Do New Hires Quickly "Learn" Not To Speak Up?

Source: Inc.com 

Derrick Bransby, Michaela Kerrissey, and Amy Edmondson have published some fascinating new research on psychological safety in the Harvard Business Review. They found an alarming trend regarding new hires and their willingness to speak up. They write, "We studied more than 10,000 employees in a large organization and discovered that new hires’ psychological safety eroded swiftly. On average, newcomers joined the organization with higher psychological safety relative to their more tenured colleagues, then lost it and waited years to reach levels comparable to when they arrived."  Their findings proved consistent across various demographic groups.  

As I read the article, I thought about why new hires might experience a significant drop in psychological safety soon after joining an organization.  One can imagine that new hires might think that leaders welcome pushback and are open to new ideas.  After all, they probably heard a good deal of positive talk during the hiring process about how leaders expect them to contribute during meetings and to bring fresh ideas.   New hires might learn quickly, however, that some leaders react poorly to dissenting perspectives or the sharing of bad news.  In some cases, experienced leaders might not recognize how their reactions to new perspectives have discouraged new hires.  

Three other explanations might exist for this drop in psychological safety though, and it may not involve dysfunctional behavior by team leaders.  First, new hires might not be particularly adept at speaking up.  Perhaps they try to share a concern about a proposed course of action, or express a dissenting opinion, during some early meetings.  If they struggle to present their ideas, they might find that others do not seem receptive.  New hires could conclude that people don't want them to speak up, when in fact, others simply didn't find the arguments well-crafted and persuasive.  Or, others may feel that the pushback was not presented in a constructive fashion.  The remedy for this problem is some effective coaching and development for new hires, so that they can become more effective at presenting their ideas. 

Second, psychological safety may decrease for new hires as a result of their socialization into the organization.  New hires may hear from peers that they should "keep their heads down" and "not rock the boat."  Sometimes, peers are sharing accurate appraisals of the culture, and specifically, of the low level of psychological safety on that particular team.   However, at times, peers may be overly negative.  Take, for instance, a situation in which the leaders themselves are relatively new.  Long-tenured employees may be accustomed to prior leadership that led in a top-down fashion and did not welcome dissenting views.  These experienced team members may not yet have adjusted to new leadership and may not trust that the new leaders genuinely want to hear dissent.  Peers also might be wary of newcomers who question existing practices and challenge the conventional wisdom.  They might even feel threatened.  As a result, they may discourage new hires from speaking up. 

Third, new hires may come to the organization with a "grass is always greener" mentality.  Perhaps they concluded during the hiring process that this organization is clearly superior to their old company.  When their highly optimistic expectations prove not to be accurate, they may become discouraged.  Perhaps the new team does have higher psychological safety than their old team, but the failure to meet lofty expectations may be troublesome.  It's certainly true that it can be very challenging to assess psychological safety during an interview process.  

Speaking Up Effectively

Source: Flickr

After facilitating a conversation the other day with a group of managers, I went back to review something I wrote back in 2009 in a book titled Know What You Don't Know.   The managers asked me how one can dissent in the most persuasive and constructive fashion, particularly in situations where they feel as they the leader may not want to hear an opposing viewpoint.    

Suppose you have a dissenting view, but you aren't sure how to bring your point forward. How can you put forth a different perspective without eliciting a defensive reaction from your boss or backlash from your peers?  I have argued that, "Speaking up requires more than crafting the right series of statements... In large, complex organizations, individuals must pay close attention to social and political dynamics. They need to find a way to gain access to key decision-makers and to build support for their viewpoints."  Here are my tips for speaking up effectively, with a focus on how to manage the political and interpersonal dynamics of your organization:  

Know your audience: Learn about the person you are trying to persuade. Present your arguments in a way that fits that person’s preferred mode of processing information.

Understand the history: Determine who will feel most threatened by your attempts to shine a spotlight on a particular problem. Avoid placing blame on that person; focus on how to improve the situation.

Seek allies and build coalitions: Strength resides in numbers. Find others who will support your viewpoint. Present a united front.

Work through key confidantes and gatekeepers: Identify the individuals who have the ear of the person you ultimately must persuade. Seek them out and try to bring them onboard first.

Focus first on divergent thinking: Remember that your near-term goal should not be to persuade everyone to adopt your view immediately. Begin by simply trying to encourage people to think differently about the situation at hand.

Present alternative solutions: Do not just point out the problem; offer a series of possible solutions. Make it clear that you want to help fix the problem.

Four Tips for Speaking Up Effectively

Source: Flickr

Suppose you have a dissenting opinion to share, or perhaps you are the reluctant bearer of bad news.  How can you be sure that leaders in your organization will listen attentively and genuinely consider your views?  What strategies can you employ to speak up effectively?  Here are four tips:

1.  Know your audience.   Understand the background of the person you are trying to persuade and influence.  What makes them tick?  How do they make decisions?  Are they fact-based decision-makers who want reams of data and evidence, or do they rely on their intuition at times?  What's the history of this particular person on this issue?   An effective dissent is not simply the collection of important facts and logical arguments.  Effective dissent entails TAILORING your argument to the people you are trying to persuade.  

2.   Work through the gatekeepers.   For many senior leaders, important information often flows to them through key gatekeepers.   Understand who these people are that have significant influence on the person you are trying to persuade.   Who does that leader rely on as a sounding board or confidante?   Sometimes, the most effective case of speaking up does not entail a direct conversation with a leader, but instead, works through these gatekeepers.  In other cases, the gatekeeper may not relay the message for you, but they can help you determine HOW to convey your message effectively.  

3.  Ask questions.   Don't simply state your opinions and proclaim the facts that support your argument.  Ask questions that help you understand how leaders are thinking about a particular issue.  Ask questions that encourage leaders to question assumptions and examine other alternatives.  The most effective dissenters bring people along, often encouraging leaders to come to the conclusion themselves that they may be headed in the wrong direction.   You are much more likely to succeed if they come to question their own arguments.   

4.  Tell a story.  Don't just convey facts and data through bullet points and charts.  Make sure you have crafted a compelling story - a narrative that integrates the key facts and arguments.  You are much more likely to persuade someone with a story than with a list of bullet points. 

Are Your Employees Afraid of You?

Source: Pixabay

Megan Reitz and John Higgins have written a good Harvard Business Review article titled, "Managers, You’re More Intimidating Than You Think."    They write, 

Most of us believe that we’re approachable to our employees. In a survey we conducted with 4,000 professionals, two-thirds reported they are never or rarely scary to those junior to them.  We’re even more sure that we’re approachable to those who are our hierarchical equals or superiors. Asked whether their peers and their bosses would find them scary, 75% of respondents said it was extremely unlikely in the case of their peers and 80% in the case of their boss.

Yet we know from our other research streams of the last five years that many people think twice before speaking up in organizations because they find colleagues intimidating. This doesn’t add up. Other research shows that managers in particular need to accept that people see them as much scarier than they realize — and it’s hurting their businesses.

My research and experience working with executives at many companies confirms the conclusions presented here by Reitz and Higgins.  The self-perception of leaders often does not match the perceptions of those who work for them.   Most leaders do not have any sense of the fear that they have instilled in their people.  At times, of course, it's not anything major that the leaders have done.  It's simply the fact that employees in many organizations have a natural reticence to speak up.  It seems to come with the territory in most large firms.   Leaders need to lower the barriers, and it starts with recognizing how intimating they may appear to others.  

Does Speaking Up Help or Harm Your Career?

Conventional wisdom, backed by plenty of painful examples, demonstrates that speaking up at work brings with it some serious risks. Some leaders do not appreciate dissent and they have been known to shoot the messenger who brings bad news. In contrast, a new study looks at how speaking up might have some beneficial effects for a person's career. 

Mona Weiss and Elizabeth Morrison have published a paper titled, "Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees' social status." In this article, they provide experimental evidence that voice has some positive effects for workers. They write:

Voice, by constructively challenging the status quo, is one of the primary means by which employees can help their organizations innovate and adapt. Yet it is widely viewed as a risky activity for employees. The risks cannot be denied—supervisors and peers are not always receptive to voice and may respond negatively. However, drawing from theories of status attainment and the agency‐communion framework of interpersonal judgment, we have argued and shown that when it comes to social status, voice has positive implications for employees.

In our survey study, we found that more frequent voice behavior was associated with higher status ratings from coworkers. In our two experiments, we found that employees who raised a concern or offered an opinion that challenged the views of a superior were ascribed higher social status than those who did not.

Naturally, speaking up in a constructive manner is key. Dysfunctional conflict and dissent can be harmful. Moreover, we also have to be mindful that certain leaders, and certain organizational cultures, may not be open to dissenting views. Thus, speaking up can have negative effects in those particular situations. The study does show, however, that others may appreciate someone who speaks up in a constructive and thoughtful manner, thereby actually helping an individual's career prospects.

Kobe Steel, Middle Managers, and Unethical Behavior

The Wall Street Journal reports today about the results of an interim investigation into the product quality scandal at Japan's Kobe Steel. According to the newspaper, "Kobe Steel Ltd. released a report Friday that blamed lax management and overworked employees for a product-quality scandal, saying the company has to restore trust to survive." The report reminded me of research by Linda Treviño of Penn State University.  She and her colleagues have conducted research on unethical behavior that emerges from middle manager's attempts to cope with unrealistic targets set by top executives at firms.  She has found that middle managers sometimes react to highly ambitious and difficult-to-achieve goals by finding ways to deceive top executives as to the actual performance of the organization.  She describes the results from a study of a large telecommunications company: 

"What we found in this particular case — but I think it happens a lot — is that there were obstacles in the way of achieving these goals set by top management," said Treviño. "For a variety of reasons, the goals were unrealistic and unachievable. The workers didn't have enough training. They didn't feel competent. They didn't know the products well enough. There weren't enough customers and there wasn't even enough time to get all the work done."

Facing these obstacles, middle management enacted a series of moves designed to deceive top management into believing that teams were actually meeting their goals, according to Treviño, who worked with Niki A. den Nieuwenboer, assistant professor of organizational behavior and business ethics, University of Kansas; and Joa᷃o Viera da Cunha, associate professor, IESEG School of Management.

The researchers also discovered that middle managers took concerted actions to coerce individuals to comply with the deceit campaign.  They pressured people to go along with the efforts to fool top executives into believing that the organization was reaching its targets.  The most interesting finding, though, pertains to what the researchers did NOT find in their study.  They did not see managers trying to argue for a revision of unrealistic goals.  They were afraid to challenge top management.  Treviño explains: 

"Interestingly, what we didn't see is managers speaking up, we didn't see them pushing back against the unrealistic goals," said Treviño. "We know a lot about what we refer to as 'voice' in an organization and people are fearful and they tend to keep quiet for the most part."

Boards of Directors Assessing Corporate Culture: It's About Time!

The Board of Directors bears responsibility for oversight and control of the management of an enterprise. Their duty to monitor management actions and performance includes assessing the risks that the organization faces. Unfortunately, many boards have been caught by surprise by recent scandals and crises at firms such as Wells Fargo, General Motors, Volkswagen, Uber, Toshiba, and Theranos. Key risks remained hidden for lengthy periods of time. When the boards finally became aware of these issues, the damage had largely already been done... to company reputation, share price, etc. In many of these cases, investigators and analysts have blamed the corporate culture. The organizational cultures encouraged inappropriate behavior and discouraged people from sharing bad news. The boards in many of these situations did not understand the dysfunctional elements of the corporate cultures. 

The Wall Street Journal reports today that some boards have decided to become more involved in understanding and evaluating organizational culture. Joann Lublin reports:

Corporate culture counts. But bad culture can damage a company’s reputation, results and recruitment. That’s why boards are starting to scrutinize the cultures of companies they serve. Directors at Whirlpool Corp. , for example, make sure its workers feel comfortable divulging bad news by tracking internal surveys. Companies such as Citigroup Inc. and CACI International Inc. have formed board culture committees. 

Culture describes the way values and actions create a unique business environment. One recent study found that a positive corporate culture improves company profits. Yet “few boards currently have an explicit focus or formalized approach to cultural oversight,’’ said Helene Gayle, a director ofCoca-Cola Co. and Colgate-Palmolive Co. A blue-ribbon panel co-led by Ms. Gayle wants boards to monitor corporate culture as vigilantly as they do risks. The 34-member commission, organized by the National Association of Corporate Directors, released an extensive report on Wednesday that suggests how boards could bolster their oversight of company culture. 

Can board oversight and intervention help? Absolutely. As Lublin reports, Whirlpool went through a scandal in 2010, and the company instituted changes at the behest of the board. They focused on encouraging workers to share bad news. The result? According to the Wall Street Journal, "Worker survey scores about their willingness to speak up rose 10 percentage points between 2010 and 2015." 

I would add one important recommendation to this push on the part of several boards. Before engaging in culture audits and other monitoring mechanisms, these boards also need to look in the mirror. They must evaluate the board's culture. Are people able to speak freely in board meetings? Do directors have the appropriate incentives? Does risk management get sufficient attention on the agenda at meetings? The boards cannot be effective at evaluating and enhancing the organization's culture if they do not practice what they preach.

How Could the Volkswagen CEO Not Know About the Emissions Issue?

Martin Winterkorn resigned as chief executive of Volkswagen yesterday, after a major scandal rocked the company.   The company has admitted to manipulating technology to dodge emissions regulations.  Winterkorn continues to insist that he didn't know anything about the impropriety, though he did take responsibility and step down as chief executive.  Could it be possible that he didn't know?  Some would say that he must have known.   Naturally, we have no idea whether he's telling the truth.  We will have to wait for a full investigation to be completed.  However, I would like to suggest that it is possible that Winterkorn did not know.   Why?  Volkswagen, like many companies, may have had a culture where people were afraid to share bad news with senior executives, and afraid to speak up when they disagreed with key decisions being made.   Of course, Winterkorn is responsible for the culture.  If people didn't share the bad news with him, we have to ask whether he cultivated a climate in which people were afraid to speak up.  Did he do enough to reach out and invite people to share bad news, express dissenting opinions, and disclose risks?   The leaders of any organization ultimately are responsible for creating that safe space and for encouraging people to speak up.  Leaders need to do more than have an open door policy.  They have to reach out and try to uncover hidden risks. They have to become problem finders. 

How To Disagree With Your Boss

Kathy Bloomgarden, CEO of Ruder Finn - a public relations and communications agency, has written a short column for Fortune about how to disagree with your boss.   I've written extensively about how leaders need to encourage dissenting views.   Often, I'm asked how subordinates can express dissent constructively and effectively.   I n this article, Bloomgarden offers a few tips.  First, she argues that one should stick to the facts.  Avoid making your case based on intuition or emotion.  Provide a sound analysis of the situation with data to support your argument.  Second, identify the costs and benefits of your proposal, as well as the costs and benefits of your boss' proposed course of action.  Try to look at both scenarios in an evenhanded way.  Finally, she says that you should "own what you're suggesting."   In other words, be specific about your willingness to take responsibility for the alternative solution, but be transparent and realistic about what you promise.  Set expectations clearly, but realistically. 

I would add a few other recommendations.  First, you have to know your audience.  How does your boss make decisions?  What types of arguments are most persuasive?   How does he or she like to see data presented?   Second, study the history of the issue.  Understand what has been tried in the past, and if it failed, examine why it did not work.  Third, seek allies and build coalitions. Don't go it alone.  Try to persuade others first, before you turn to your boss.  There's strength in numbers.  Fourth, identify and work through key gatekeepers.  Who has the boss' ear and trust?  How can you work through that person to persuade and influence the boss?  Finally, focus first on divergent thinking before trying to persuade people that their idea is not well-suited to address this particular problem. In other words, ask questions before proposing your solution.  Try to encourage the boss to think a bit differently about the situation.  Encourage them to explore other options.  That inquiry-based approach may be more effective than listing the deficiencies with their proposed course of action. 

The Power of Independent Executives

Does a CEO bring in many new members on his or her top management team after taking charge at a company?  Or, does the CEO have a number of key holdovers from a previous administration?  Does this key factor in the composition of the top team make a difference?  New research by Augustin Landier, Julien Sauvagnat, David Sraer, and David Thesmar (published in the Review of Finance) suggests that having more "independent" executives on the senior team can have positive effects on decision making and financial performance.   The scholars define "independent" to mean executives not appointed by the current CEO.  

The scholars collected data on over 1,800 American companies over a 17 year period.  According to this article in Strategy and Business, here are their results: "Controlling for a variety of factors, they found that even the smallest uptick in the nonindependence of executives caused a decrease in the firm’s annual return on assets of between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points."

What's going on here?  They argue that CEOs tend to hire people who think like they do. Moreover, executives hired by the current CEO may feel more beholden to that leader.   As a result, they may not be as willing to express dissenting opinions.   On the contrary, an executive hired by a previous CEO may be more willing to push back on high-stakes, potentially risky decisions.  The authors go on to argue that "independence" of senior executives may matter much more than the independence of board members, since the top team meets much more frequently and is much more directly responsible for strategic choices and performance at most large corporations. 

Additional research by these scholars shows that firms with fewer independent executives on the top team also are more likely to make acquisitions that destroy shareholder value.  Here is the key finding:  "Although acquisitions, on average, led to decreases in shareholder value for the companies in the study, firms with fewer independent top subordinates fared much worse, losing about 45 percent four years after they made an acquisition, almost triple the 16 percent loss posted by firms with more of those executives." 

Speaking Up Effectively

In my work, I have focused a great deal on how leaders often create conditions in which it becomes very difficult for individuals to express dissenting opinions.   What about the dissenter?  Can individuals become better at expressing dissent?  Can they enhance the odds that leaders will listen and consider their views?  Can they increase the odds that others in the group will not marginalize them?  I believe that dissenters can become better at speaking up.

Here are a few strategies:

1.  Know thy audience.  Who are you trying to influence or persuade?  How do they think?   Are they analytical by nature, or they do make decisions more intuitively? 

2.  Understand the history of the issue.   What events have taken place leading up to this situation?  Who has been involved?  Who might become defensive if I challenge the conventional wisdom here?

3.  Build a coalition.   Who could be my allies on this issue?  How can I cultivate their support before I express my dissenting view?

4.  Develop some options.  If I disagree with this plan of action, I should offer some alternatives.  What options might I propose?  How could I invite others to propose alternatives? 

5.  Ask questions.  Do not declare your opposition outright if that might be too threatening.  Ask questions. Seek to understand, to press for clarification, to surface and test key assumptions, to encourage people to think differently about the issue.