I work as a university business professor and executive educator. Part of my job is to help others view organizational life from a broad range of perspectives.
My classes focus on how an analysis of an organizational issue must be broad, insightful, and focused on helping. My participants and students work on developing the skills to get “out of their heads” and see without judging so that they can develop the skills to manage, lead, and problem-solve.
This requires actions and communication that move teams and organizations forward. But far too many norms, and entrenched practices leave leaders and their teams unable to move forward. These include (among other things) incivility, oversimplification, and blame.
Ineffectual Incivility
I recently heard a story of a leader running a routine meeting in an organization. It was an exercise where the team was identifying gains, losses, risks, and opportunities to learn until the leader began to discuss the recent departure of another employee.
This employee had been a star performer until recently and then left of their own accord. With a laugh, the leader chose to bring up and celebrate their departure as a “gain” because the organization avoided paying out a severance package.
This “good news” was brought up among former colleagues of the departed employee, and they were horrified and uncomfortable with what seemed like mean-spiritedness. Several of them specifically noted disappointment in how it was disguised as an important meeting agenda item. This kind of incivility has been shown to lead to a host of problematic outcomes, including seeing uncivil leaders as unstable and lacking emotional self-control.
Poor performance is unfortunate. However, it simply does not warrant airtime spent on bashing poor performers themselves. Mistakes and performance issues are commonplace, and they do not warrant demeaning incivility.
In the story above, the leader could have chosen to acknowledge the departed employee’s achievements, wished them well, and moved on.
A discussion with the leader afterward reveals that she did not intend to come across as harsh. She thought the openness would be seen as authentic by the rest of the staff and that this would highlight her desire to help others think about the costs of doing business. Unfortunately, her intentions were irrelevant. The staff saw this as cruel, and the discomfort lasted in them and in the office for some time.
Be sure to think carefully about whether what you plan to say will be seen by others as uncivil. You might see yourself as being authentic or real, but you may not actually be helping. Leaders must always behave in a way that is seen as being in the service of others. In doing so, be sure to consider things like the circumstances of your staff, their relationships to each other, and the fact that what helps you, may not always help them.
Blame and Characterizations of “Others”
Characterizing “others” broadly has long been known to be problematic. It is rife with inaccuracies, prejudice, blame, and the projection of being out of control emotionally.
Imagine an organization experiencing challenges because of a string of customer complaints. Let’s also say that there was some merit to the complaints, in that some customers were inconvenienced. However, it is far from clear how the problem developed. There are many moving parts, and it would be hard to tell how the problem came about. One member of the staff manages to address the complaints and creates a practice to prevent similar problems.
Does the occurrence amount to an intent to upset customers? Would the staff who were involved deserve to be labelled as uncaring by those that were not? And even if there was carelessness, would such a label help anyone? No. Instead, it will create an adversarial set of “the others” or what psychologists call an “out-group.” One group of the staff (e.g., one department) would be painting the other one with broad strokes.
The above describes the somewhat common outcome of a so-called analysis of an organizational problem. Attempts to understand and help become oversimplifications that end in a fruitless “search for the truth.” They become a hunt for the ubiquitous “bad guy(s).”
Dissatisfaction with those who are seen as at fault can bring about demonization and a strong desire to judge or to “get even.” It does not help an organization learn, build bridges, or right wrongs.
Complex Systems
Despite decades of research highlighting the systemic complexity of organizational problems, far too many persist in taking the easy way out. That is, instead of looking for a solution, they look for one factor (usually a person or a group of people) as the culprit. To the detriment of problem solving, the blame is seen not as the result of a complex system but because of an endemic flaw (e.g., “That person is ‘toxic”) that cannot be fixed.
In organizations, ignoring the systemic complexity of problems can only really bring about:
- Endless discussions about things that we cannot control, can’t “touch” or can’t impact.
- Unsolvable debates about who really is to blame.
- Conclusions that will not point to anything “fixable.”
In short, it won’t be helpful. If employees and leaders want to help organizations address issues like customer complaints, problematic processes, or other significant problems, the useless simplification of complex issues has got to go.
A workplace is a complex “social” system. It is an ever-changing collection of interconnections. Small actions in one part have unpredictable impacts on the whole of it. The consequences may seem like they have one single “root” cause. But they don’t.
A better idea is to keep focused on a way forward to address the problem. Some might find it surprising how few organizational problems are actually caused by a single, identifiable person, let alone a characteristic of one person. Complex systems in workplaces make conflicts and problems impossible to understand, predict, or control. They demand a different approach, one that is not based on linear, hierarchal, command-and-control solutions.
Less “Why”
Instead, ease up on asking “why” when things go wrong. In a complex social system, “why” leads to cognitive distortions. These are exaggerated thoughts based not on facts but on untested assumptions. They are largely emotional, automatic reactions to negative events.
We get deeper into assumptions when we try to find out “whose fault it is.” We fool ourselves by calling it a “root cause analysis.” We create further problems if we point out what “should have” been done or what we claim we “would have” done.
Leaders would benefit from getting rid of the habit of causal thinking, root-causes and linear, simplified tales of blame and fault. Especially when it doesn’t help. Which is most of the time.
Learn More about the Schulich Mini-MBA: Dentist Business Leadership Program and its upcoming session.
About the Author
Stephen Friedman is an Adjunct Professor of Organizational Studies and a Senior Faculty Member of Executive Education, at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto. He teaches and designs live and virtual graduate and undergraduate courses in Organizational Behaviour, Leadership and Strategic Management. He teaches in the Schulich Dentist Mini-MBA Program.