Whatever the cause, doublespeak and newthink involve both conscious or unconscious denial and projection. This gap between what is said an what is done, leads to skepticism, a lack of investment on the part of organizational members, and ultimately poor performance.
One example, would be one in which organizational leaders and corporate policy discuss the importance of product quality or customer service, while acting in ways that reduce that capacity. The pressure to reconcile the public face and actual practice tends to flow downhill to the front lines (often the least powerful members of the organization). If a person at the front lines was to express the perception that the “organization isn’t really committed to quality (or customer service – whatever it might be), there is a good chance that that person would be considered perverse, negative – perhaps a poor performer. “After all, it is obviously company policy that we serve our customers… and we’ve asked others in the department and they don’t share your view…”
The way a company approaches public statements regarding ethics and how it ensures that the organization complies with ethical policies is particularly sensitive. In one situation I observed, team members all privately identified ethical violations in their immediate environment, but most publically stated that they did not know of any violations. The reasons they gave for not reporting the violations were: 1) Fear of possible negative consequences, and 2) the belief that the company did not really want to know.
In this kind of environment, there is a deep lack of trust, and problems can become more difficult to identify and fix…
So, leaders who want to develop healthy, flexible organizations in which members believe and are invested have a stake in creating an environment in which organizational members can share their experiences and perspectives without fear of negative consequences.
The power differential between managers and individual contributors, itself, tends to reduce upward feedback. “Newspeak” further reduces trust.
What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?
Hi Lisa,
It’s so good to be back. Internet interruption, following a move to another apartment, has afforded me ample opportunity to consider your question: “What steps can leaders take to create an environment of trust and safety to support open and constructive communication?”
I consider your question to be “pragmatic” in that it concerns practical matters. However, what if the question were re-worded thus: “What steps can “workers” take to create an environment of trust and safety…” Your question, I suggest, insightfully acknowledges that in many modern organizations “all the thinking is done by the managers and designers [leaders], leaving all the “doing” to the employees.” Images of Organization, p.23. Parenthesis mine.
In the next few days I would like to proffer an “ontological” framework—wherein we question what exists and how it is defined and grouped within a hierarchy of meaning. Let’s call it a heuristic device because it will elaborate a conceptual framework for inquiry. I believe leaders and led might benefit by observing the shoreline of social fact when the tide of traditional thinking is out.
While not side-stepping your excellent question Lisa, I would like to propose some of my own: How many learning programs are devoted to the behavior of leaders and managers—i.e., introspection, development, character, dialogue, and ethics? Rather, are not most books and programs instrumental in that they focus on the ‘management’ of employee behavior?
Over the last few weeks I have been researching a social phenomenon that I hope will integrate everything you and I have discussed, while avoiding the metaphor trap. The trees that dominate Stanley Park furnish an excellent metaphor for my proposed radical approach to “leadership.”
Let’s examine leadership’s:
Root System: ideology, tradition, forgotten history, and human propensity to dominate.
Trunk: the reality that integrates all organizations.
Branches: interpersonal and organizational expressions of the social reality.
Leaves: labels, teaching systems, ideologies, sense of honor and decorum, which obscure and color the reality.
How does that sound?
Bye for now,
Carman
The leaves are performing their autumnal pirouette of death as the plummet to the ground. A beautiful ballet!
(Note to my co-worker: because I am on the net there is no need to publish what I sent you)