Chapter II: Communications is the Life Blood of Any Organization
“Tell Your Own Story. When someone undermines your dreams, predicts your doom, or criticizes you in any way, they’re telling their story, not yours.” (Anonymous)
Communications Significance
This chapter embraces many of the concepts and required traits of leadership, but that which is significant to begin with is communications. As the sub-heading of this chapter indicates, personal and organizational communication is not merely something that transpires within agencies, it is everything! Essential to all that happens within any group or association is the art of communications. Not simply dictums proffered by the front office, but all communications. Hopefully, at the conclusion of this section readers will have taken a second look at the “grapevine” as a means of effective communications.
Readers may regard this text as simply another attempt at defining leadership when so many prominent, highly regarded leaders have provided their own take on the extremely sought after truths of leadership. After all, this discussion is based on a person with little name recognition, known in limited circles, primarily within law enforcement, and that person is me. About the author is presented in the preface to provide you with a background for you to determine authenticity and dependability. Thus, my experiences are provided as a backdrop for your review in comparison to the average person the mantle of leadership has been thrust. More so, the reader should not confuse the material provided herein with any of the all-encompassing leadership formulas offered elsewhere. This may better serve as a motivational dialogue to thrust one into a leadership role. Either formal or informal. I do not wish to sway or dissuade you from any single opinion on the topic based on my experience, but rather provide an avenue for critical thought. This is an attempt to simplify the messy overly scrutinized subject of leadership and provide a thought provoking but down-to-earth path for growing leaders.
This examination of the topic is replete with one common thread and that is, there is no one silver leadership bullet that will provide everything to everyone. Those within our American society want to live free and feel most rules are meant for the other guy. That is until the “Fit hits the Shan” at which time they need rescuing, generally from a self-crafted demise, and they look to leaders for the answers.
Governance, leaders, management, control, and decision maker are terms that are often explicitly interchangeably used to describe leadership. This phenomenon that has received uncountable volumes of research is a continuum of activities that may be judged either positively or negatively based upon an entire career or a single incident or decision. Leader preparation is neither conclusive nor solvent, and certainly there is nothing in a title bestowed upon a leader that fully prepares him/her for the road ahead. However, many researchers and authors have proposed theories as a possible silver bullet that will transcend many if not most organizations and bureaucracies. An imperative resides within this discussion that there is no one silver bullet; no one theory that fits all situations. Rather the leadership mantle must be conveyed through a little of what has worked and what is intuitive.
Having stated this it is further acknowledged throughout this discussion that there is relatively few groundbreaking styles in leadership, and I suggest it is merely the fashion a leadership style is packaged may be new. What can be stated with reasonable certainty is that impotent blustering is not an effective leadership style as formalized since the 2016 Presidential election.
Creating a vision for the organization is paramount, as Ken Blanchard illustrates, a river without banks is merely a big puddle. It is not by mistake that most in America since the inception of our country rely upon the leader of our country for direction. Leadership style currently sanctioned within the White House is observed by most objective observers to date, as nothing more than aimless wandering connected by senseless and pointless tweets blaming someone else for the shortcomings of an administration. Thus illustrating narcissistic personality traits attempting to provide an allure for a minority population for support rather than the good for the majority. There are those leaders that promise everything and are incapable of delivering anything. Leadership is: Having a vision and leading the organization to that vision. A vision requires clarity. It is the organizational plan, detail, or concept (Drucker, 2003). Chaos is seldom offered by the experts as a meaningful, logical, trait or methodical system in leading a corporation or a country.
A distinction between styles of leadership requires clarification at this point.
Specifically, those leaders that point fingers are generally in competition with others as compared to those leaders that put their arm around members are generally in cooperation with others. Leadership cannot, nor should it rely upon a buzz word, catch phrase, or a sound bite, but rather true, accurate, honest communications, and in most instances delivered in person. Thus, bringing us to one of my first lessons in humility during my embryotic stage of leadership.
Communications is the life blood of any organization, the righteous vein that conveys directions with distinction. Communications is a relevant point providing a leader an avenue to survive with honor. According to Peter Drucker (2008), “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said” (p.261). This is probably one of the most missteps of leaders today. It most certainly was mine, and I provide the miscue in essay form for your reading enjoyment.
“Ain’t Nobody Perfect”
Early on in this discussion of leadership was announced an essential outcome of the material highlighted; the importance for each of you to step forward as a leader. No more important in a role as a parent, teacher, head of a public or private organization, and certainly for those in a position to establish public policy. Research has noted in one form or another that at the heart of leadership is interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationship is communication of both words and behavior. At the heart of leadership is the communication process that is responsible for preserving the creative building learning environment the leader has or hopes to establish. Building relationships is critical to achieving accomplishments. Be careful of what you communicate and the fashion you transmit the message. Many of us are parents and certainly can remember our parents. The key ingredient of parenting is being there for your children and being a parent even when you are tired or distraught. That is being there through caring, touch, love, understanding, and most of all listening.
I submit the same ingredients are required in a leader/member relationship. Parents cannot have a bad day and neither can leaders. A second substantial point serves notice that we will not discuss members of an organization as an employee. Children in a family have names and for good reason. This aids in establishing relationships so vital to a parenting role as well as a leadership role. So goes leadership; know the members and where they need to grow will determine where the family or organization needs to go.
Members are essential to any group and they want to be members not a nameless face. If this is apparent to the leader than half the battle is won. Members are not simply a number nor do they wish to be. They are complex living, breathing, feeling entities full of emotion and generally with unbridled enthusiasm, especially the day they walk through the employment door for the first time. They are also scared and lack the sure footed confidence of the sage forbearer within. It is incumbent upon leaders to harness these emotions and channel them in a manner that gets the job done. Leadership is synonymous with decision making and nothing more than gaining ground achieving the mission of the organization through human systems. All this while surviving with honor during the process. After all we give our children names don’t we?
Equally vital to this discussion is that leaders are human beings as well. This is not an earth shattering revelation, but essential to understand they too are products of some learning experience. Individual time lines of birth will determine the types of leadership experienced.
The overriding assumption is that the home is the first building block of learned behavior. Hence, what era has the leader experienced discipline, accountability, responsibility, and integrity?
Members of organizations today will not tolerate autocratic rule (ASCJ, 1990). An important premise of this section is that most have concluded that the KING IS DEAD! Upon reaching a decision, the next step is the execution of that decision. Without hesitation I submit those that are or have been thrust upon groups or organizations in the exalted position of a leader would not react positively to an ultimatum. So then why would a leader expect members to react differently? The impetus of this section establishes the foundation for gaining trust and preserving leadership integrity through the communication process. Further in this text we examine the either/or decision. Most instances do not require acceptance of a decision in this format.
Leaders cannot establish values or vision by edict. They have to gain commitment through communication or interpersonal relationship. This task is completed by sharing your vision either person to person, video, daily or weekly newsletter, or managing by walking away (MBWA). The latter requires being in the places where member conversations occur on broad based topics. The grapevine is a hotbed of information and a mechanism to convey ideas that have shown to be 90% accurate. In an organization of 100 people or more, it takes months upon years to bring about changes. This may be due to influences such as a union, resistance to change, lack of enthusiasm by members, outside groups, and time allotment to gain acceptance of a new idea. MBWA permits face to face communications providing clarity to vision, policy, levels of commitment, and the change itself.
Affirming shared values aid in expressing organizational goals while celebrating achievements prompting future positive behaviors. Educate members on a continuous basis by sharing information; if it is not your story it assuredly will become someone else’s narrative.
The environment for conveying information may be shepherded in numerous formats fitting the situation and leader style. Regardless of style important to the process is the following:
- Share your vision, person to person, tape, and newsletter;
- Affirm shared values-Values process, how you work;
- Share information-if not it is someone else’s story;
- Educate;
- Celebrate success;
- Manage By Walking Away (MBWA); and
- Interpersonal relations (trust) key.
A prominent concept in this chapter establishes the free flow of communications in an organization as the primary responsibility of the agency head. He/she is responsible for the open lines of dialogue and open exchange of ideas. This can be enhanced by the charismatic character of the organization head, or destroyed through several avenues or abuses such as the reliance upon the handy work of predecessors that may remain, foregoing excellence. The leader that has achieved felicity of verse most likely has substantially developed a delivery process, and very well may potentially lack the brilliant and distinguished clarity required of contemporary leadership.
An uncanny metamorphous occurs within persons promoted to positions of authority and power. This transition may provide either a positive or a negative standing generally established on behalf of the leader by members of the organization, stake holders in the community, and entities of government. An error highlighted in failed attempts of organizational discourse is the heavy reliance upon assumptions. Assumptions are not necessarily hazardous in all instances but they do require clarification and definition. In essence, these outside factions create expectations of a leader that will meet their personal needs while the leader enters this elevated public arena with his/her anticipated beliefs and goals and frequently nary shall the two meet.
There is nothing in a title (Police Chief, Superintendent, Director, President, Chairman, Dean, Professor, or CEO) that prepares a leader for what lies ahead. A new leader thrust into the limelight of an organization may well be ill prepared if this person enters the arena with all the answers rather than questions. This particular flaw signals to the masses of an inability to listen and perhaps closes down channels of information from the onset. The greatest compliment that anyone can pay another is to listen. The leader that fails to listen with compassion, empathy, understanding, enthusiasm, and passiveness has assuredly impaired if not destroyed future dialogue. In my tenure as the leader of three differing organizations I found it better to enter with questions rather than answers. False assumptions on the part of the leader could have debilitating effects on relationships and group outcomes.
The following essay is an actual leadership account entitled “Wilderness Family” depicting assumptions, arrogance, and the blind eye to what is important to members. Albeit listening is the greatest compliment that one may pay another; at the end of the day a decision must be made and one person at the head of the ship is accountable for that decision. Member input is essential to each decision. A decision made without most if not all available information available is generally a poor decision.
I have taken over three different situations of leadership during my adult life. None of which were at the top of their game at the time I entered the picture. I never entered any of these responsibilities with the answers but rather the questions. I learned early on in my career that any person in a significant role in life that has a diet of killer phrases is soon destined to starvation.
Phrases like, “We tried that once,” “That’s never worked here,” “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and the killer of them all, “our people aren’t smart enough to do that.” None of these phrases has a place in a true leader’s vocabulary or speak. Leaders must ask questions and members must understand that not all input may be used in every decision; they must not stop the process of question and answer. Vital to communications are two important axioms: “Don’t shoot the messenger” and “Tell me what I need to hear, not necessarily what I want to hear.” Failing to adopt both of these axioms in an organization may predict the future of leader/follower relationships.
Wilderness Family Aimless Wandering
The following is a chronicle of a process used to reestablish communications within a police department. That’s right, reestablish communications due to failed assumptions of like goals, loyalty, and leadership arrogance that permitted lines of communications to evaporate rather than flourish. The Wilderness Family is a personal reflection of a failed communication process. This document consists of communication problems within a small police department. It also provides a resolve (at least on the road to recovery). Although the predicament described is drawn from a small police department; it is with great confidence I suggest that many organizations find themselves mired in bureaucratic road blocks or leader/member imposed pediments that hamper organizational dialogue. This crisis will be most familiar to administrative personnel but not necessarily restricted to those in the upper echelon. If the administrative egos of the readers permit, they will acknowledge many an organization regardless of its professional affiliation or discipline may have found them similarity situated at one time or another.
The average reader may find it difficult to correlate the title Wilderness Family with the failed communication of a police agency or any discipline. Moreover, one may even shy away from this section by judging the title alone expecting to read of large vicious animals and the hazards of a lost family in the Northwest Territory. The only vicious animal portrayed herein was me. However, read on and examine the forced insight that later opened vast areas of knowledge, information, experience, and suggestions to the Office of the Chief of Police. The evaluation is based on true to life experiences (mistakes) made by a fledgling police chief.
The significant responsibility of leadership to establish a safe haven of an information flow does not relieve agency members of particular communication accountability or liability.
An important rule essential to the communication process is to require members to tell you what you need to know, not necessarily what you want to hear. An equally prominent rule is to require plain talk and nothing in code is acceptable. Any transmitted communication in ambiguous terms requires further clarification and fact. Most administrators will agree what if scenarios often provided by members will only result in a management nightmare. The agency head offended by sticks and stones being verbally cast upon she/he are probably slight of heart and lack the fortitude required for accountability and responsibility of free flowing dialogue (directionally neutral-bottom up and top down). In this case, avenues of discussion in an organization may shut down because a leader feels that: Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, might as well go eat worms. In other words, the leader fails to lead when he/she does not feel like it or when things are uncomfortable.
This section is not intended to point the finger of guilt, blame or shame anyone for poor communications within this agency. The title chosen is representative of a department’s aimless wandering, while no real communication existed. The mere fact the location selected for the retreat happens to be in the wilderness is purely coincidental (or is it). This discussion will focus on a retreat process to regain upward communication intra-departmentally.
This particular police department consists of twenty-five or less sworn police officers and nine civilian members. The City is situated off Route 17 (Southern Tier Expressway) of New York nestled in the foothills of the Allegheny Mountain Range with a diverse population.
Manufacturing, State facilities and retail shopping provide services to approximately seventy thousand people. The Department is unionized except for the Police Chief and Captain of Police. The City’s population within the corporate boundary is 10,000. The policing problems are similar to most police agencies as are the internal communication problems described further on.
The discussion shall be divided into the following: Problem: It’s Not My Problem, It’s yours; History: What Am I Doing Wrong; Problem Identification: Ivory Tower Intervention; Solution: Wilderness Family Revisited; Purpose: It’s Our Problem/No Hidden Agenda; Conclusion: It’s Only the Beginning. The retreat process will be described through these headings. A substantive element of this discussion is that the retreat is a process of choice to amend failed communications that should never dip to this level of mistrust and total shutdown. This is not to say that retreats are not excellent avenues to promote information among members during good times. Finally, a focus on the Need, Process of the Method, Organizational Use, Advantages of the Process, Anticipated Concerns, Options, and why it worked within the context of the sub-headings is provided to summarize the outcomes.
Problem: It’s not my problem, it’s yours!
Historically, law enforcement administrators (perhaps most administrators) have been labeled as buck passers. Although police administrators did not invent buck-passing, they have certainly perpetuated the process. This particular department changed police chiefs three times from 1970 to 1982. The longevity of each respectively was ten years, two years to fifteen years of author (nine years at time of original printing). Not unlike other agencies, uncertainty of the chief accompanied him into the front office. Additionally, organizational mistrust and low morale go with the turf.
For the new chief of police the “Honeymoon Period” may be non-existent or short lived or may appear to go on forever. In either case the information feedback will probably be distorted for any number of reasons. The communication problem is further compounded by mixed signals received by the chief. Through the daily routine of administrative tasks, the chief may see high productivity both quantitative and qualitative, as was the situation herein. Productivity may often be judged by administration as member job satisfaction, rather than perhaps the member just loves doing his/her job. In this particular instance an increase in productivity was observed almost immediately after appointment as the new chief of police.
The problem arises when the signals are misread or not received in the same vein they were sent. Everything is going fine; therefore, no need for change (infectious complacency), again, was this particular situation. It was not until an unusual number of grievances were beginning to cross my desk that I realized there was a problem. This was accompanied by a substantial increase in sick time usage and compensatory time off. The informal lines of communications were withdrawn to the point of not speaking (upward). This was not limited to the chief’s office; but had spread through the rank and file (lateral).
The communications received by myself (as limited as they had become) were portraying a morale problem within my department. How can this be? How can these happen to me? It was only a short time ago (actually 8-9 years) that I was one of the boys. It could not be a morale problem; the indicators do not lie, they demonstrate high productivity. No sir, it is a couple of disgruntled members who just cannot fall in line. The fact is, communications had become stagnant, if they existed at all, the reliability of the information received was in question and my canned response to all problems had become, “Quit, Die, or Get over it.”
It’s not my problem, it’s yours; or is it? Could it be that I am guilty of: Buck passing, not perceiving the problems, misreading the indicators, not listening, and more tragic than that, was I responsible for closing down all channels of communication. Am I part of the problem?
History: What was I doing wrong?
The police profession has predominately been a reactive group. Police respond to an action of another. During initial periods of formal policing this was the extent of police training and I do not suggest it is wrong. However, when discussing upward communications within the police agency, police leaders cannot limit themselves to a negative response to a negative action. These leaders need to adjust perspectives and look past the negative action (real meaning is important). The instrument of upward communication is as important as the message itself. The realization of existing problems in the department was omnipresent. I no longer wished to be part of the problem, but rather part of the solution (here comes reactive behavior).
Memorandums for departmental communications were designed for upward, downward, and lateral movement. Members of the department were required to communicate in writing via memos (for anything and everything, no exceptions). The open door policy was initiated to re- open lines of communication between the top and bottom of the police department. It was a shame this process was only used by order of the Chief (come in, sit down, and talk). In a distressing and relatively short time, I realized that General Custer received a warmer reception at the Little Bighorn than I did in my office.
Staff meetings were with little direction (one-way communication); departmental and individual meetings with the chief met with little positive response. What do I do now? How much more reactive can I get? What am I doing wrong? Hopefully, I will answer the latter question further on in this discussion. I will attempt to articulate the retreat process in such a fashion that you will be able to answer these questions for yourself.
Problem identification: Ivory tower intervention
From time to time Chiefs of Police as well as other leaders develop a false sense of complacency. They tend to forget that they are answerable to someone. In my case, it is a strong Mayor form or government. At this juncture in my discussion it is important to point out that unresolved grievances advance beyond my office and rest squarely on the Mayor’s desk. A point of interest requiring illumination at this point is the chief’s boss is a strong mayor and a newly elected mayor. The Mayor entered his newly acquired position with numerous preconceived ideas (assumptions of my ability); many of which were of the police department. Isn’t this great? I am now fighting on two fronts (actually defending on the new front and still fighting on the old).
The fact was that the Mayor was sympathetic to the Chief’s plight and became involved. The Mayor and the Police Benevolent Association’s Labor Consultant contrived a getaway weekend for four, two top management and two union representatives. A retreat designed to resolve problems, specifically, grievances. The rules were simple. They were to resolve the differences or kill each other (actually a bit cynical). In either event, return only when you have gone as far as you can. Each side, union and administration was armed with the authority to do what it takes to resolve the pending issues.
Each participant recognized the need for the retreat. However, the retreat concept received a cold reception and the expectation of a successful resolve even colder that was shared by both sides. All feebly embraced the retreat concept and the next step were to plan it (actually talk with each other, Yikes!). The Ivory Tower has mandated the retreat, it shall happen. My immediate reaction to this order was to resist and if not successful, attempt to side step it; however, I realized that there is no place to hide, nowhere to pass the buck. At this moment in time I did not feel my ego could handle another communication failure. After all it was destined to fail from the beginning. Ivory Tower Intervention generally is, isn’t it?
Solution: Wilderness Family Revisited
The die was cast. Union and management were to descend into obscurity and never to emerge again, unless having completed their (our) mission. The group (Chief, Capt., and two union representatives) had to select a place where they ate, slept, and shared available recreation together. In fact, the retreat sight should be where they cook their own food. The latter criteria eliminated places such as Disney World, Atlantic City, Reno, Las Vegas, or a Holiday Inn anywhere. Moreover, in case of an emergency, participants were to be responsive. Having said this criteria established by labor and management, outside the participants, a meeting to select the appropriate sight was necessary. Furthermore, arrangements for overtime coverage were needed, planning of meals, time constraints needed to be established and who was going to pay for this venture. The cost was borne by the City; therefore, menus were neither a problem nor the cost of the facility (unlimited budget we did not have, but C Rations we did not have to eat). In fact, asking each of the participants what types of food they preferred was a simple task.
Surprisingly enough, we were on the same wavelength. The scheduling was handled by management as well as overtime arrangements. The City adjusted the work schedule of the retreat participants so they did not sacrifice their days off while attending the retreat. This gesture was appreciated by union members and probably expedited the retreat process. Site selection was not as difficult as one might think. Keeping in mind the purpose of the retreat was to resolve differences and open lines of communications; the site had to provide an atmosphere of evenly proportioned work and recreation. The distractions must be limited and the ability to respond to an emergency situation had to be considered. The answer was, The Lodge!
The Lodge
The Lodge was tucked away in the hills approximately ten miles from the heart of the city. It was far enough away but not too far in order to satisfy predetermined criteria (non- participant criteria). The Lodge is a hunting/fishing camp privately owned by a friend of mine. There are 12 rooms that can comfortably accommodate 4 persons in each. It has showers for men and women (all the hot water you want), cooking facilities (excellent), a bar, pool tables, piano, a radio, and a telephone. The Wilderness Family Retreat did not appear to lack for comfort.
The participants were set. The date and times were established. The only item left was to do it. We arrived at The Lodge about noon of day one. Although there has been improved communications to this point between participants during the planning stage, the apprehension of returning successful still loomed. An aura of mistrust, tension, and hoping to discover the others’ hidden agenda was very much present (high levels). To illustrate this point, travel to The Lodge was in separate vehicles.
Purpose: It’s Our Problem/No Hidden Agenda
Confrontation is an uneasy process for most (myself included), but essential when dealing with our mental and physical hygiene. Deterioration within oneself is certain destruction to the family and organization. Therefore, confrontation is healthy in problem resolution. The players must be able to understand it for what it is and then walk away. When it is over, leave it behind, do not internalize it or make it personal.
This premise along with the following ground rules was established at the first meeting. They were: First, No character assassination of participants or fellow members of the department; Second, all concerns are open to discussion; Third, grievance resolution; Fourth, we will agree that we may disagree. Each participant will provide their views and if we cannot agree, then arbitrate (grievance matters); Fifth, matters discussed will remain confidential, unless mutual consent of both sides to release; and Sixth, when the door closes behind us on the final day, the “we and us” leave this room and not the “me and I.” The ground rules were agreed to by all.
After settling into our rooms and establishing the ground rules, the discussions began around 1:30 p.m. and concluded at 11:00 p.m. the first day. There were only a handful of grievances left on the table (successful first day). The number of grievances is not germane to this discussion. What is significant is the process itself and the overwhelming success. Day two began with breakfast (bacon, eggs, toast, potatoes, steak, juice, coffee and milk. Just a little something I threw together). We resumed at the table at 8:30 a.m. and ended 10:30/11:00 p.m. that evening. There were rest, lunch and dinner breaks. The “we and us” was hard at work during this process. We were working as a single unit, discussing the differences, policy, attitudes, modifications, the list was endless (floodgates were open). Day three concluded with one outstanding grievance.
The discussions were honest, open, and often at times quite critical of the participants. Tempers were never a factor nor did discussions get out of hand. The summit ended in good faith and a handshake. A remarkable take-a-way was that listening is the greatest compliment that one can pay another. Member organization and management benefitted from the retreat. Final statements were to the effect that open lines of communication shall prevail and the Chief does not always make sound choices but he sure can cook.
Conclusion: It is Only the Beginning
An underpinning and substantial point to be made in all of this is not to permit an organization to fall into a discourse abyss. However, should communication problems arise than the purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate the retreat process and how this technique may benefit an organization. In fact, this is of global interest, not restricted to the police setting nor the size of an organization. The bottom line is to take the first step in resolving differences. Once the retreat process was selected and underway, be a good listener, leave your ego home, do not become retaliatory and keep the purpose ever present.
It should be abundantly clear to the reader that there are many risks involved. Equally clear should be the benefits that outweigh the risks. The process described in this discussion was the first, but certainly not the last. The department budget here after includes annual funding for this process. Readers are encouraged to take advantage of the success of this process, but a word of caution selecting the timeliness of the process. Do not wait until the problem is larger than the method of resolve. In short, do not wait until problems exist or are so glaring that you are forced to take action. I think not. Attention to detail is critical. The needs of others within is most critical. Incumbent upon the leader is to use all mechanisms at her/his disposal to ensure accurate, timely, and substantive information is available at all times. In fact, the retreat can also be utilized as an order maintenance process as well as problem resolution.
The memorandums used in the department remained. They were submitted as a result of informal communication rather than the only communiqué. The rigidity of the communication process is now considered a flexible system. Different methods of forwarding information are up to the sender (initially). The memo serves as a matter of recording information and not limited to transmitting it. Fortuitous benefits from the retreat-included members buying into the organization, maintain healthy lines of communication (upward, downward and lateral), encourage suggestions, and do not fear communication risks.
The benefits of the process should jump out at the reader. A word of caution for those that may wish to enter into a form of this process is not to create a false sense of security that a communication utopia exists. The “I” and “me” inappropriately appear now and again on the part of union and management but polite nudging resigns the process to the we and us. The tools are in place to prevent the rapid rate of decent into the communication chasm. The retreat process was successful for this department, and I am confident it can be equally successful for many organization. The location of the retreat was only a part of the repair to the upward communication process. The real cure lies in a commitment to open, honest, and continued communication!
Upward Communications: Questions Asked
When an organization witnesses the exchange of ideas, conversations, and channels of communications begin to show tell-tale signs of extinction, loss of information credibility and reliability, mixed signals and/or confused signals, the retreat method can be used. The participants begin open communication with each other in the planning stage and continue through the process. The process requires daily interaction (merely due to the closeness).
Participants must eat, sleep, and share the same facility, recreation and idle conversation (outside table talk). The informal communication process is utilized. For example: if it bothers you, tell us. The “us” is leader and members, parent and child, or coach and athlete. The time frame for the retreat is dependent upon the problem/task. The logistics (time, date, location, and menu) should be part of the planning process. The individuals must bring the honesty, trust and confidence to the retreat in order for it to be affective.
Uses/Advantages
This discussion provides insight into a process in order to facilitate interpersonal relationships and broaden communication networking within the organization and to heighten personal growth of individuals. This process is an option not limited to union/management situations. The fact that it works in problem solving situations, especially communication problems, does not limit the use. The retreat can work well in a healthy environment as well.
The administrator and member strengthen or re-establish communications, trust and members begin to trouble shoot problems early on. The process develops the attitude that problems should not be allowed to escalate. As a leader I have found that the little things will drive you nuts, the big things we can get through with little problem. This statement is widely accepted among police administrators probably nationwide. Allowing a system to care for itself and preventing the little things from driving you nuts should then also be accepted. This allows the member to buy into the organization, especially if it involves matters he/she considers important to them.
Concerns
From the members view, peer pressure is a concern. Will they appear to be succumbing to leadership? Are they going to weaken their peer status? Can the informal lines of communication intersect and hamper formal lines of communications that are required (the longevity of commitment after completing the process)? The retreat is not a cure-all and should not leave that impression. It is merely a tool, albeit I suggest a good tool, to help eliminate a communication problem. A healthy atmosphere is a maintenance heavy atmosphere requiring a great deal of work by all those concerned. The process should not lull a person into a false sense of complacency. The communication process is greater than individuals involved.
Additionally, leaders today must factor in the technology age. The majority of our members entering the workforce today have been raised electronically. The English language has been reduced to text, cell phone, or smart phone jargon. The face-to-face communications have suffered dramatically, however this is not an excuse to point fingers at technology and forego the obligation to communicate. The foregoing process is an opportunity to further enhance critical thinking. Coaching today is more critical than any other period of our existence. In summary, recent experience with today’s member reveals that the member will not demonstrate blind loyalty to an organization, but will be loyal to a mission statement, the organizational ethics and goals as long as they are considered a member with some say in its operation; and the organization provides the opportunity for the member to be the best that they can be. The requirement for good organizational communications is greater today than ever before in order to keep the core values of your organization in the forefront.
When will it Work?
Essentially, the process can work anytime during the life of the organization. Oftentimes administrators wait too long to apply any method. There are risks with this process, but you do not have to wait until there is an ailment to apply this bandage. Healthy organizations can benefit from the retreat as well. An important ingredient to a healthy organization is the sharing of information that equates to caring of members. A leader that will share the concepts of the inner-sanctum with subordinate members is probably going to be viewed by the membership as honest and caring at best and just ok at the very least.
Epilogue
Hindsight being the most perfect vision, it is important to look back on the process and the result of our communication outing over twenty years later. Since the initial writing of “Ain’t Nobody Perfect” (1991), I have assumed the duties as Police Commissioner of the Troy Police Department, Troy, NY (1997-2003) in a city 4.5 times the population of Hornell, NY, and a department more than five times as large, and then the Police Commissioner of the York City Police Department, York, PA, with approximately the same demographics as Troy. The importance and difficulty of maintaining adequate two-way organizational communications is more apparent than ever.
In our less attentive moments, we all still take communication for granted and find it frustrating when it does not occur naturally. Our communication process remains hard work that must be attended to with dedicated effort. The leader who leaves it to chance or waits until a crisis forces him or her into concentrated discussions, not only misses opportunities to strengthen the team, but also diminishes the sense of belonging that is vitally important in today’s work environment. It is still true that hidden messages will be implied in every effort at straightforward communication, and that the predominant flow of misinformation can only be countered with frequent honest give-and-take every day.
Members, motivated or not, place a heavier burden on management to effectuate the communication process than they place on themselves. Leaders and managers, too often, think that, “If I know it, everyone else must know it too.” Other managers pass along information assuming it will continue through the chain of command, only to find members performing in the exact way they always did. Leaders, managers, supervisors, teachers, etc. cannot permit members to commit messages to innuendo or camouflaged jargon. All must articulate in full meaning and worry less of harming individual feelings. Emotions are a powerful tool that can often times cloud decisions. Communications demand critical acuity of self (introspect) while at the same time requires ingestion of external evaluation (retrospect). However, retrospect when left to one’s own devices may often become subdued, mired in finger pointing and lacking clarity.
A structure for communications must be established in every department, organization, educational institution, and more importantly, personal life situations. Today’s advancements in diversifying the workforce and technology present the challenge of communicating through cultural barriers – “did they understand what I meant or what their perspective tells them I said?” Only determined two-way dialogue can provide an accurate picture of the message received. We must realize that telling members something is only half the equation of good communication. The balance is checking to find out whether it was received without confusing static. A significant final point in this section is to require clarity of message, purpose, and mission. Do not permit members to speak in code, buzz words, or catch phrases and expect the leader to understand the message. However the leader must demand message clarity and permit clarity to be questioned from the membership. They are not stupid, they are not deaf, and they are certainly not uniquely locked into your frame of reference. Members within an organization have their own frame of reference, and at some point leader/member meaning of a message may clash. I wonder if the current occupant of the Oval Office has given this any thought when dealing with North Korea. Leaders capable of having courage to challenge members in the communication as well as behavioral issues will have the greatest success. This I refer to as the 3% rule. Management today will spend 97% of their time on 3% or less of its members. Generally involving one of the two previously listed issues (communications & behavioral issues). The other 97% of the group’s members are watching to see how they are dealt with. Getting it right in the beginning is critical.
Using a retreat to clear the air on misread communications, in my view, is still an effective means of pulling a team back together. It aids to improve upon that there is no broad misunderstanding of the mission or changes in policy and of the application of new methods and priorities. Even in the organization that is communicating optimally, a retreat can serve as a measuring device and a refresher to established communication methods. The retreat focuses attention on the importance of putting effort into both sides of the communication process. This is truer today than when first written in light of technological advances creating the atmosphere of immediate gratification.
Nothing can be accomplished in any discipline in life when two or more people are associated without first developing a relationship. The relationship must be grounded in the character of those involved. Simply put, trust, integrity, commitment, honesty, listening, compassion, and empathy are key ingredients within the foundation of a relationship. Lou Holtz (1988), a highly touted motivational speaker and celebrated NCAA football coach, contends three universal questions are required toward constructing this foundation. These are: Can I trust you? Are you committed to me? Do you care about me? Every relationship begins with these foundations.
Now, hopefully wiser and definitely older, I would embrace the idea of forced communications among competing but common interest more readily than I once did (Retreat or One on One). I highly recommend getting away from the distractions of the workplace with a cross section of any organization’s membership and, at times, with bargaining representatives to cut down the time wasted on trying to interpret both parties when they communicate or fail to. Since the original retreat I have found it useful to provide at least one retreat type activity annually with meals for mid-management through command staff a quite useful communication avenue. Remember this if nothing else throughout this examination of Drink, Swear, Steal and Lie: Communications is not simply one item within an organization, it is the most significant item!
