Silence and management - part 2

 

1.2 The level of silence as a success factor in organizations

The loudly touted wisdom in business world today advocates that in order to do good work everybody should share all kinds of things to their colleagues and networks and in general everybody should work in a transparent way.  It has been proposed that this kind of action would help the whole organization to grow to its full potential.

We can apprehend how beneficial it would be if people would actively and openly think, plan and act together. This sounds both understandable and acceptable, because organizations are networks of people and in case people decide to choose silence (often, sometimes, in some special situations) and do not communicate at the level where they could the result will be that the whole organization may not work as well as it would be able to do. Certainly, there is always happening something important or people get new valuable insights and in case the information does not flow from people to people something valuable is missed. Sometimes that may an idea which could help to improve operations, sometimes we could offer something new/more to customer if just knew what someone in our organizations has seen, sometimes it is something else. Also what is important in general is the open dialogue where people create new understanding about everything important which relates to successful operations and development, that dialogue does not reach its full potential if a lot of silence prevails.

 

 

Hence, it makes sense to propose that a very important success factor for any organization is that key experts (often this means everybody) in any organization would share their ideas and observations with others.[1]  Apparently the basic idea would be that the more the better, ie. ever increasing sharing and transparency would be help the organization to thrive always better.

So, here we have one clear recipe for success, so let’s do it. This should be a pretty straightforward assignment, surely people should be happy to share and operate in a transparent way.  Sharing should be particularly easy assignment nowadays when there are technical solutions for open and sharing mode on action. As we know there exist excellent technological tools which can be used for sharing valuable insights from one to many and many people do the sharing in their private life as Facebook and other systems clearly demonstrate.

Yet, in real life in organizations people often seem to choose silence?  Why people choose silence?  Why this happens when we all know that voice would be an asset and silence like an element in liabilities, why we still may choose silence?  Do we have the freedom to choose either silence or sharing in real organizational life or what we are facing here? Let us deepen our understanding about silence. It appears to be a most intriguing element in human life.

...to be continued

---

[1] But as always, also different views have been expressed. “I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.” Publilius Syrus Roman Writer (~100 BC)

 

Silence and management - part 1

This is a bit different blog. I am writing a text about silence in organizations. As a whole the text will be more than 20 pages long. The text will focus on silence from a management perspective but I will also explore silence more generally. It seems that silence is very important topic to us all and in order to understand better what silence is and how it is approached it is necessary to dig a bit deeper into this mysterious and powerful concept.

My plan is to publish one blog in a week. I will publish the text in parts and here is part 1. I hope you enjoy and find this treatise useful.

Best regards,
Ari

                Silence

Hot but quiet topic on the arena of management and control

1.    Hush, shh, … introduction

1.1 Money, silence and accounting

There is a connection between the level of silence and the success of an organization. Hence there is also a connection between money and the level of silence in organization. This is because money, the financial side of success is actually connected to everything. Money is unavoidably present everywhere. Every idea, every plan, every dream, every act has financial consequences. There is always a monetary side lurking somewhere. This is unavoidable - it is a fact of life. At the same time it can be, of course, true that people in different situations do not think about money. Perhaps they do not need to care about money, they may feel (without stopping to think) that there is enough money for their needs or for some other reasons money is not part of their thinking.

The point here is not raise money on a high pedestal, surely I wish to leave the appreciation of money for each of us to decide.  In fact, in order balance the effect which the start of this article may have created, we must remember what has been often said and what also seems pretty profound and it is the following wisdom:  wisest and happiest people are those who think that what they have right now is quite enough. In that thinking the money is also there but its role is modest. Also it can be said that most valuable things are those which you cannot buy with money.

Yet, money seems to be somehow linked to everything.  And there are very special human activities where the role of money has an enhanced role. I would claim that organizational life is that kind of special sphere of human activity where it both makes sense and where it is necessary to focus on money with a very special way. Again let us not raise money on any kind of the sublime pedestal, that is not the point here. Clearly organizations have their missions which can be closely or remotely connected to money. In fact, it is rarely a way to succeed that some organization just wants more money for itself. Clearly in order to succeed one - be it organization or any person - has to provide something valuable to others and from that kind of activity can also the faucets of money open.

Consequently organizations have to pay attention to these monetary flows, because organizations need to be effective and productive in order to survive in a competitive market environment. Many organizations also wish to grow and constantly develop themselves and in order to fulfill these aspirations “the good old money “ is needed. Also it is fact of life that if any organization wants to continue its very existence in the first place it must be able to somehow acquire more money in the long run than what it is compelled to use for various necessary expenses.

At this point you, dear reader, may wonder where to this all will lead us. Well, the point is to establish a connection with silence and accounting. It will be suggested here that one important factor for the success of any organization is the level of silence. It is critical success factor in any organization that how people choose to act in relation to silence in everything what they think, experience and perceive. It is both important and valuable to understand that when and why people may choose silence; or when and why they decide to share instead.

 It is proposed here that in the knowledge economy silence is almost like an item which could added to liabilities, because silence is not a success factor in organizations. Yes, there are exceptions which are discussed later but as a general rule silence can be viewed as an element which reduces success potential for any organization. Does this mean that the opposite ie. non-silence is an asset? The claim here is that this is actually the case, perhaps not always but often. Hence it can be proposed that almost all those actions which reduce silence can be viewed as ways increase a possibility for organization to succeed.

How this all relates to accounting discipline and practice?  Clearly we have to define that what the scope of accounting actually is in the first place. Do we think that accounting is mainly book entries,  posting and handling documents, calculating numbers and producing reports? Or do we think that the scope of accounting is much wider?  Here we advocate the idea that accounting is not just numbers, reports and documents but also very much people in action, people making actions which have financial consequences, people thinking what kind of decisions and actions would financially wise.  Hence we suggest here that accounting should provide information for those executives who are interested to understand what are the key elements which eventually will determine whether organization is financially successful or not.

From this perspective we are approaching the conclusion that silence is a topic which may also interest accounting, ie. those accounting people who have vested interest in the financial success of an organization and who wish to engage dialogue with those executives who wish to understand the underpinnings of financial success of their organization. Therefore, in particular strategic accounting and accounting in action kind of approaches of accounting discipline may also wish to understand better what kind of critical success factor silence actually is.  Also it is important to study how we could and should approach silence and in particular from the managerial point of view, ie, what to do with silence as an executive. It is valuable to understand how we could reduce the level of silence in our organization and how much silence may actually cost - also money wise.

...be continued

 

 

SILENCE AND FEAR IN ORGANIZATIONS

When you ask that why people choose silence in organizations one answer which you get quite often is: fear.  This is the answer in which has emerged in numerous personal discussions in different contexts. I also made a Linkedin poll where I offered two options that why people choose silence. The first option was fear and the other was that speaking does not seem to provide results.  The poll got 9 answers which came from all over the world, therefore the result is not based on anything larger, but nevertheless the result was indicative - a fear was a clear winner with 8 votes (feels somewhat awkward to write that fear was a winner, but in this polling context it was).

Apparently fear is one of those words which you seem to know with certainty, but when you try to define it you may notice that the concept of fear is very, very elusive. Defining fear is not at all simple task. Therefore let us look first how Wikipedia defines fear and after that we will examine different ways of approaching fear in organizational context:

Wikipedia starts its fear entry as follows:

Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible.

In organizational context fear which leads to silence is a phenomenon of its own. In this text I will approach that specific phenomenon from two angles:

1)      Fear which relates to you

2)      Fear which relates to others

Clearly this discussion is tentative and thought provoking by its nature. The point here is to suggest that because a silence is a very important organizational factor which may play a crucial role in determining whether the organization succeeds or not, we must pause to examine that what actually causes silence. One explanation is certainly fear, perhaps based on real things or perhaps mainly imagined, however fear must be one factor which relates to silence in organizations.

Therefore understanding the roots of fear, and through that understanding being able to reduce silence and increasing communication can be seen a most important managerial task for every executive. But what actually is fear in organizational context, how it can be approached and discussed?  The purpose here is to find new openings which might give new ideas for executives and for each of us how to tackle these issues in the working environment.

1.       Fears which relates to you (or to me, or to any individual personally)

1a. Fear of making fool of yourself

Certainly there might be situations where you choose silence because you are afraid that you would make fool of your selves. Perhaps you may feel that you do not know enough of the topic under discussion.  Or perhaps you may feel (know, anticipate) that your position in your organization is such that in those discursive practices which prevail in your organization your effort to participate would result in difficult and embarrassing  consequences.

 

 1b. Fear of getting more tasks

Age old truth in army is that motion reveals. Unfortunately something similar may be true in organizational life. Consequently, there seems to be a tendency that a person who opens her/his mouth about something also gets that task on her/his task list.                   

 

2.       Fears which relate to others

2a. Fear of ruining positive atmosphere

Apparently we all wish to work in a pleasant environment, in a nice atmosphere with collaborative colleagues. And certainly nice and supporting atmosphere can be a success factor of its own right, it nurtures creativity, innovation, it energizes and it provides many other positive things to all involved and to whole organization.

In this setting you may fear that taking up certain matters might for some reason drastically harm the positive general atmosphere. Therefore you may decide to avoid taking up certain matters.

2b) Fear that the others do something negative - fear of negative consequences

Evidently a person may fear that bringing something up might result in negative reactions and actions by others. In practice there is a huge variety of possible negative consequences which might take place. In case you anticipate that raising up certain issues might cause negative actions towards you in the future you certainly may resort to silence on those occasions.

2c) Fear that you cause a mess in organization

Also it is thinkable that person predicts in her/his mind that bringing something up might cause a mess in her/his organization. We all know that organizations are pretty delicate creatures on what comes to trust and sharing between people. Hence, some issues may cause that the focus of organizational activity become lost and that may harm the success of the organization.

 

In sum

Unavoidably silence and fear are both organizational phenomena which are always present to some extent. These phenomena on their part affect to the success of an organization. Certainly these phenomena also affect to the general atmosphere and what it is to work in certain organization. Hence these are phenomena which also belong to the management agenda.

Could it be that silence is the next hot topic on the arena of management thinking? What are the most effective ways to reduce silence and thus increase discussion and sharing in your organizational context?

 

A leader is not a human being

 

In case my memory serves, philosopher Martin Heidegger used to ponder the question of being. He asked: what it is to be?  He proposed that this kind of question is very important, although it is just the kind of question which we fail to ask, partly because we do not notice that there would anything to ask in the first place. The question of being is such that kind of an elementary question which evades our attention. Yet, perhaps this odd sounding question is very fundamental:  actually what it is to be.

Sometimes in executive education I have wanted to make participants to really think what a leader actually IS. In moment of high excitement I may have even said that leader is not a human being, he IS something else.  At this point people may have asked that what is the point in my apparent provocation.  They have commented that do I mean that a leader IS perhaps less or maybe more than a human being. Good question, in particular if the point would be to deride leaders or to praise leaders.

 

However, the point here is not a mean derision, not even a good tempered praise. The point is simply to tell how things are in real world, and what a leader actually IS. And we start to search the true existence of a leader our quest starts to point to a direction that a leader is not just a human being, s/he is also something else.

(for another quest, please check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUmYX-hUyN8 )

 One way to approach the true existence of a leader would be to claim that sometimes s/he is 13 % of the whole organization, sometimes s/he is 8 %, or some other percentage of whole totality which is an organization. What does this kind of odd sounding and far-fetched claims try to say? It is proposed here that a leader is a part of the organizational structure, part of a vastly complex net of all kinds of things which form the organization. Perhaps we could say that a leader is not just a human being, s/he is also an organizational-being.

This analysis of the true nature of the existence of a leader is interesting discussion in itself but it not just speculation, it also immediately yields to ideas and observations which provide practical ramifications and suggestions. For instance, in a most common change situation where the aim is to develop a new way of doing, there is typically a forceful tendency to return to old habits, practices and old ways of doing things, ways of working with customers, etc.  To make the change happen, we need here a leader who is an organizational-being. By being there s/he makes it clear that when s/he is part of the organization’s existence, the things are done in a certain way. Hence, a leader is intrinsically linked into fabric of an organization, s/he is part of an organization in a very special way. By being there in any given situation with a certain way, a leader gives an impetus for whole organization to be and act in a certain way.

Of course this does not mean that a leader would always be the one who makes things better. Unfortunately, it is sometimes possible that a leader as an organizational-being on her/his part maintains old habits, or s/he allows to happen something in the daily life of his/her organization which may not serve the best interest of individuals working in the organization, neither the best interest of the whole organization.

 

In sum, perhaps we should not think too straight forwardly that we know what a leader IS. Perhaps we need to open to explore how a leader is an organizational-being who is intrinsically woven into very fabric of organization. Thus a leader on her/his part forms the entity which we call an organization. This perspective certainly enhances the importance of a leader. At the same time this perspective also stresses the responsibility of a leader.  So, may I reconsider the title is this blog - a leader is a human being, but at the same s/he is also an organizational being.

WHY CHOOSE SILENCE

Why do you choose silence? When do you choose silence?  What might make you to change the way how to choose between silence and voice in different organizational settings?

The general view today seems to be that it would be most valuable for the very success of the organization if as many as possible would provide their genuine own views, ideas and observations for the general discussion. Let us take this as a starting point and let us ask why so many in so many situations still seem to choose silence?  I dare to propose that my question is not a senseless provocation - this is because so many discussions with so many people in so many occasions have convinced me that quite often people actually have chosen silence and surely people will choose silence in many situations in the future. Perhaps what we may have here is an intriguing oxymoron. You learn to know about silence when people tell about it (of course this happens in different situation than where the silence takes place). But surely you know this phenomenon and you must have also observed it in many occasions and you must have heard about it. Could the silence be the hot but quiet topic on the arena of management, control and leadership?

 

 

 

As such it would be a most interesting topic for in depth inquiry to examine how and why silence is selected in different organizations, in different business cultures, in different meetings, in different places and with different people.

Why people choose silence?  Let me start by outlining a list of obvious reasons. This is by no means an exhaustive list, it is mainly food for thought kind of list which could give each of us an idea how common phenomenon silence must actually be in any organizational reality. The list also shows immediately that people may certainly feel that they have many good reasons which may result in silence in different settings. So, why silence, what people may think when they choose silence:

1.       No reason to talk, nobody would really listen anyway

2.       Talk is idle, it has been tried, it will not change anything

3.       My ideas are not that important

4.       There might be negative consequences if I opened my mouth

5.       Talking (proposing new ideas) is work, and I have done my share

6.       I am not in a such position who speaks is situation like this

7.       We have two ears and one mouth, listening is gold and speaking something else

8.       …

Certainly the list could go on and on, and everybody could easily list numerous reasons why people may choose not to express their opinions in different settings. What is important here is to realize that silence is certainly an unavoidable part of organizational life. Different people in different settings choose silence. Also it is important to realize that mostly people choose silence because they think that it is wise thing to do. Probably silence is selected for personal reasons but also for organizational reasons. People may think that raising up certain topics might cause havoc in their organizations and therefore silence will actually benefit the organization.

 

In fact, it may not be so obvious that silence should be replaced with voice everywhere and always. These issues are truly very delicate and complex. I think that generally speaking people and organizations are doing today what they are capable of and what they consider possible. Hence in real world it is often impossible to make a quick and heroic move which would change black into white, or ineffectiveness into effectiveness, or silence into voice - and create only positive consequences.

The level of silence in any organization, and in any meeting, and actually anywhere where people encounter has been chosen by those wise people who are actors in that particular situation. At the same time most organizations would undoubtedly benefit a lot, if not enormously, if people would more openly share their observations and ideas. This is the setting where leadership in real world has to operate. How to decrease the level of silence in organizations so that consequences are desired for people and for the organization?

Business books and a reader - the interplay reconsiderd

Should the cover of a business book include warning signs in addition to those typical flaming praise given by famous people and successful CEOs?  Warning signs could be something like: in case you are such and such person this book may not be suitable for you, or in case you work in this kind of organization this book cannot really be recommended for you, or in case your attitude toward work is something like following you might do yourself a service in reconsidering some other activities instead of reading this book.

 

 

Should we take the connection between a reader and a book seriously? Should we take business books and their message seriously? Surely it is everybody’s right to read whatever they like.  And the point here is not to propose any kind of restrictions or limitations for free choice. The point here is more epistemological in its nature, which means that it may not be obvious that all kinds of business books are most useful to all kinds of executives and experts working in all kinds of organizations.

Well I admit that it is unfair to compare business books to those products which are required to put warning signs on their cover. Nevertheless could it actually be a good thing even for business books themselves and in particular to the reader-book experience if business books could include some kind of “how to use this book” part.  Apparently this part should be prepared by following by some kind of a  - generally accepted guidelines - for effective and fruitful reading

May I at this point leave it for later discussion which instance (organizational body) could create these “ generally accepted business book reading” - guidelines (probably later called as GABBR -guidelines) and who should write the instructions to each book, could it actually be the author herself  or some other person designed specifically for that task. I just want to suggest here that these guidelines could be prepared sensibly and they might not be a heavy burden to anyone involved. Instead the guidelines might help the reader to get most out of a book, and perhaps sometimes to consider how important it is to really consider what elements make it possible to apply the ideas of a book in is his own professional life and in his organization.

But what could these guidelines actually include? This is certainly a very difficult question. However, I think that key element would be the reader’s ability and willingness to make changes. Can we say that without the idea of making or at least considering a change,  the very reading of a business book is just entertainment and this may not be a best possible professional attitude for effective reading. Again, it is of course every ones right to read also business book for share pleasure and entertainment. However, from the epistemological perspective we are interested to examine those reading experiences which have also other goals, like deepening and broadening understanding which may create basis for change and improvement in professional activities.

 

Hence GABBR-guidelines - I thrust that you already remember this acronym, if not please check the text above - would most like help the reader to reflect at least following aspects: what actually is her position and freedom to make changes in her own professional life and also in her organization, what is her organizations true ability and possibility to change and really apply ideas touted in business book, and also she might be interested to check her own attitude and whether there really is willingness to reconsidering  her taken for granted every day truths which may have served very well so far.

In sum. Business books are excellent, sometimes. Readers are magnificent, always. How we all make it as likely as possible that that the crucial interplay between readers and books  provide best possible results?

The Shocking Simplicity of Strategic Thinking - Gary Hamel case

World renowned strategy guru Gary Hamel has made an excellent video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aodjgkv65MM

 

 

The watching of that video makes one wonder what is the true nature of strategic thinking. It is intriguing to realize that here top thinker of certain topic (strategy) gives a presentation about latest ideas of his domain and, somewhat shockingly,  everything on that video is clear and very simple. It is safe to assume that every layman would immediately understand every word and every idea discussed on this video. How is this possible? What this all tell about strategic thinking? What this all tell about the way how strategic thinking is often perceived and presented?

Let us take any other discipline and let us imagine that the most advanced thinker would give a presentation about the latest findings on his field. I believe quite often layman could not follow at all what the thinker would be presenting. And even if the thinker liked to make a very special effort and speak to everyone, like Brian Greene about String theory, we would sense how he is making extra effort to make most complex issues at least somewhat understandable to us all. We would also be acutely aware that the expert could easily change his speaking mode and after that change we would immediately “drop off the wagon”.

In the case of strategic thinking things seem to be different - outright clarity and simplicity seem to prevail. How is this possible? I believe that we have to start to perceive strategic thinking a bit differently. But before going to that let us take couple perspectives on the Gary Hamel’s presentation. First, it can be said generally that simplicity is not the thing that comes first, it is something what comes last. So when a person really knows his topic, he is able to present even difficult matters clearly. Secondly, in the strategy world this video is naturally a business case in itself and it would probably difficult to sell something which would be very difficult to understand. Certainly this video increases the demand so that different organizers all over the world want to get Gary Hamel to give his presentation in their seminars. Also it is fair to recognize that this is just a very short video within which the expert tells his case as clearly and as convincingly as possible. And the presentation is just excellent.

Yet, I propose that we should also attach something important to every discussion and every presentation about strategy. This is because doing strategy in any real setting is actually very, very difficult and demanding. It is not a simple case, easy to follow and that's it. And although any presentation can operate on its own right, we should perhaps always try to remember to connection between presentation and real world.

 

Hence I would propose that we should attach at least following three caveats to every presentation about strategy:

1)      Let us always evaluate the logic of the presentation. Is it something which is nice to hear or does it seem to correspond the facts of real life. For instance, in this video under discussion we hear how organizations in the future will take into account the needs of us humans. Absolutely great idea. However, in real life this humanization of organizations is certainly one trend but old style will continue in many industries and in many organizations. Sometimes the old style is due the incapability to change and sometime it may be that the realities of certain industry are such that freedoms in certain positions in certain kind of processes just are rather limited. It may also be that in some areas of business and organizational activities very intensive coordination will be the way to succeed also in the future and in those cases people just do their part in the extremely well planned process and that’s it.

2)      Strategy in action is not just ideas, it is much, much more and often these other things are the ones which determine whether the organization succeeds and moves towards desired direction. These so called other things include, a lot of all kind of work day after day, an ability to stand all kinds of pressures and all kinds of uncertainties, and also an ability to learn all the time, because the planned route never works, there will be failures and dead ends.

3)      Strategy is not a one man show. There are people around and each of us has something to say in every strategy development and implementation. Also everything happens in some business environment which is constantly changing. This means that in real world we all operate in middle of numerous willing people and all kind of surprises which may rapidly change the whole setting. Clarity and simplicity are not part of the picture.

 In sum. What is strategic thinking? Can we take strategic thinking out from the complex world and examine it is something very simple and clear? Is it beneficial to do so? What kind of discussion about strategy would be most useful to those people how try to make their organizations more successful?

I believe deeper and deeper understanding about real life and about situations where people operate is the cornerstone of strategic wisdom.