Deception 3 Dark Delusion Pc
Casandro Diveley
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
As a university student I was impressed with a case study shared by a business lecturer based on the battle of the Somme. At first I thought it odd that management of a business be compared to one of the worst war-time tragedies ever recorded - until it became clear that the lesson was not about the soldiers, but the generals. The moral? Avoid delusion.
In the battle of the Somme the delusion was that the Allies' plan couldn't fail. Anyone suggesting a problem was ultimately denounced as 'negative' or worse a 'traitor' who wanted it to fail. Under these group think conditions all critique was silenced from the top and messages reporting problems from the bottom were ignored. The outcome was an utter and complete disaster. Assuming that their plan had worked, and having ignored (or not heard) protests and reports that contradicted their delusion, the generals ordered the Allied troops into their death.
Avoiding delusion is simple, but it requires the abandonment of manipulation, and the adoption of behaviours that may not be culturally embedded into an organisation, or into ourselves. These delusion curing behaviours are inextricably intertwined, like yin and yang, opposites but essential complimentary partners. They are:
The delusion habitat is the sum of the culture and behaviours of an organisation and its members that allows delusion to thrive. If the culture of the organisation is one that embeds a failure to listen carefully and discourages telling the truth, in its day to day operation, then we have a delusion habitat.
A newly developing delusion habitat is spotted in what is missing from the behaviours of the organisation and its people. Do they feel free to talk upwardly any more? Do they share problems upwardly any more? Do meetings invite full participation from attendees any more? The natural consequence of failing to listen and discouraging telling the truth means the answer will be "no" to all of the above.
Meanwhile a well established delusion habitat, where a culture of delusion is embedded, might include more serious problems such as manipulation, low-trust, cronyism, protectionism, survivalism and absenteeism. The natural consequences of a prolonged failure to listen and prolonged discouragement of telling the truth.
Where the delusion habitat exists in any degree you can also be certain that the organisation is failing to access the full energy, ingenuity, potential and talents of its people, and is undermining effectiveness, growth and success. In the current climate that is a real problem because the most successful organisations tap into all their people's talents.
While this cure is simple to understand, if we are to make it work in an organisation we need to understand what it is about an organisation's culture or our own behaviours that means that right now people may be doing the opposite to the cure.
Ever had a manager, colleague or team member who wouldn't listen? Maybe they act like they have all the answers and won't take input from anyone else. Maybe a manager is always making assumptions about the problems, but never actually finds out from those affected. Maybe you are the manager, tired of all the resistance you get to new ways of working and essential targets - the other person is always talking, questioning and challenging everything you say, but never listening. You feel unheard. Conversely, how often are you the one who isn't listening when someone else is trying to be heard?
The natural consequence is that by never hearing the other person we never get information that might change our perception, correct our vision, increase our understanding, and lead us to better solutions. By not listening we perpetuate our own delusions to the degree that we deny ourselves alternative perspectives, new insights and information.
"Silence please" used to be a common sight in libraries, but it is also common for other organisations to have such a policy in effect whether inadvertently through management style or deliberately through manipulation.
Maybe you once had to give some bad news to a manager, maybe you weren't the cause, you were just the messenger, but either way you still have to deliver the message. Then when you delivered the message you got your head bitten off. Or worse, your professionalism or competence was questioned.
This happened to a friend of mine in another organisation. He was in a meeting with other junior managers reporting back on the progress of projects they were responsible for. My friend had inherited a project from someone who no longer worked for the organisation and the project had run into a major problem not of my friend's making. When it came to my friend's turn to report on progress, he bravely and clearly stated the nature of the current situation and asked for suggestions on how he might deal with this. One of the first responses was from a senior manager who criticised him for how the earlier part of the project had been established before it had fallen on his lap, other managers sat back watching the attack but not feeling able to intervene, another senior manager commented on how poor that performance was, the first senior manager continues critiquing how things should have been done differently 12 months ago but has no suggestions to assist now. After this has gone on for a bit finally another junior manager plucks up the courage to point out to the senior managers that this was an inherited project, my friend was not the cause but was actually trying to hold it together. All of this was done in front of other people. When the discussion finally gets on to considering viable solutions to the problem a senior manager halts it, suggests that can be done another time in a private meeting, and moves on to the next item.
What lessons will my friend and his fellow junior managers learn from this? I suggest the senior manager's approach taught everyone present the following. First, if you bring us bad news you will be 'shot', it doesn't matter if you are to blame. Second, if you bring us bad news and you are to blame it is probably going to be even worse. Third, we criticise in public but we work out solutions in private.
This approach to reacting to information is seriously flawed, and allows delusion to flourish. In this culture the members of an organisation actively work to keep senior managers in the dark about problems that might be fixed if a team approach was possible. Managers remain deluded that all is well, meanwhile the organisation could be unravelling without their knowledge. All because bad news is punished, and telling the truth thereby discouraged.
Whatever managers think they will gain by maintaining old manipulation or blame culture techniques, the one thing they are guaranteed to gain is delusion. They will never be in the full possession of the facts because people will hide the truth from them as long as revealing it is unduly painful, as long as managers discourage telling the truth.
While it takes both sides to make this work, ultimately the lead must come from the leadership, because it is not an equal relationship. The people with the power must be the unfailing ever patient, carefully listening, ruthlessly truth telling, paragon. Eventually the whole organisation will follow.
7fc3f7cf58