When high ranking officials seek to find out the “truth on the ground” they often discover the task much more difficult than expected. It is usually not because the front-line personnel don’t know what is going on, but rather, few are willing to risk speaking candidly if they know the information will be viewed negatively by leadership.
This is unfortunate as it leaves leaders with a false sense of security. “…but they said everything’s going great.” It is something which goes on in many organizations, but the military rank system seems to exacerbate the issue.
There is an unnatural aura around the shiny pieces of medal on people’s shoulders that seem to act as a force-shield, blocking out reality and striking fear in subordinates. Obviously not the intended effect (at least not most of the time), but one that exists nonetheless.
Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist recently wrote an article in the Financial Times admonishing us to “Listen to the Bearers of Bad News.” Here’s a snippet:
One of Friedrich Hayek’s obvious-once-pointed-out observations is that society is full of local knowledge, often of a subtle nature and only fleetingly exploitable. That is one reason why decentralised market processes tend to work well. When a hierarchy has to exist, Hayek’s insight is the reason why bosses should want to receive truthful assessments of what is going on the shop floor (they don’t) and subordinates should be happy to provide them (they aren’t).
What makes matters worse for any organisation is that the same dynamic is taking place at every level. Each middle manager is a fresh obstacle to the flow of truth up a hierarchy of wastebaskets. Sensible managers try to let information flow freely, but many are happy to reinforce the barricades for their own peace of mind.
The results of barriers to communication can be catastrophic. H.R. McMaster’s influential study of decision-making during the Vietnam war, Dereliction of Duty, is packed with examples. The joint chiefs of staff were warned by their chairman, Maxwell Taylor, that Lyndon Johnson did not like “split advice”. Johnson’s defence secretary, Robert McNamara, argued that government would be ineffective if department chiefs were to “express disagreement” with the president. Not disobey, but “express disagreement”. Johnson trusted McNamara implicitly and relied too heavily on the advice of a man he praised as a “can-do fellow”. Isolating himself from dissent, the president made a series of disastrous decisions.
The new television series, Undercover Boss, has made a name for itself by finding a creative way around this barrier to truth. CEO’s of major corporations “dress-down” as low-level employees in their own companies to uncover the truths that would otherwise be relegated to talks around the water-cooler.
I posed the question on Twitter the other day,
“wondering what would happen if Generals pulled an ‘undercover boss’ and dressed up as civilian contractors working with the military?”
I think they might be surprised how different their military looks.
Popularity: 2% [?]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
This exact conversation came up at dinner tonight! We were telling Dad & Judith about some changes at Mcchord (on the reserve side of the house, anyway) and Judith said “I wonder what would happen if a general was on that show Undercover Boss?”
Gary agreed that they’d sing a very different tune quickly enough, but wasn’t convinced anyone could actually get a general to give up his shinies and get his hands dirty.
How would they know where to go without their exec?
Forget being a civvie contractor–they need to go ‘full retard’ and do just like on Undercover Boss. Like Newlywed sez above, it’ll never happen, so I’ll just keep dreaming.
{ 1 trackback }