One of the things that comes from having worked with a broad range of organisations over a long time is a sensitivity to trends in the way people communicate. In particular I notice subtle changes in the structure of conversation, as I alluded to a few weeks ago in my article about a loss of spontaneity.

I’ve been thinking more about this and have come to a realisation that there is another challenge with conversations in organisations that is actually much more significant than just a reticence to speak off the cuff. It’s a serious issue because it is increasingly hampering the effectiveness of senior leaders, middle managers and everyone else.

I call it ‘political politeness’.

Political politeness is definitely defining a boundary in the workplace. This boundary is not broadly acknowledged, yet everyone seems to sense it is there. It is often one of the ‘elephants in the room’. Superficially it separates what can or cannot be said, but in reality it separates what can or cannot be done by leaders and managers.

Some typical examples might make this clearer.

  • A leader needs to provide constructive feedback to one of their followers. Rather than doing so in a clear and direct way, the leader holds back. He talks around the issue at hand, in the hope that the person involved will somehow ‘get’ the message without it having to be laid out explicitly.
  • A leader implements a change in the organisation. Within days there is push back from a number of people who are feeling some discomfort. Rather than work through the situation and identify and deal with the specific issues or challenges, the leader simply reverses the change.
  • A person is not performing well in their job, or no longer ‘fits’ the role. This can happen for all sorts of legitimate reasons. Rather than dealing with the issue by managing the person and the situation, the leader instigates a restructure to bring about a redundancy rather than improvement.
  • A leader simply stops listening, failing to acknowledge ‘bad news’ in the hope that it will just go away.

Each of these examples is a variation on the general theme of working around a problem rather than dealing with it. And at the core of these situations is political politeness: an unwillingness to have the necessary ‘courageous conversations’ that clear the air and help everyone know where they stand.

The problem here is not just with the leaders involved. What we’re seeing is that entire organisations, from top to bottom, have reached a point where doing nothing (or dodging the issue) is an acceptable result where doing something could rock the boat or cause discomfort.

The causes of this growth in political politeness could be debated for some time. Is it a litigious issue (fear of accusations of bullying or causing stress for instance)? Is it an emotional health issue? Is it a generational issue? Quite possibly it is all of these and more.

One thing does seem clear though: political politeness has grown out of an increased focus on the individual over the circumstance. And that makes the solution simpler than it would appear: to reverse this situation. To approach difficult issues by focusing first on the issue, the situation, the behaviour and the impact this has – not on the person.

Doing this actually means being honest with the person and with yourself, which, in the end, I believe most people would appreciate.

Gayle