In many organizations the valuable information that should have been seen at meetings is displayed in the hallways, at meals, and at informal gatherings:
- Did you hear his proposal? It is absurd to think that we can achieve the goals he suggests. I assure you that nobody believes that this is possible. You are right, besides, he does not even know that the sales manager plans to resign, I found out that he is in talks with a "head hunter". The last straw was when he said that in this company we have a policy of "open doors". Imagine that we walked into your office and told you what we really think and what happens here in the real world. Don't you realize that we only tell you what you want to hear? In fact, I wonder if deep down he knows it but prefers that we do not tell him what we really believe.In short, we all know that this project will not work, but no way, the director will realize until the bomb explodes for not reaching the expected result.
Sadly, conversations of this type are common and affect the results of many meetings, projects, budgets, suggestions and orders, which are not questioned thoroughly due to fear, apathy or fatigue, generated by the latter, because they are not taken into account on occasions. previous.
This type of information is what needs to be dealt with in work meetings, it contains many of the real barriers and solutions to achieve the support and commitment of the people, as well as relevant data of those who are in contact with the operation and tasks daily. Unfortunately, instead of talking to each other in the meetings, they become part of the daily programming of the “radio corridors”.
Both in the company and in the family, people in authority usually generate indisputable issues, which generate problems with results and relationships. We use rhetorical tricks to evade these issues and we suggest that we use our authority or power if the other party insists on addressing such issues: “We don't hire you to bring us problems, but solutions, so if you don't bring good news all the better don't come near ”. "Look woman, I'm very tired from working all day, we'll talk about it another day, don't be inconsiderate."
The most serious thing about “unnameable” topics is that they later become family or organizational taboos. To make matters worse, then we block the possibility of talking about that there are topics that cannot be discussed. As Kofman says, "we make it indisputable that there are indisputable themes." In other words, we make it taboo to talk that we have taboo topics. Thus, we indefinitely block the possibility of airing extremely valuable information and we continue to repeat the same mistakes that each time manifest themselves in different ways.
For example, if the sales forecast was not met, we conclude that the market is decreasing, competition did its part, people did not commit enough, etc. However, several of the company representatives thought from the beginning that the goal was unreal and exaggerated, but they did not dare to comment on it, because that topic has become taboo. Thus, they continue to be silent and endorse the conclusions that lack of commitment, the market and competition are the real culprits. This story repeats itself in every department where the undisputed and unfortunate of the company, there will always be someone to blame to avoid putting such uncomfortable issues on the table.
When this happens, the last to know are usually those in authority, since in general, the attitude of blocking these issues is not conscious, but people with that hierarchy have strong arguments that make them believe that their perception is correct and that almost always, if not always, they are right. We also fall into the terrible inference that "the one who is silent grants", when, faced with the silence of others, we should consider the great possibility that "the one who is silent does not agree, but wants to save his skin."
The solution to situations like this is very simple: we must talk about what we are not talking about. We can gather our close team and open this issue, clarifying to them that it is really their subordinates who know which are those indisputable, since they, as an authority, most likely are not aware either.
If the solution is so simple, why don't we do it? Why is this so frequent?
The answer, again, is very simple: out of pride.
We have grown up in a culture where not knowing or not having a strong answer is interpreted as weakness or lack of competence. We are terrified that our subordinates will find out that we have no solution to everything and that sometimes we do not know what to do. We reproduce a culture in which doubt is a defect and where the director, manager or executive must have the qualities of a guru, ancestral sage or fairy godmother. We believe that authority lies in being right and that manifesting our vulnerability is a mortal sin.
The solution, then, is to have a humble attitude and invite our collaborators and their teams to participate with their comments, suggestions and, of course, questioning the proposals of others, including those of those in authority. This does not mean that any proposal or question is valid or invalidates that of others. Participation and collaboration do not nullify authority, on the contrary, when whoever has power encourages participation, they not only maintain their command function, but also obtain the recognition of their people, which ultimately legitimizes their authority.
Let us remember that this phenomenon also occurs in our families and here the consequences are usually more severe than in companies, since in our home a budget, income statement or ISO certification are not at risk, but people's hearts that we love the most. Let's put aside that little giant that blinds our understanding and prevents us from opening up to talk about things that, although uncomfortable, are really important and face challenges that we will surely solve with the help of others.
Notes
Kofman, Fredy, Metamanagement, Ed. Granica, Buenos Aires, 2001.
