In short order Bret Simmons of the University of Nevada, Reno, has become one of my favorite thinkers on management; he's in Bob Sutton's class as an academic who clearly gets the web, and his blog is a lively and informative read.
Today Bret has a great post on how bad leaders stifle dissent:
1) Your people never see you say no. You never disagree or challenge the people you work for, so your people never learn from you how to do this with purpose. You send the very clear message that “no” is not acceptable around here.
2) People that have told you no are gone. You have systematically removed from your inner circle everyone that disagreed or challenged your policies and decisions. But that’s ok, because everyone knows they were not team players, or were disloyal or disrespectful. This is the rhetoric of conformity and exclusion.
I'd add a third behavior to this list: Failing to accept differences of opinion and pushing beyond a reasonable point to obtain uniform public agreement. Your people don't feel free to voice disagreement because you hound them until they change their mind (or at least that's what they appear to be doing.)
There will always be times when leaders need to override their team members–and making that decision wisely is a key element of effective leadership. When a leader makes that choice, it's usually advisable to devote some time to discussion to see if common ground can be found and/or to persuade the team.
But if common ground can't be found, and persuasion's not effective, and the leader still believes that overriding the team is the right way to go, they need to accept their team's right to disagree and trust that the team can still deliver on their mandate. Pushing further to extract (superficial) agreement demonstrates a lack of trust (in them and in your own authority), leads to intractable arguments and/or hypocrisy, and insures that you'll hear fewer honest opinions in the future.
(And if you don't recognize Humprey Bogart as Captain Queeg, get The Caine Mutiny on your Netflix queue ASAP.)
15 Responses
I sincerely appreciate the kind words, Ed. Bob Sutton is my inspiration and role model. What he does with his blog is a tremendous service to all of us.
Love your point #3. I tell folks that leaders need to learn to SHUT UP! If you are a leader with a powerful position, and you have used that power in the past, as soon as you put your opinion on the table the discussion is likely over. People gravitate to your opinion, and you chalk it up to your leadership brilliance. Again, self-deception.
Keep up the good work, Ed! Bret
This is such a great post, and I think this topic deserves a regular, recurring spot on your blog. More “Bad Leader!” posts, please!
Happy to oblige! Lord knows there’s no shortage of material.
Seems to me the real trick is helping someone — who thinks he/she listens — to understand that he/she actually doesn’t. This represents a shift in identity, not just a matter of ego. The behaviors you’ve accurately identified are time and again unconscious ones, or ones consciously expressed but with a lot of fabrication and self-deception in their explanation.
We know this is the problem, so now, for me anyway, the question is how to help others with their self-confrontations, how to facilitate such learning with truth and care, a process a friend of mine refers to as “fierce love.”
Nicely framed, Dan. I particularly like your emphasis on these dynamics as the result of unconscious behaviors–and I’d suggest that the key to assessing the impact of our behavior–especially when they’re unconscious–is candid feedback from our colleagues.
Absolutely! The candid feedback is essential, and I think one other thing is also often needed, too — someone to help interpret the data, stay with the person, and “keep the faith” and optimism in a way that makes learning truly possible. It’s easy for any of us getting more information about ourselves to want to slip off this sometimes very uncomfortable spot rather than staying accepting, tolerant and patient with the tensions. So a helper — facilitator, coach, mentor, really great boss, colleague, good friend — can play such an important role in fostering personal change. To me, this is where the art form is in our work, no matter what the professional or personal relationship. At bottom I believe we need one another to help unlock one another. We need each other for that right question, reassurance, or challenge that moves us suddenly — or gradually over time — from defending to curiosity, and then to self-knowledge; maybe sometimes even to wisdom. Being “held” in such a space, even a desperate Captain Queeg may begin in small but important ways to examine what is behind his personal reactions.
Really well said, Dan–that’s a great definition of coaching in a nutshell.
I find it highly entertaining that a blog post about the evil of stifling dissent has moderated blog comment section that need to be pre-approved by the blog owner before being posted.
This is the epitome of stifling dissent, yes?
Hypocrisy much?
Dear Anonymous Commenter,
Thought-provoking comments (although it’s unclear to me why you felt the need to make them anonymously and in a somewhat hostile tone.)
The primary reason I moderate my comments is to keep out the spam. I’d rather prevent the spam from getting online in the first place than clean up after it appears.
That said, I also reserve the right to not publish a comment if I feel that it adds nothing to the discussion. I’ve done this on occasion, although very rarely, and to my knowledge I’ve never done so because the commenter disagreed with me. I welcome dialogues with people here in the comments, and I feel a special obligation to publish and respond to dissenting viewpoints–hence this exchange of ours.
Rather than seeming hypocritical, this stance feels to me like an appropriate expression of points #1 and #2 above.
Ed
I’m not buying the ‘keep out spam’ excuse for moderating comments in a blog about stifling dissent….captcha or similar technologies are available to stop spammers without stifling dissent.
Addressing me as “anonymous commenter” means that you don’t realize that ALL commenter are essentially anonymous on the Internet, which is *why* it is ideal for debate, and for the presentation of dissenting viewpoints.
If you want to bring your blog/internet presence/credibility to the next level, you would cease controlling the debate, and instead, actually open the debate by removing moderated comments.
Example: George Bush spent his entire administration attempting to control the debates by disallowing any potentially dissenting influence from getting within a block of any of his speaking venues.
Barney Frank (who I don’t particularly like, but who at least will stand up in front of a room filled with preplaced dissent) had the balls to accept dissent in his own meeting, and by doing so, properly frame the character and content of the dissenter. Take a look-see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
His approach is the difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk. Leadership is only leadership when it is open. Period.
Anything else is ersatz leadership, of which, as you say, there is plenty.
Dear Anonymous Commenter,
In my experience with TypePad (a great platform in most respects), captcha reduces spam but doesn’t eliminate it. I really don’t want spam on my site, and moderating comments seems to be the only way to insure that.
But as I noted earlier, fighting spam is my primary reason for moderating comments, not my only reason. I post almost every comment from a real person, and as I said, I don’t believe I’ve ever failed to post a comment because the author disagreed with me. But I may not post a comment if I feel that it adds nothing to the discussion.
You believe that this reflects an insufficient commitment to openness, while I see it as a reasonable editorial policy.
As for anonymity, the overwhelming majority of people I interact with online, both here and on other sites I frequent, are not anonymous and choose to identify themselves. This hasn’t seemed to undermine the quality of the discussions–if anything, the discussions seem to be richer as a result.
Ed
You’re a more patient man than I, Ed.
I have come to the point where if I think a person is arguing in bad faith, I have no problem excluding them from a conversation. The time I spend on someone who has no desire to learn is time away from people who really do want to learn.
Of course the risk is coming to this judgment rashly, but there’s risk either way.
Good to see your blog again now that I’m back from my travels.
Thanks for the support, A.J., and I appreciate your point on the opportunity cost of engaging someone who may not be arguing in good faith. Our time and energy may be better spent elsewhere. That said, I did learn something from the exchange above–I had to revisit my rationale for moderating comments, and although it still feels like the right choice for me, I understand why someone might question it.
And glad you’re back! Sounds like your trip was trying at times but also productive.
Ed
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” — Wikipedia
I reserve the right to not feed the trolls — a really good reason for moderated comments.
Thanks, Dan. I’ve also been referred to the comments policy over at The Volokh Conspiracy, a group blog headed up by Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law, among other topics, at UCLA:
Although I don’t receive hundreds of comments and therefore do strive to give each comment equal attention, this aptly describes my position. Hey, if it’s good enough for people who teach free speech law, it’s good enough for the rest of us.
Ed