Open Forum
SO what is ''good news management''? Another in a long line of flavour of the month fads? No, it's an approach that can cost you money, destroy your job, maim or even kill you! Who uses this methodology? How do we eliminate this major threat to our well being? The chances are very high that if you look in the mirror you will find somebody who follows the good news creed! Even if you are not called a manager, read on, because you are still likely to be a part of the problem: it starts in the schoolroom.
The approach can be summarised as: ''Do not bring me bad news if you want to be appreciated, get a pay rise, be promoted, or survive in this organisation''.
I hear a resounding chorus of: ''Well, that is definitely not me then!'' Let's make a quick check before you turn the page.
How many times in the last week have you thanked somebody for volunteering that they have made a mistake? If the answer is zero, you are part of the problem.
I suspect most of you are still reading, but wondering what the effect of good-news management is on your life. Sometimes it is just inconvenient, like the time your washing machine flooded the kitchen with hot soapy water (if you stand in the water, it could be a shocking experience!). When the brakes fail in your car, the threat to life - yours and others' - is more apparent. Occasionally, spectacular events hit the news, like the time an aircraft windscreen popped out and the airline pilot was sucked through. The crew grabbed his feet and the co-pilot managed to land the plane. The pilot survived and the inquiry showed the wrong size of fasteners had been used to attach the cockpit windscreen!
The most visible example was the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger. We now know that the engineers responsible strongly advised their manager against the launch, but he decided to override them. Was the pressure to give good news too great?
We do not have to be too hard on ourselves for behaving this way: it's hardly a new approach. We can go back to antiquity when the bearer of bad news was often killed for his temerity.
It is, however, important to recognise that, as technology becomes more complex and interconnected, the failure to change will result in many more problems, some of which may be irreversible. Having painted a frightening picture, it is important to get back to the detail of how this behaviour manifests itself inside organisations and what we can do as individuals to counteract it.
The first approach, already mentioned, is to sincerely thank people who immediately come to you to say, ''I have made a mistake'', or, ''There is a problem''. One of the most dangerous areas in this respect is your local garage. If the mechanics do not feel comfortable telling the foreman/boss about difficulties encountered, your safety will be compromised.
This response is not soft or stupid: the cheapest solution to any mistake is always immediate and thorough rectification. The best way to learn how to avoid repeating a mistake is to get advice straight away.
Both the organisation and the individual gain from this approach, but it is easy to stifle with sarcasm, public humiliation and financial penalties. You have to positively project that the only problem which is unacceptable is the hidden problem.
Individual actions can build to massive self-deception in major projects. I have seen computer software produced on time, but because necessary programmers had not been provided by management, all the new features required had been dropped, one by one. It was the same as the old program. Senior management hailed ''a success'' because the date had been met: the reality was an expensive failure because everybody was afraid to face up to the bad news: ''Either give us more programmers or we miss the deadline''.
You have to develop or even demand honesty. I cannot count the number of times managers have told me: ''I encourage my people to question and tell me when I am wrong''. On going round their department you find that nobody tried this twice, quickly learning that there are very narrow limits to this ''questioning''. Be especially wary of managers who want good team players, since obedience is likely to be a primary requirement.
Openness is not an easy path to tread; some people clearly misunderstand what is happening. One time in Germany a colleague commented how rude a supplier's manager was and I replied that he was handling our account at my request because I could rely on him to tell me when I was wrong. This colleague then proceeded to be rude during company meetings, telling people that: ''Richard likes people to be rude to him.'' Each occasion allowed me to explain my attitude to supplier honesty and the difference between that and gratuitous insults. Eventually my colleague not only understood, he agreed and used the same approach.
If you develop this relationship with suppliers you may be able to change the attitude of autocratic customers by inviting them to your meetings as observers.
It is vital to recognise the problem and realise it affects most organisations. Did nobody in Mercedes-Benz realise that their A-class baby car was only marginally stable; did somebody somewhere decide that the bad news that it needed re-engineering was unacceptable? It may have been a genuine oversight; encouraging bad news and open dissent will not eliminate every problem - just most of them.
So starting today, look at active ways of fostering openness and creative dissent. Praise people for reporting their mistakes, regale them with stories of your errors, question people who always agree with you; revel in the openly acknowledged difficulties in your organisation.
The only problem you cannot solve is the one you don't know about.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article