| TRUST
Trust is a commitment to behave as though something that is not now,
will be; and a willingness to risk the consequences if it won't be.
We trust both things and people. I trust the bridge that I drive over
and I trust the promise someone makes to me.
We have the wisdom not to trust any thing or person unconditionally.
I wouldn't trust the bridge I drive over, if it's posted for 6 tons
and I see a truck coming that looks like it might weigh twice that.
There are at least two ways that I may trust a person:
1 I believe their ability to deliver is equal to the result they
promised. I trust the person's Competence.
2 I believe their private conversation is the same as the one they
speak. I trust the person's Sincerity.
In business, any of these three kinds of trust can be in question.
At this time in Digital's history, I believe it is particularly
important that we maintain and build trust in each other's sincerity.
For with downsizing there are more reasons to hide our thoughts than
when we are growing. The risks of sincerity may be high. Yet if we
do not trust, we cannot do business effectively together.
Partnership, or even simple cooperation, can't be done without trust.
TWO WAYS YOU MIGHT NOT TRUST MY SINCERITY
There is a simple but not an easy way to build your trust in my
sincerity. If you are to trust that I am revealing my inner
conversation, I must reveal my inner conversation!
Here are two cases where my inner conversation is unavailable to you:
A I had the conscious thought, but I did not choose to share it
B I buried it away from my own attention, so even I don't hear it.
My insincerity of type A is difficult for you to deal with. But my
body-language or tone of voice or some other behavior I generate might
give you a hint. Possibly, you can even decode the hints enough to
gain a reasonably clear and accurate interpretation of my thoughts.
More likely, you simply sense that I have not said what I am thinking.
But at least, you can then confront me and challenge me to say more.
My insincerity of type B is much more cryptic. At a conscious level,
my sincerity is unblemished. My body language, tone of voice, and
even some of my behaviors may be consistent with what I speak.
However, many people have a deep intuition not to trust what I say
when it's in conflict with one of my buried inner conversations.
SIGNS OF AN INSINCERITY POLICY
If I bury conversations with myself beneath my conscious awareness,
I'll have adopted a policy of some kind about which ones to bury.
Policies like this are seldom quite obvious. But even my less obvious
policies may leave a trace on the surface of my behavior. Examples of
signs that I may have a policy of buried-away inner thoughts:
* You are present when an event occurs in my life that almost
everyone experiences as happy, and I express no happy affect.
It seems likely that I have some inner conversation which is not
happy; or that I adopted a policy of not being in touch with my
joyful thoughts.
* You are present when an event occurs in my life that almost
everyone experiences as painful, and I express no pain or sadness.
It strikes you as likely that I have some inner conversation which
is not sad or painful; or that it's my policy not to be in touch
with my painful thoughts.
I'm not saying you can have any certainty about these interpretations.
My expressionlessness is empty. If it's the result of my policy of
preventing sincerity, all you have to go on is the negative evidence:
like the dog that did not bark.
WHY DO I BURY MY THINKING AWAY FROM MYSELF?
Obviously this is a complex subject. I am not a psychologist, and if
I were, I would not be able to cover this topic in a few paragraphs.
However, there is one strand of this complex web that I think is clear
enough, and relevant enough to Digital's business, to tackle here.
There's a particular game we play in business. It has names like
"advancement" or "promotion." Advancement or promotion is not always
a game. Advancement or promotion is frequently an acknowledgement
that someone is ready for a larger, more responsible role.
But for some, it is a game. The phrase "poker face" is an obvious
reference to this kind of game. Because if you play a win-lose game
to win, you have to avoid revealing your inner conversation. You have
to adopt a policy of insincerity to win such a game.
So it is when I am not willing for promotion or advancement to be just
a natural acknowledgement of my growth; it is when I make the choice
to play it as a win-lose game, that I adopt a policy of insincerity.
And if I merely conceal my inner thoughts, you will often hear in my
tone of voice or see in my body language that I have not been sincere.
So if I want to get good at this game, I must develop an unconscious
insincerity. I must bury some of my thoughts where even I myself have
no access. Then, I can really "operate." I'm type B insincere.
INSINCERITY ADDICTION
I view type B insincerity as an addiction. It doesn't work for what I
use it for; so I can never get enough of it. All addictions have
this structure.
What do I use it for? Well, why did I choose to play advancement as
if it were a game?
There's a particular theory about life floating around, which, if I
adopt it, would suggest playing advancement as a game. The theory is:
it's a dog-eat-dog world.
If I believe that I live in a zero-sum, win-lose, dog-eat-dog world I
don't need to trust or to be trusted. What I need is to win.
Observe that viewing this life among humans as a zero-sum, win-lose,
dog-eat-dog world is not trusting view! I'm beginning with a
non-trusting position; choosing to play advancement as a game so as
to cope; and then destroying trust in others with whom I interact.
It's a circular process, because others become less worthy of my trust
as they themselves adopt the win-lose theory under my influence and
the influence of others whom I've influenced.
We become contageous. We spread our addiction. We can get our whole
neighborhood hooked on intractable, type B insincerity. We could
persist until we lose all possibility of trust anywhere among us.
IT'S HARD TO KICK THE HABIT
Ricardo Semler, author of the only business book that ever kept me up
all night ("Maverick!"), has led his company over a fifteen year
period to prove out many amazingly democratic management innovations.
He emphasizes one, however, that was by far the most difficult. More
difficult than having every person's salary on public display. More
difficult than having people set their own salary. More difficult
than having leaders elected by those they lead. More difficult than
having the results of a 40-question semi-annual evaluation of each
leader by their subordinates posted publicly every six months.
What was that astoundingly, excruciatingly difficult innovation?
Removing names from parking places. This took 10 years to accomplish.
That's how strong the advancement-as-a-game addiction gets. Ten years
to kick it far enough so some symbols that support it can be removed.
JUST SAY NO?
It's a personal choice.
And, if I don't realize what it will lead to, just a little bit of
win-lose game playing may seem like a harmless "kick."
Here's one of the ways it can start. We pick somebody to be "it."
Might be Bill Clinton; might be Ken Olsen; might be Bob Palmer;
might be our local manager. We don't speak to "it." But at coffee
time, over lunch, on the Notes file, or wherever, whoever is "it" gets
our critique.
Can you see this as a game? I critique Bill Clinton, let's say. What
that says about me is: here's a way I am superior to the President.
Advancement is mine! I'm a winner! He did this stupid thing, but
what *I* would have done is: [name a *much* wiser action.]
This is an addictive choice. I've adopted the win-lose, zero-sum,
dog-eat-dog theory and I'm playing its game. I'm using it to be a
winner. But it won't work for what I'm using it for. So I can never
get enough of it.
Now, there's one deeper layer that I think must be revealed in order
to see this whole sorry structure and give us access to unwinding it.
Why did the dog-eat-dog theory attract me, in the first place? Why am
I willing to even consider a win-lose theory of human interaction?
What, at bottom, *am I using it for* anyway??
THE NEED TO WIN
Once upon a time, several hundred thousand years ago, there was a
troop of primates. They roamed the savannah very much like a troop of
Baboons might do today. Only they posessed a new invention.
This troop had invented language. They had begun to speak. They had
begun to recount stories of what happened yesterday. Eventually they
could speak of what happened last year. Eventually, they could even
speak of what happened many years ago.
Speaking of what happened over the years gave them a sense of the
unfolding of the years. They began to project their experiences
forward into the future: they developed foresight.
With foresight, the adults began to foresee the future for their
young. They began to parent with foresight. They could foresee that
their young males were to be the sentries, the hunters, the warriors.
They could foresee that when first meeting another tribe, these young
men would be the first to be on the business end of the interaction.
They could foresee that if there was a dangerous game animal, a
dangerous marauding animal, or a dangerous competing tribe, it would
be their young males who would have the mobility and dispensability to
protect and preserve the rest. (For it only takes one male to
preserve the tribe's future, if there are enough females surviving.)
So they invented games. Hundreds of thousands of years ago? I don't
really know. I wasn't there to see...but it looks natural to me.
Well, this is one theory. Not well grounded in scientific fact. But
I like it. For it suggests where men of business get the need to win.
From our parents! For our own good, and because we were to be the
tribe's social security system, our loyal tribal parents got us into
win-lose games. For "fitness" as we call it today. To be ready to be
top dog, when dog-eats-dog. From our parents, and from the other
tribal elders of our youth, we learn to play mistrustful tribal games.
DIGITAL AS A POST-TRIBAL COMPANY OF TRUST
When I joined Digital in 1960 there was something a little different
about this outfit of 100 people. Laughter! Fun! From Ken Olsen on
out, this was not a company of poker-faces. This was a jocular bunch
who worked intensely because what we were doing was *fun!* Sure, we
took commitments "seriously." But certainly not solemly! Nobody had
to speak in solemn tones of "accountability." My recollection is that
we did what we said; or we acknowledged trouble. That's all.
Ken took pains to dissipate my tendencies to relate to him as top dog.
He positively, clearly refused it. There was no organization chart,
there were no marked parking spaces, there were no obiesances. We
never spoke of trust--we never needed to, I think. It was in the air.
Ken would blurt out his half-baked thoughts. Sometimes I would jump
on them; sometimes others would. But Ken would persist in tossing
out what he had in mind, without a lot of top-dog caution. So did we
all. It was chaotic. It was unpredictable. It was not polite, not
considerate, not "nice." Nobody ever asked anyone "are you
comfortable with that." But trust was so easy and natural. I do not
recall any moment of distrust in my earliest years at Digital.
I think Digital was a bunch of people who had never "got it." We had
missed the tribal signals. We had failed at sports; we could not get
serious about win-lose games. A bunch of unsocialized, unathletic
hackers. A company of oddballs who never developed a proper *need* to
win. So Digital people were worthy of each other's trust. And our
suppliers and customers loved us: we were worthy of their trust too.
UNWINDING THE SYNDROME
We have lost our post-tribal trustworthyness to some extent. Not
entirely lost it. But I think it's been substantially weakened.
I'd like to see it restored. For Digital may be one of the few
organizations on the surface of this earth, to have such a well
developed post-tribal experience and tradition. We have a better
chance than most organizations to unwind the ancient syndrome and get
off of whatever addiction to win-lose games we may have developed.
Semler says "if you don't have the symbols that support the wrong
people, you won't have the wrong people." What he means by "wrong
people" I'll have to guess. From everything I can tell about who
Ricardo Semler is, I'd say he means: people addicted to win-lose
games. People who are contagious with addictive mistrust.
One thing to be especially vigilant about is: marked parking places!
But I think this may be too easy. For most of us, the temptations are
more mundane. Negative chatter is our primary corrupter. Gaining
advancement on whomever is "it" in the win-lose game of blaming:
this is the addictive drug that is most likely to get us hooked.
If I want to grow trust it's the "little" choices that really matter.
Do I speak more critically of my manager behind her back than I have
directly to her face? Do I express my joy and my sorrow directly, so
people can trust that they know where I'm coming from? Can I be
depended on to acknowledge whatever is unattractive about my track
record, so that it's discussable? Do I take my courage in both hands
and fully, enthusiastically acknowledge another's accomplishment when
it outshines my own? How much am I willing to "blurt out" when it is
impolitic, but allows difficult things to be worked through?
If we want risk-taking, I think these are the risks that matter most.
If we want to work in a trusting environment, I think these are the
kinds of behaviors that demonstrate the possibilities for trust.
And if we take a stand for a dog-eat-dog environment? If we announce
that Digital is a company where you can't trust people?
I think if we speak for it, we're in fact creating it.
Russ
|
| Russ, thank you for those thoughts. Like you, I have experienced
DEC in times when trust and openness were the norm, and I have seen
the distructive consequences of the lack of it in more recent years.
I believe that individuals mostly do what they do in business
environments (and other environments) because they figure out the
"system" they are in -- how it really works as opposed to how the
official policies say it works -- and behave accordingly. If the
system supports trust and openness, people will be open. Conversely,
if the system treats as "success" results obtained by covert activity,
secret dealing, and making someone else fail, then people will not be
open.
Accordingly, I don't believe that there is anyone in DEC who is
"incompetent", contrary to another reply in this topic. There may be
people who are in jobs that do not match their abilities, but more
likely, the person you see as incompetent is really just acting in
accordance with his/her perception of what the system *really* wants.
Demming made this observation many years ago, and it is a basic
principle of getting an organization to function effectively and
produce quality products.
This can also be called the "culture" of an organization. Once upon a
time, and not so long ago at that, DEC was considered to be a company
which had a particularly admirable culture. A guiding principle was
"do the right thing", which everyone understood to mean the thing the
would benefit the customer, the company, and the effectiveness of the
product, rather than what would advance your own status or place in the
pecking order. For a system like this to work and prosper, it means
that people have to be rewarded for doing the right thing and not
pushed aside (or laid off) for not polishing the right boots.
Although management cannot decree culture overnight, I believe culture
has to flow from the top and be sustained over time. In fact, the
primary job of management is to shape the "system" in which people
work, and to shape it in ways that foster creativity and effectiveness.
Besides working the system "as it is", one other thing that causes
people to behave in covert ways is fear. Fear of losing your job, fear
of not saying the politic thing to a manger, etc. When times were
flush and people believed that DEC could and would take care of its
employees, these fears were minimized. Now, with layoffs and business
contraction a fact of life, the fear among many people is palpable and
a major factor in how they behave. For those up and down the
hierarchy, fear leads to protecting yourself first, trying to hold on
to what you have, seeing conspiracies among others, and dividing the
world into the "we" who will stay and the "they" that will go. The
layoff process itself is cloaked in secrecy, and such a process
invariably generates suspicion and posturing among those who may be
affected by it.
Consequently, the first step toward eliminating distrust and fear is
for the most senior management to begin to lead with openness and
confidence. It's been a long time since I've heard anyone in a
position of significant management responsibility speak in a positive
way about the kinds of virtues noted in .1 or in a manner that
indicates real trust and confidence in the organization. What I hear
contains an undercurrent of fear and the kind of content-free
speechifying obviously designed not to reveal any inner self or
substantial information.
Ken Olsen led the company with confidence for 30+ years. I didn't
always agree with what he did, but I could always tell him to his face
what I thought about things and not fear negative consequences. Would
that all managers, indeed everyone in the company, could project that
kind of confidence.
dlm
|