How Can We Have a Good Conversation If You Keep Interrupting Me?
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 13, Issue 2
Background
There was a time when this column’s title was not sad-funny but sad-true.
To be clear, this was the accepted sociocultural behavior of those times.
Within families, the workplace, organized religions, the military, and education, when the one in power stated her or his opinion as to what you were to do or not do next, you were expected to comply immediately, if not sooner.
Well, although times have changed, far too many of those who were shaped during that past have managed to keep the “culture of silence” in place in the workplace. It is time to pull back the curtain and reveal the wizard for what he is.
Introduction
To initiate an open dialogue among the members of your organization, program, or project, you might use one or more of the following cues:
•
Engineered projects do not fail because engineers can’t engineer.
•
Why do our best people leave?
•
We all knew that if the seals failed, the shuttle would blow up.
•
Do some executives still assert that we can learn leadership and management on the job?
•
What does “pay to play” really mean?
•
Why aren’t clients part of project formation meetings?
•
Why aren’t women leaders on the executive council?
•
No, that’s not what I meant.
•
What does engineering leadership look like?
•
Do projects fail because project managers do not know what to do, don’t care, or both?
Of course, within many professional organizations, discussing some of these issues openly is considered a career death wish. This invisible paralyzing force is what stands in the way of a firm that wants to move from “pretty good most of the time” to “the best place to work.” Your firm’s most critical success factor is the goodwill of your employees. Most likely, the best of your people leave for one of the following three reasons:
1.
Lack of recognition;
2.
Lack of challenge; or
3.
Lack of opportunity.
In this case, two out of three won’t cut it.
Empirical Evidence of Lack of Good Conversations
At some of the internal organizational workshops I have facilitated, participants have offered insights into the following unspoken opinions:
1.
What they liked least about some internal meetings:
a.
No facilitator was in the meeting;
b.
Going way off topic was allowed;
c.
The meeting was unnecessary;
d.
People’s participation was discouraged; and
e.
There was no managed accountability/follow-up after the meeting.
2.
What they liked best about some internal meetings:
a.
The meeting’s purpose was clear to all;
b.
Participants showed respect for others’ opinions;
c.
The “devil’s advocate” role was well done;
d.
Individual tasks were confirmed and agreed to during follow-up; and
e.
The agenda’s issue-time allocations were set.
Solutions You Seek Will Not Be Found in the Back of a Civil Engineering Handbook
In preparing this column, I located a reference I had not previously known. The article was written by Verhezen (2010), and what initially attracted my attention was Verhezen’s characterization of how a “good conversation” can serve as a metaphor for moral, ethical, and integrity-centric corporate values:
The familiar image of a “good conversation” is a useful metaphor for integrity-based management. Such conversations or dialogues are critical in the attempt to give voice to concerns which remain unarticulated either because one is unable or afraid to speak about them.
Yes, that resonates.
We do not openly speak of some matters because we fear the negative consequences that might follow. And as to the skills needed to move toward open dialogue with superiors, such learning is not a typical component of professional education.
Conclusions
Based on the preceding notes, I have reached the following conclusions, in no order of importance:
1.
Within each of our organizations, we have professionals waiting to help, if they feel safe to do so.
2.
The owners of our organizations face the same historical sociocultural constraints in making it safe for their employees to help move their organizations toward sustainable, world-class results.
3.
People commit most to those strategies they help shape, not those they edit.
4.
Focus, concentrate, execute, and persist are the phase-gates for the next steps for introducing open dialogue in one’s workplace.
Epilogue
The following quotation speaks to the promise of replacing a culture of silence with good conversations:
An ethical manager or employee will demonstrate the courage of their own or an organization’s convictions and values but at the same time will work to align their words with actions by setting clear policies, explicit targets, and incentives to help the company to get there. Moral muteness or silence cannot be part of that challenging but inspiring transformation process to an integrity-based framework. Integrity as in moral mindfulness is not a technique but an ethically inspired attitude to do the right thing, always. (Verhezen 2010)
Of course, I may be wrong! What do you think?
References
Verhezen, P. (2010). “Giving voice in a culture of silence: From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity.” Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 187–206.
Biographies
William M. Hayden Jr. is an adjunct assistant professor at the University at Buffalo within the School of Management. He is also president of Management Quality By Design, Inc., Amherst, New York. He can be reached at [email protected].
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 13 • Issue 2 • April 2013
Pages: 63 - 64
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 7, 2013
Accepted: Jan 7, 2013
Published online: Mar 15, 2013
Published in print: Apr 1, 2013
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.