Honest Intent - the humanity missing in organisations

I sat through what was billed as a group discussion about how the lowly Proles in an organisation can “have a say”. It was actually a not-too-thinly disguised marketing exercise. The experience was helpful in several ways, but not in the ways, I suspect, that it was meant to be.

What crystallised for me was what’s wrong with the idea of ‘giving people a say’, on SO many levels.

At a macro level, what’s wrong with these tech-enabled internal communications and feedback things is their very existence. The fact that personal, human, relationships and communication are so withered and, for want of a better word, ‘toxic’ in so many organisations is the problem. This is not solved by a Stasi-like system that invites people to inform on people. It is not solved by a technologically advanced suggestions box from which the good and the great may pick. It is solved at the level of genuine human interest, kindness, care, consideration, and, dare I suggest it, love.

If the people of influence, high status, and power in an organisation are incapable of these human attributes, then unfortunately, there is no way to solve the problem.

The problem needs a bit of exploring. It is very old. Plato wrote about it. There is the ruling minority who decides things, and everyone else who does the things that have been decided upon. The latter do not have access to the former regarding real conversation. Instead, they have the ability to make an animal-like noise of general approval or discontent when they are told what’s decided. We are still here in politics, Government, and almost all organisations. The only exception is that a ‘leader’ occasionally identifies an idea they can use to their advantage.

What’s missing is honest intent

In the foreseeable future, there will be people in organisations who will be paid a lot more because they are supposed to be responsible for the rectitude of the decisions being made. So, we must deal with this reality. Such a person, and as the organisation becomes larger, persons, should have the very human attributes and countenance I describe. They should understand, and it should be generally understood, that genuinely caring about the well-being of an organisation necessarily means caring about how it feels to be a part of it for everyone. This means an end to ‘giving them a say’, and the reporting systems that invite internal, personal reviews. It means having a nervous system of common good, and fellowship.

With honest intent, people of influence across an organisation should have, at their core, a genuine interest in how things are really going. They should make it a priority to traverse the organisation, cutting across reporting lines (don’t get me started on that!), and having a cuppa with a variety of people all the time. One to one, human to human. The honest intent of this is to champion issues that need to be addressed and to selflessly make it known who brought it up and whether they have played a part in making things better. Also, with kindness, they must have the ability to listen to many ideas, suggestions, observations, and stories and decide which ones are sensible or workable and when.

This must be a communication, not sucking ideas ‘out of’ people. Give people news about what has happened due to these chats and demonstrate that communication is appreciated and not just an opportunity to talk to a confessional box devoid of humanity but equipped with AI-enabled thematic analysis. No opportunity to demonstrate that things have been acted upon should be missed, and it is kept where confidence is asked for. Let this be demonstrated repeatedly and have this be the subject of some of the many private conversations that make an organisation.

‘Leaders’ should live and die by this.

Without this, what we have is what we have: hierarchically sterile dictatorships.

I can hear the excited murmurings of the systems thinkers and co-created sense makers… you, are part of the problem unless what you do is done with the same honest intent and genuine care for the experience of the people involved. Usually, these practices are versions of ‘have a say/ idea vacuuming sessions.

Leadership programmes don’t get you there, either. Explaining to groups of people how they should act is not the same as the deep work required to foster genuine care and an honest intent. Leadership courses teach pop psychology trickery and are infested with personality and role-based ‘psychology’ tests that are all poor predictors and generally gameable.

Honest intent, genuine care, ensuring people are seen, valued, and championed where appropriate. Sensitivity and personal acuity. Discernment and kindness. Truly looking for the best and most equitable outcomes. Community and communication as a human attribute. These things will make a real difference, not more tech-driven anonymisation with associated idea appropriation and witch hunts.