I’m normally an advocate of complete transparency and openness. The more information you share with your employees and community, the more involved they are and the more support and help you get from them in return. I’ve been a bit shocked lately, though, at the complete dismissal of this approach when it comes to ideas or plans that are in development and not yet finalized. The response is stated so matter of factly like “of course we can’t distribute the plan yet; it’s not been finalized or approved.” The stated concern is that there is no reason to keep people up in arms about something that might change later – that releasing an incomplete plan is simply asking for trouble and creating chaos for no reason.
I’m pretty sure I disagree with this argument. That the plans are not finalized makes it the PERFECT time to share them with people. To do otherwise seems to me to be saying that the people can’t be trusted to distinguish a work in progress plan from a final plan – that somehow they aren’t smart enough to know the difference. It also seems to be saying that we don’t want people’s input in these plans; we will simply tell them when it’s all been ironed out. Even if this isn’t the intent behind withholding the in-progress information, it ends up being the perception. People feel untrusted and unvalued.
If there are concerns about an idea or plan, isn’t it better to get them out ahead of time – when they can actually be addressed? Time spent debating, understanding, and fixing the issues up front will be much more useful than time spent convincing people the plan they had no input on is the best way to go after the fact. The way to get buy-in for an idea or plan is to let people get involved in its formation, not by spinning it to them afterward.
The one concession I offer to these folks is if you can’t share these in-progress works now, then at least make it clear what the process is, when information will be shared, and what role people can then have on helping to shape and finalize it. Without these steps, I don’t see any way to get trust and acceptance by the affected people and what good are new plans and ideas if no one accepts them?
So, I’m interested to hear your ideas- am I wrong? Are there occasions (other than sensitive personnel or contractual issues) where plans should not be shared until after they are finalized? I tried the experiment I mentioned in an earlier post: google “advantages of open communication” then google “advantages of closed communication” and various variants thereof. A lot of hits on the former; nothing significant on the latter.
Scot thinks releasing information sets you free; no need to worry about what you can say and what you can’t and more likely to get valuable input and help from others. Scot would probably make a terrible politician.
I see things the same way. I think change (i.e. plans and projects) go a lot smoother if you keep everyone who cares about the matter fully informed about tentative plans at all stages in the process.
To quote the Tao of Steve (quoting Heidegger) “we pursue that which retreats from us.” If you keep plans under wraps then people who care about the matter will pursue knowledge about the plans (aka gossip), and feel frustration when their pursuit is stymied. When the plans are finally revealed, they will use that opportunity to vent their pent up frustration at being excluded by nitpicking the plan. The swell of resistance delays the plan and hurts the morale of everyone involved. Unfortunately this burst of nitpicking by people frustrated because they were excluded from the planning process often convinces the planners that the stakeholders cannot be trusted to give constructive feedback, so they resolve to restrict opportunities for input even more. Repeat cycle until everyone is bitter and distrusting.
To break this cycle is easy. Make all tentative plans fully open and invite anyone who is interested to participate. Most people will be grateful for the opportunity, but then decide actually participating looks too much like real work and not bother to give any input. The few people who do actually participate probably care about the topic so will often have useful insights. Nobody gossips and speculates because anybody can find out the full story at any time. Once the plans are finalized they move forward quickly any nitpickers can be quickly and efficiently dismissed by pointing out that they had an opportunity to participate and declined.
This is not some newfangled new-age touchy-feeling stuff. This tactic have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years in daily use in the form of the trial in the legal system. To increase buy-in to judicial resolution of disputes, and prevent people from rejecting decisions resolving disputes, the system lets both sides (1) see all the evidence the other side has in advance of the trial so there are no surprises, (2) gives each side as much time as it wants to tell its side of the story, and (3) even gives the community input in the decision by means of the jury.
This principle is also embedded in the US constitution in the due-process clause, which basically says that the government cannot make any decision that affects your rights or property without first giving you a chance to provide your input.
Hi Andy,
One of the reasons I write these things is to get your insightful and succinctly worded responses. Thanks.
scot
I totally agree that adopting openness at an early stage will smooth the process later on. But without an equally high level of transparency about the process itself (and the feedback that’s been received), there’s a danger that “the people” will see Plan A, and then Plan B, and then Plan C, without knowing why things have changed–which can be similarly frustrating (especially if you liked Plan A better than Plan C). I suspect that negative reactions to partial openness have often driven decision-makers towards clamping down on information, learning the wrong lesson from their mistakes.
So I hope you’ll keep speaking up for openness!
Thanks, Chris.
You and Andy really ought to write this blog for me! You’ve both pointed out key reasons why people are so convinced that withholding information is the right response. It’s ironic that the more effective response to the same data is to provide more openness and transparency, not less, despite people’s steadfast belief otherwise.
Thanks,
scot