Red Flags: II

In Part I of this small survey of "red flags" that indicate future trouble for projects or collaborations, I described the effects of toxic conflict and the loss of capable leaders and team members. Although these are warning signs, they tend not to be the very earliest warning signs. Indeed, when they occur, it's fair to say that trouble has already arrived.

Fortunately, there are several other behavioral phenomena that do tend to provide more advanced warning of trouble ahead. Among these behaviors are those that relate to interpersonal communication. Below are four examples.

Fear of speaking truth to power

When we speak (or think) of "the elephant in the room," we're referring to the idea that there's something many of us know about but dare not mention. Although many causes can create these elephants, one of the most difficult to address is the need to critique a position or belief that a powerful person holds. The common phrase that describes such actions is "speaking truth to power."

When people with the power to address a problem are unaware of the problem, for whatever reason, the problem is likely to remain in place. With time, its negative consequences can increase in severity, and the cost of addressing it can grow. People with the power to address problems need to be made aware of the problems, even if they're reluctant to learn of them.

One member of a team afraid to speak truth to power is a problem and a red flag. An entire team afraid to do so is much worse. And when the team lead is among the fearful, catastrophe is almost certain to arrive eventually.

Fear of speaking truth

Widespread fear Although there are many different
kinds of elephants-in-the-room, one
of the most difficult to address is
the need to critique a position that
a politically powerful person holdsof speaking truth to power is a red flag. But an even more significant red flag is fear of speaking truth at all. This fear is more damaging because it prevents truth from surfacing within the team even when people with power aren't participants in the conversation. It is therefore more effective in its ability to limit the spread of unpleasant truths.

But there is an even more dangerous possible interpretation of the observation that people are reluctant to speak truth. It's possible that team members fear that one among them is acting on behalf of someone with power, gathering intelligence about who is saying what to whom. It's possible that team members fear the consequences of expressing to each other opinions that differ from what the person with power wants them to believe.

A team in which some members fear that other members are acting as "spies" for powerful people is a team that cannot solve problems that require acknowledging facts that differ from what the people in power want to believe. It is a team that cannot grapple with reality.

High incidence of plausible miscommunication

On occasion, someone — whom I'll refer to as Edgar — someone with responsibility for addressing an issue is found to have failed to address it effectively, or failed to address it in a timely fashion. An appropriate response to these failures would be an investigation to determine what actually happened and what process changes might reduce the probability of recurrences. But too often, Edgar takes preemptive action. He provides a tale of plausible miscommunication that he hopes will obviate the need for investigation.

A tale of plausible miscommunication is a narrative that explains Edgar's failure to act in a timely, effective fashion. It provides a believable story of how knowledge of the problem failed to reach Edgar. Edgar can then hardly be held responsible for the failure because he didn't know about the problem. And the tale neutralizes any desire for investigation because it suggests a root cause that's unlikely to be repeated or is beyond the control of anyone or any process inside the enterprise. Example: "The hurricane damage cut us off from the Internet." Another example: "Ella's sudden hospitalization for COVID prevented her from alerting Edgar about the system crash."

Tales of plausible miscommunication can of course be truthful. But when they occur with any regularity, they could indicate that some are using the technique to provide safety for themselves without harming innocent parties.

Power-serving spin

In politics and public relations, to spin a narrative is to present an intentionally misleading story by weaving together a series of facts and half-truths to suggest an interpretation that favors a particular position vis-à-vis some incident or situation. Within organizations, power-serving spin is spin that strengthens the position of those with political power.

Power-serving spin carries risk for the enterprise because it can limit the chances of success for people seeking the truth of a situation. For example, those investigating the causes of miscommunication might fail to find causes if they let themselves be guided by tales that are biased by power-serving spin.

Organizational leaders who seek accurate information about what's happening in their organizations would do well to learn how to de-spin the information that does come their way. Even better: they can adjust organizational culture in ways that encourage delivery of information free of spin.

In the final part of this series on red flags, I'll examine the abuse of political power in organizations.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Stay in Your Own Hula Hoop

Do you tend to commit to too many tasks? Are you one who spends too much energy meeting the needs of others — so much that your own needs go unmet? Here's how a hula-hoop can help.

FedEx, Flocks, and Frames of Reference

Your point of view — or reference frame — affects what you see, and how you experience the world around you. By choosing a reference frame consciously, you can see things differently, and open a universe of new choices.

How to Procrastinate

You probably know many techniques for procrastinating, and use them regularly, but vociferously deny doing so. That's what makes this such a delicate subject that I've been delaying writing this article. Well, those days are over.

Ethical Debate at Work: II

Outcomes of debates at work sometimes favor one party, not only at the expense of the other or others, but also at the expense of the organization. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for steering debates toward wise outcomes.

Subject Lines for Intra-Team Messages

When teams communicate internally using messaging systems like email, poorly formed subject lines of messages can limit the effectiveness of the exchanges. Subject lines therefore provide a powerful means of increasing real-time productivity of the team.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info