The Bare Truth

© 2002 Larry Johnson & Bob Phillips.
The Bare Truth
by Larry Johnson and Bob Phillips

While  conducting  a  special  tour  for  a  group  of  civilians  off  the  coast  of  Hawaii  on February  9,  2001,  the  nuclear  submarine  USS  Greenville  launched  an  “emergency
blow.”   This is a procedure in which the submarine rises rapidly from the depths of the ocean  and  breaks  free  from  the  surface  of  the  water  like  a  whale  erupting  from  the deep.  The purpose of the procedure that day was to show the civilians aboard what the  ship  could do, and according to subsequent testimony,  “To give them a bit of a thrill.”  Unfortunately, the Japanese fishing boat Ehime Maru was sitting in the path of the rapidly rising submarine.  Nine passengers lost their lives as the Ehime Maru sank to the bottom of the Pacific.

A  subsequent  Naval  inquiry  uncovered  many  mistakes  made  by  the  Greenville’s Captain, Commander Scott D. Waddle and by his crew, that contributed to the deadly accident.    Not  the  least  of  those  mistakes  was  the  failure  of  the  FCT,  (Fire  Control Technician),  to  warn  Commander  Waddle  that  there  was  a  ship  in  the  area,  even though the FCT had seen the ship on the sonar display prior to the accident.

During  the  hearing,  Navy  Capt.  Conrad  Donahue,  (a  commander  of  two  submarines during his 27-year Navy career), testified:  “On this particular ship, and on a lot of ships in the Navy, the crew has so much trust in the skipper’s abilities that they don’t question him  when  they  should.  The  FCT  had  a  ship  on  the  display  but  he  saw  the  captain looking through the periscope. He probably assumed that if the skipper didn’t see it…it
wasn’t there.”

How often does it happen in organizations that for one reason or another, no one tells the manager what the manager needs to know – and as a result, the manager blunders into a disaster?  Perhaps it’s a marketing strategy that’s flawed.  Maybe it’s a decision to enter into a business deal that’s overly risky.  Perhaps it’s keeping an employee in a key  position  who’s  not  performing.    Everyone  knows  the  employee  is  wrong  for  the position, but no one tells the manager because the manager chose the employee in the first place and, “since she’s the manager, she must know what she’s doing.”

Or  even  worse,  no  one  tells  the  manager  because  they’re  afraid  of  retribution  for appearing disloyal – and perhaps with good reason.  If other bearers of bad news have © 2002 Larry Johnson & Bob Phillips. been shot, no one wants to be the next victim.  So everyone takes a “head in the sand approach” as the manager blindly carries on.

I see such lack of truthfulness as the corporate equivalent of the children’s fable, The Emperor’s New Clothes.  As you probably remember, an unscrupulous tailor with a gift
for salesmanship convinces a vain and rather stupid emperor that for a large sum of gold he can sew a suit of clothes for the emperor of such fine thread that only the most intelligent  and  sophisticated  can  see  it.    The  guileless  emperor  buys  it  and  ends  up parading around town stark naked.  Of course, none of the town’s people want to tell the  emperor  that  he  has  no  clothes  on  so  the  emperor  carries  on  as  if  everything’s normal.  It finally takes the innocent bravery of a small child to give the emperor the honest feedback he so desperately needs.

Managers don’t need to be as vain and stupid as the emperor to make bad decisions.  Sometimes the brightest and best managers have limited perspective.  After all, it was Bill Gates who, in 1981, asked the question, “Why would anyone need more than 640K of  disk  storage  space?”      No  one  is  perfect.      Managers  do  need  good  information, however, if they are going to make good decisions.  If they can’t get honest feedback from their employees, they, like the Emperor, are destined to make and support poor decisions.

Andrew S. Grove, Chairman of Intel Corporation, appears to agree.  In his book, Only the Paranoid Survive, he points out that for a company to stay competitive in today’s fast-changing  world,  there  needs  to  be  a  culture  of  what  he  calls  “healthy  debate.” Otherwise,  says  Grove,  employees  won’t  provide  managers  and  executives  with  the honest  information  they  need  to  make  fast  and  accurate  decisions  about the market place,  or  about  anything  else  that’s  important.    Intel  makes  a  great  effort  to  nurture such  a  practice  by  integrating  into  each  employee’s  performance  review  a  set  of expectations  that  the  employee  express  his  opinions  openly, honestly, and regularly.  To  support  the  effort,  Intel  requires  all  employees  to  take  training  in  direct communication skills and in constructive confrontation techniques.

So what can a leader do, besides setting expectations and providing training, to create such a culture?  Leading by example is a good start.  An experience that my consulting partner, Bob Phillips, and I had a few years ago might illustrate the point:

Gina  works  for  the  IT  group  of  one  of  our  clients,  a  large  high-tech  manufacturing company.    Part  of  her  job  is  to  approve  or  deny  computer  system  changes  that  are requested  by  internal  customers.  Consequently,  she  is  often  seen  by  those  internal customers she denies as the system-cop at best, and at worst, as the “Wicked Witch of the West.”

During a weekly staff meeting, Tom (Gina’s boss), in an attempt to be funny, made the off-handed  comment,  “If  a  difficult  customer  gives  us  too  much  trouble,  we’ll  just  sic Gina on him.”

At that point, Gina said in a clear, non-aggressive, but very firm voice, “Wait a minute, Tom.  When you refer to me like that, even jokingly here in the group, it really puts me in a difficult position.  You and I have talked about customers perceiving me to be a witch’ and comments like that one just make it worse.”

After a few awkward seconds of silence, the group continued with its discussion.  Then Tom,  (much  to  his  credit)  said,  “Just  a  minute.  Before  we  go  any  further,  I’d  like  to address what Gina just said.”  Turning to Gina, he continued, “Gina, we did discuss the issue of your being perceived negatively by customers, and you’re right.  My comment was out of line.  I apologize.”

Instantly,  the  group  tension  that  had  been  created  by  Gina’s  confrontation  of    Tom disappeared, and the group moved on.

As consultant/observers at this meeting, Bob and I later discussed with the group what had happened.  When we asked Gina why she felt comfortable confronting Tom as she had, the rest of the team laughed.  They answered our puzzled looks by saying that it is Gina’s style to speak up to anyone, at anytime, about anything – even her boss.  (Small wonder  that  she  is  cast  in  the  role  of  being  the  “cop”  who  delivers  bad  news  to customers!)

Gina,  on  the  other  hand,  said  that  the  credit  belonged  to  Tom,  who  had  created  an atmosphere  among  the  team  where  people  could  speak  their  minds  without  fear  of
retribution.  Gina went on to say that she had worked for other managers to whom shewould never have spoken up in the same forthright manner about anything.  Had Tom been that type of manager, she would have kept her mouth shut.

Of  course,  if  that  had  been  the  case,  Gina’s  resentment toward Tom for making the comment  probably  would  have  festered,  appearing  elsewhere  in  the  form  of  indirect complaining to coworkers or in the development of a Dilbertesque attitude of cynicism and mistrust.

We  complimented  Tom  for  his  willingness  to  admit  he  was  wrong,  and  asked  if  his response to Gina was part of an intentional effort on his part to create the kind of open atmosphere  to  which  Gina  had  referred.    Tom  modestly  pointed  out  that  he  had apologized to Gina only because he was wrong, and the apology was appropriate.

Tom went on to say that the response was his way of nurturing an atmosphere of open discussion among the team, but that this kind of atmosphere is a two way street. “Had I truly felt I was right, I would have told Gina so with the same forthrightness she had used with me.”  (The group laughed in wholehearted agreement.)  Tom pointed out that if he always apologized, or said he was wrong, even when he believed he was right,
then  his  graciousness  would  be  perceived,  accurately,  as  masking  weakness.    “The key,” he said, “is to simply express your views honestly, and respect everyone else’s right to do the same.”

Knowingly  or  not,  Tom  was creating a culture of what we call a Culture of Honesty and Healthy Debate – that is, a culture where people at all levels in the organization feel free to candidly express their views, question decisions, and challenge the status quo.

Of course, such a culture does not exist in a vacuum.  My research with companies like Intel and IBM, (since CEO Lou Gerstner came aboard) has found that they support their own versions of Culture of Honesty and Healthy Debate by abiding by what we call the Seven Rules of Cultural  Honesty.  They are:

Rule #1 — Always tell the truth
Our mothers told us that the worst truth is always better than the best lie — and they were right. Congressman Gary Condit learned this when he claimed that his relationship with missing intern Chandra Levy relationship was strictly platonic; his dishonesty generated such a sense of mistrust that, even though he was not considered a suspect, everything he said came under close scrutiny. He subsequently lost his bid for reelection – despite the fact that prior to Levy’s disappearance, he was favored to win by a landslide.

Whether you are a congressman or a manager, your ability to lead others depends on their trust in you. By consistently telling the truth , you not only earn that trust, but also create a psychological obligation in others that demands they do the same for you. The downside, of course, is that telling the truth can be inconvenient, embarrassing, and painful.  As we explore this fundamental rule, we’ll show you how to avoid the pitfalls and difficulties of building a corporate culture where telling the truth is sacrosanct.

Rule #2 — Never seek retribution for honesty
Nothing will kill the spirit of open communication and honest debate in an organization faster than retribution.  Remember, it was fear of retribution that kept the townspeople from telling the Emperor he was naked as he paraded through the town. If managers punish people for expressing their opinions, those opinions will simply go underground, reappearing as cynical e-mail jokes and hushed conversations in the lunchroom. For this reason, managers must guard against this practice with great vigilance. Complicating their task, however, is the fact that even when actual retribution is not present, the perception that it exists can produce the same effect. Incorporating this rule in your company, then, means identifying and eliminating not only practices of retribution, but also any false perceptions that it exists.

Rule #3 — Practice constructive confrontation
Learning to confront tough issues in a healthy and straightforward manner can enable people to quickly resolve differences of opinion while maintaining the dignity and the mutual respect of the individuals involved. Constructive confrontation emphasizes solving problems and making decisions by © 2002 Larry Johnson & Bob Phillips. focusing on the best possible outcome for the organization while avoiding damage to the relationships of those involved.

Rule #4 — Agree to both disagree and commit
We’’ve all been to meetings where everyone appeared to agree to a decision, but then, once the meeting was over, immediately started criticizing the decision, lobbying for their own positions, or worst of all, sabotaging the
meeting’s action plan. The corporate practice of disagreeing and committing requires everyone in the organization to express their opinions openly – even if those opinions go against the grain of the group; however, once everyone has a reached consensus on a particular decision or course of action, all are expected to support the decision wholeheartedly.

Rule #5 – Keep disagreement professional, not personal
Responding to criticism defensively, and attacking when we feel attacked are such instinctive behaviors, they’re daunting to overcome. After all, our ancestors learned to survive by reacting to perceived danger with a fight or flight response. Those who froze in the presence of saber-toothed tigers became tiger lunch and those who fled from the danger, or stabbed it with a spear lived to pass their genes along to us. In the corporate world, of course, when someone challenges or criticizes you, you can’t stick him with a spear’— and running away, or passive non-reaction, won’t get you very far either.  A culture of honesty depends on everyone in that culture being able to criticize and be criticized in an open, healthy and nondestructive way. By drawing on specific tools and techniques, people can learn how to avoid reacting defensively and lashing out when criticized, as well as how to offer criticism using a respectful and useful approach.

Rule #6 — Focus on solutions for the greater good
Traditional conflict management emphasizes the search for a win/win solution to problem-solving —one where all parties “feel” like they got something from the transaction. That way, everyone is more likely to support the outcome. While this sounds great on paper, not only do many problems have no win/win solution, a win/win is not always the best solution. Sometimes, someone has to lose so the best decision can prevail. When the differing parties can set aside their egos and focus on what’s best for the company, winning and losing become irrelevant. Building this concept into your company’s culture means creating a non-hostile environment where people feel safe enough to put aside their defensiveness and need to win so they focus their energy on creating the best solution for the company.

Rule #7 — Don’t abuse the practice of honesty
Once  you’ve  integrated  the  practice  of  absolute  honesty  into  your organization’s  culture,  beware  of  aggressive  types  who  might  use  it  as  an excuse  for  rudeness  or  antisocial  behavior.  They’ll  tell  you  they’re  simply practicing  the  honesty  doctrine  that  management  is  preaching,  but  in  truth, they’’re  committing  what  we  call  “honesty  abuse.”    A  culture  of  honesty supports  an  infrastructure  that  nurtures  an  atmosphere  of  open communication  where  everyone  strives  to  reach  the  best  decisions  for  the company,  regardless  of  politics  or  personalities  involved.  This  means  that everyone  understands  and  practices  the  rules  of  engagement,  which  lend structure and support to a culture of honesty so that people don’t have to fear being blindsided with unexpected or unfair attacks that cannot be debated.

**********************************************************************

This article is an excerpt from Absolute Honesty: Building A Corporate Culture
That Values Straight Talk And Rewards Integrity, by Larry Johnson and Bob
Phillips, Amacom Books, 2003. Contact Larry via e-mail at Larry@Larry-
Johnson.com or by calling 480-948-5596.