"Are you familiar with the term willful blindness?" This was the question that floored the Murdochs at Tuesday's parliamentary select committee hearing because it cut right through the narrative News International executives have been spinning to counter the hacking scandal that has engulfed the media group in recent weeks.
Innocent ignorance has been NI's defense from the start. Rupert put too much trust in his key lieutenants, James could not be expected to know every detail of the NI operation and Rebekah merely delegated responsibility to her staff and relied on their good judgement. Those at the top could not be expected to know everything that was going on in NI and, besides, who could have anticipated that the work of a few rogue freelancers would undermine the entire News Corp empire?
As a performance, it was neither convincing nor original. We have seen and heard it all before from leaders during other crises. Consider the Royal Bank of Scotland, BP, Enron and Lehman Brothers, Fred Goodwin, Tony Hayward, Jeff Skilling and Kenneth Lay variously professed ignorance, surprise and contrition at the corporate disasters that occurred on their watch, but the fact is that they all had countless opportunities to step in and deal with the systemic failures that launched their respective crises.
Reminding leaders that there is a difference between ignorance and deniability is fundamental for an organisation's health and, perhaps, survival. The Murdochs looked distinctly uncomfortable when confronted with the concept of "willful blindness," a legal term that recognizes that if you intentionally fail to be informed about matters that make you liable, you are still responsible in law. In other words, it is a leader's responsibility to ensure that they don't turn a blind eye to practices or complaints that could seriously damage their organisation's operations or reputation.
In my experience, most leaders understand that they must foster open and transparent cultures, keep their eyes open and take seriously any suggestions of wrongdoing. But there is a huge gulf between knowing and doing and I am not at all convinced that leaders are able to translate fine words into action. How many leaders are genuinely prepared to listen to people from every level in the organisation? How open are they to criticisms of their leadership and wider organizational practices? How many employees really have a voice?
What are the channels and opportunities for communication? And what, if anything, changes as a result of speaking up?
Let's imagine a likely scenario at News International. A mid-level reporter on the News of the World, you are aware of rumors that senior reporters are using "creative" means to obtain information, including phone-tapping. You watch as your colleagues fall into line when the editor tells them to do everything it takes to get the story. You feel the high when a great story breaks and the editor is pleased. Soon you are the one who is being asked to get the story. What do you do? Challenge the status quo and risk losing your job, or just get on with it and get the promotion and rewards you feel you deserve?
We know how the story ended at the NoW. Employees who spoke up against dubious practices were ousted, while the collective failure to challenge the same practices resulted in the newspaper being closed and hundreds of jobs being lost. Meanwhile their leaders resigned, having accepted millions of pounds in severance pay.
Now consider the same scenario in your organisation. Are you being asked to do the impossible by your boss? Is he or she oblivious to your requests to be reasonable? Do you have serious concerns about operations or the company's strategy? Do you have information that they really need to hear? Do you go out on a limb to challenge your boss or accept that there is nothing you can do? Do you risk losing your job for failing to get that message across?
It is not easy to speak truth to power, whether it is telling the boss he or she is wrong or owning up to one's own mistakes. Bosses have many means to intimidate — by position, power, personality or even wealth and a sense of entitlement. And even if they do not openly intimidate, most executives expect and assume that employees will not question them and company policy, or, if they do, that they will go quietly. Those who see wrongdoing and are impelled to speak up or "go public" can be condemned for not being team-players or branded as troublemakers.
Albert O. Hirschmann, a social scientist writing in the 1970s, suggested that employees who disagree with company policy have three options: "exit, voice, and loyalty." In other words:
- Offer a principled resignation
- Try to change the policy (speak truth to power)
- Remain loyal "team players."
In truth, most people choose option three, the path of least resistance. This was the story at the NoW: its leaders probably turned a blind eye, staff swallowed their moral objections and did what they had to, knowing that lacked the power to change things and that they would probably be punished if they attempted to do so.
What are your thoughts on telling truth to power? What are your experiences or observations? Do you have a real voice in your organisation? As always, your thoughts and comments illuminate, inform and develop the discussion — so I look forward to hearing them!
The Price of (Not) Speaking Truth to Power
Gill Corkindale
Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:50:25 GMT
Comments
Post a Comment