CREATING PROTECTED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

While in an ideal world all members of your organization would behave as courageous followers, it is no more realistic to expect perfection from followers than for them to expect perfection of their leaders.

There are a number of reasons why a follower may not bring sensitive or divergent information to a leader’s attention:

perceived earlier instances of retaliation by the leader,

perceived earlier instances of retaliation by those with whom the leader may discuss issues,

uncertainty about or incompleteness of information,

disbelief that remedies will be taken to make the risk of speaking up worthwhile,

personal stresses (family health insurance needs, etc.) that make the risks of speaking up seem too high.

It is useful to provide the staff in your organization with a low-risk way of raising issues that are of concern to them. A classic method is to appoint an ombudsman. If you endow this position with the right power and policies, it can save you and the organization endless grief.

Creating an ombudsman role may seem counter to the spirit of building a culture of courageous relationships in which staff address problems they have with those most directly concerned. But this role can be performed in ways that support such a culture. Speaking confidentially with the ombudsman to air thoughts, have a sounding board, and seek advice is far removed from complaining unproductively to those who have no power to remedy a situation. And, for some, it still represents an act of courage to speak frankly to the ombudsman despite assurances of confidentiality.

Appointing an ombudsman also helps protect leaders from a form of pressure that can be unhealthy for the organization. Often, staff will use an ombudsman to express grievances over compensation and benefits issues.

In the absence of an ombudsman, frustrated staff will eventually take the matter to the CEO or vice president level. This puts senior executives in the awkward position of using their power to remedy individual staff problems. Word gets around when this happens, and it inadvertently creates a process of taking individual problems to them. For numerous reasons, this approach is not the best use of a leader’s energy. It also creates potential problems of perceived favoritism, rancor if the problem is not solved to staff members’ satisfaction, and other issues.

Certain conditions must be met if the ombudsman position is to function well. It is as dangerous to have a nonfunctioning ombudsman as it is to have a nonfunctioning safety valve. Adequate attention must be given to the following success factors:

Select an individual who:

enjoys or can generate widespread trust among staff;

has deep organizational knowledge and can put issues into a sophisticated context;

has the skills needed to coach employees to solve their own problem when this is appropriate, thereby supporting a culture of courageous relationships.

Ensure that:

The ombudsman has the open door access needed to resolve issues.

The ombudsman has the responsibility and immunity to keep walking through that door until a particular issue is resolved.

Processes exist for the tracking and timely resolution of issues brought to the ombudsman.

Make it a rule to:

Never, never casually discuss with others a sensitive personnel issue brought to you by the ombudsman or allow other executives to do so—treat each such conversation as a trust.

Meet periodically with the ombudsman to discuss patterns of issues that could escalate to become major ethical, legal, operational, or public relations matters.

Use the full range of communication vehicles to reinforce the value of courageous relationships and the availability of the ombudsman to help resolve issues.

Your aim is to ensure that critical information about the behavior and operations of the organization and its managers reaches whatever level is necessary to address these matters effectively. Courageous followers are responsible for conveying that information despite personal risk. Leaders are responsible for creating the institutional atmosphere and channels that lower these risks. Make sure these channels exist, and periodically confirm that they are clear of bureaucratic or cultural blockages.