Understanding the natural currents of information in today’s macho organizations shows how communications become blocked

What’s most often blamed for organizational problems of every kind? Poor communication.

Since modern organizations began to emerge, people have been complaining about communication problems. All the training and consulting should have solved the problem long ago, but they haven’t. Why should that be?

Probably because most efforts to improve communication focus on the wrong issues: they deal with the visible symptoms, not the underlying causes. You’ll find those in the interaction between human nature — that endless source of difficulties for anyone wanting to make life tidy and predictable — and the typical organizational pyramid.

Information in organizations flows by natural currents; currents caused by human responses to the need to pass information along, plus those that relate to staying out of trouble, creating personal advantage, and deciding who is your friend. Those currents are shaped by the organizational culture, which is why macho organizations typically have the worst communication problems.

Upward flows of information in macho organizations typically contain only good news

Bad news doesn’t move upwards in organizations easily. Typically, it doesn’t flow upwards at all, unless things are really bad. People’s immediate response to bad news is to bury it and hope it’s never found. Bosses encourage this by their tendency to kill the messenger. Being the bearer of bad news to those above you in the hierarchy isn’t good for your career or your job security.

In contrast, good news not only moves upwards easily, it’s often enriched and added to along the way. If there isn’t enough, it can even be invented. Telling the boss what he or she wants to hear is commonplace, as is boasting of every small success, while forgetting failures of any size.

What the boss is told may be only an approximation to the truth — with an added varnish of self-interest. Some people are more open with their bosses, of course, so the degree of rose-tinting varies. What changes rather less is the extent to which subordinates decide that there are things the boss doesn’t need to know. A very few lie as they pass information upwards; many more stretch the truth; and nearly all censor it to remove items that fall outside the “need to know” area.

Downward flows of information are either limited or negative

Most information is passed down the hierarchy on a “need to know” basis as well. It’s a common assumption (at least amongst those higher up in the hierarchy) that only they should have access to certain kinds of information. How much and what that may be is up to them to decide. Passing information downwards is a “matter of judgment.”

Since bosses, especially those with large egos (that’s the majority of them in the typical macho organization) and a love of power (ditto), often judge that their subordinates need to know very little, the downward flow of important information is niggardly at best. Being “in the know” makes people feel important, so those who get information rarely feel much urge to pass it on.

“Need to know” may be important in communities of spies, but it’s hard to see why it applies so widely in other organizations, apart from the reasons given above. There are likely to be few topics where secrecy is genuinely needed — and a great many where it harms progress. But humans are human and most of them love a good secret.

The exception to the limit on information flowing downwards is blame. In part, this is because chewing out subordinates is applauded in macho organizations. It makes managers look and feel tough and reassures those above them that they “on top of things.” For the rest, blame flows downwards at speed, since those above usually want to make sure none of it stays with them. It keeps moving downwards until it reaches those who can’t manage to pass it on fast enough, or have no one to pass it to. There it sticks, even if they had nothing to do with the original mistake.

Sideways flows depend on likability

Of course, people do people share information with their peers, but only if they like them. That means those closest together, physically and emotionally, share information most readily, while those further away on either count are left out.

That’s why, where information has to cross departmental boundaries, it rarely makes it. In macho organizations, other departments are demonized, so, based on likability, they get next to nothing. Indeed, there’s often a tacit agreement to block information to them, or even falsify it.

In macho organizations, information is currency. It can be used to buy favors or information that you need. Few people give it away, save to their closest friends. For the rest, it is hoarded and traded. If I tell you what I know (and you want to know), what will you tell me in return?

The less information flows around freely, the more genuine information is worth; that’s why the most secretive organizations have the most flourishing markets in shared data.

Of course, all trading depends on mutual trust. That’s why it works best between people who like one another. Where feelings of trust are lacking, trading is limited or blocked altogether. If I don’t trust you to give me something that is genuinely worth what you want from me in return, there’s no deal.

The poor communications in macho organizations makes them paranoid

One of the most negative side-effects of becoming a macho, Hamburger Management organization is that it strangles communication. Whether it’s upwards, downwards, or sideways, people who feel pressured or threatened hang on to any “weapon” they think they have. In many cases, that “weapon” is information.

Instead of worrying so much about the supposed skills of communication, it would be better to focus on what is causing the proper currents of information to be diverted, altered, or become dried up.

Most people don’t have much trouble communicating with friends and those they trust. If communications are a problem, the first place to look for an answer is the level of trust in the organization. Then consider the organizational culture: is is infected with macho posturing and Hamburger Management — that pernicious approach based on short-term, cheap-and-nasty tricks to get what the leaders want while giving as little as possible to those who provide it?

You can run all the communications training you like, but if the organization is operating on Hamburger Management, it will be a complete waste of time and money.

[ratings]

Technorati Tags: communication, improving communication, better communication in the workplace, what gets in the way of communication, trust and communication, why people don’t communication in the workplace, why lack of trust blocks communication, mistakes of macho management, Hamburger Management and communication, why departments don’t communicate, the source of rivalry within organizations, how to strangle communication