Frank hired me to help him with his collaborative skills. We conducted our first meeting in his glass-walled office. I looked in from outside for a couple of minutes before knocking, to get a sense of what other people saw before entering his enclave. This guy obviously was buttoned-down and immaculate. No papers on the desk. A couple of file folders on his small, circular conference table. His suit jacket was hung on a hanger from a wall hook and retained its press.
He sat at his desk peering intently over half-glasses at his computer screen. He looked busy. I knocked. He moved his gaze from the computer to the door, his glasses still sitting on the end of his nose. Without any facial expression, he stared at me for a couple of seconds and then waved me in while simultaneously returning his glare to his screen. I entered his office and sat at the table. Thirty seconds passed before he acknowledged my presence with a formal "hello," but no smile.
Pretend you were an employee with a serious personal problem that you wanted to discuss. You were feeling vulnerable and insecure at the prospect of discussing your problem with Frank, your boss. His assistant scheduled the meeting with the knowledge that you had something personal and troubling to talk about and shared that fact with him. You got the greeting that I got.
My question: Would Frank's greeting have created an inviting atmosphere for the discussion? Probably not.
Here's another story: Alan was the CEO of a $250,000,000 company. Every year, he conducted an employee meeting to outline plans for the upcoming year and to give the company's associates an opportunity to ask questions about anything they had on their minds. According to him, people almost never asked questions during the meeting, so he had had to resort to asking for anonymous, written questions before the meeting, which he would then answer at the session. He wondered why the associates were so timid and whether some kind of assertiveness training would help the people come out of their shells.
My question: With no more facts than those I presented, would you automatically conclude that all of these people lacked assertiveness? Again, probably not.
As it turned out, both of these companies suffered from a lack of "openness."
An open environment vs. a political environment
A friend of mine retired as the CEO of a billion dollar property and casualty insurance company. He told me a story to begin a discussion about the importance of openness to the success of any organization: "I moved to a town with a paper mill once. When we drove in for the first time, the smell was unbearable. After we lived there for a couple of months, we didn't notice it anymore. Organizational politics is so prevalent and deep that most companies reek with its odor. Most of us take it so for granted, however, that we don't even notice it."
A political environment is one where the "who" always subordinates the "what." Decisions are made and actions are taken because of someone in the organization (typically someone either "higher-up" with an imposing personal style or in a position of more power).
In today's competitive environment, organizations that demonstrate the importance of "merit" rather than politics stand a much better chance of sustaining success. Organizations that value merit make decisions based upon the "what." In these organizations, leaders recognize that getting to the right decision frequently has little to do with who made it.
Types of Openness
Organizations that value merit are also consciously dedicated to openness, which takes two forms: candor and reflection.
Candor is the ability and inclination to share our truth and perspective with others. It requires emotional courage; it requires skill in framing our words in a way that is forthright, direct and consumable. It minimizes the use of "weasel words," which typically sound like this: "Frank, I'd like to give you some feedback on something you did. It's not that big a deal, but I wanted to mention it."
Even those of us who have little trouble sharing our opinions generally do so in a way that the outcome we desire is secondary to the temporary emotional release we enjoy.
Reflection, in this context, is the ability and inclination to examine our perspectives and change our minds when presented with better information. We all believe we do this; most of us don't. Here's why:
First, we mistake our opinions and feelings for facts. We all cling to our own ideas and perspectives as if they represent universal truth. Consequently, if our own ideas – the stories we tell ourselves – represent truth to us, contrary opinions and perspectives represent falsehood and are automatically wrong.
Second, we were conditioned to seek "win-lose" solutions. With this mindset, personal victory means more than organizational success. If one believes that people are primarily motivated by individual power and wealth, this outlook is almost inevitable. However, if one believes as I do that people need purpose and meaning and that it frequently comes from being an important part of something bigger than themselves, it's an easier view to accept.
Third, creating an open environment is tough and takes time. Learning not to be guarded or defensive – to be comfortable being somewhat vulnerable – is not an easy proposition. It has to start at the top of an organization. It has to permeate an organization. It has to be reinforced with feedback and rewards.
I've worked with many companies that promote the idea of openness as a cultural priority. Most of them talk the talk but don't walk the walk. In those that are successful, the CEO and the top team typically are very well plugged-in to what people are thinking about and have very permeable egos. It's difficult but well worth it.
