— Transforming Organizations, Revitalizing Communities and Developing Human Potential

[based on an article by the author in the McGraw Hill Management Monthly Newsletter: Vol. 3 Issue 3, 2011]

— thoughts on calibrating the professional persona: Diplomacy or Dishonesty?

Growing up as a minister’s son in East Germany, I knew our phone was tapped. And whatever was on TV and in the newspaper, there was always the assumption that the “official story” was at best half the story – and most of the time significantly less than that. While I cannot remember my parents ever lecturing me on the subject, the result was an understanding that certain topics would not be discussed anywhere but among the closest relatives at home. Not expressing an opinion was the default position and that default rarely altered. When push came to shove – I gave lip service to the party line and propaganda that was well shared in the school system of the GDR.

So, was that dishonesty or necessity? In a recent conversation with my father about the realities of our lives now so long after the fall of the Berlin wall, he shared the following joke: “You know what they say about the difference between capitalism and communism? Well, in communism you can say whatever you want about your boss, but don’t you dare say anything about the government! ...Capitalism is just the other way around!”

It seemed that in those days before the fall of the wall I was always one of two individuals: Either the public persona: the reserved, unassuming kid; or – and only when this was possible in private: the inquisitive, unapologetic me. It was a rather automatic and internalized process – not really something I thought about or rationalized in any way. It took a while to realize that after 1989 that two-persona approach to daily life was no longer as necessary or as practical.

Now that I live in a country that prides itself on unrestricted opportunity, I continue to struggle with how uncensored my professional and other interactions should be. How forthright can I be with subordinates or superiors? To what level are professional relationships assumed to include a level of diplomatic banter that massages the message toward one’s own or some organizational agenda?

Being a manager in today’s complex economy; how honest, how “real” can one afford to be while maintaining authority and bolstering subordinates’ trust in the manager’s decision making? How might size and complexity of an organization, number of employees, and other factors affect the amount of stark honesty a manager would want to employ or could get away with? What considerations influence these decisions? How about professors and administrators in academic settings? Can you be more genuine in academia? A German professor found himself in court recently for suggesting that homosexual men tend to be pedophiles. And a professor at Indiana University is facing a backlash for his outspoken racism. Neither has lost his professorship as of yet. To be perfectly clear, I do not endorse the views of either – but the consequences seem different than if they worked in private business.

It would seem that there are always situational considerations to authenticity and honesty. Maybe that is why open honesty, as it is so often unexpected – can be winningly disarming – particularly after a screw-up! I also like to remind myself of this quote from the Dalai Lama: “When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new,” especially when someone is pushing my buttons. If you’re not sure what my buttons are - just ask my kids!

Check out NEXUS4change’s webinar series of 30-min. high-impact change tool talks. Check our events page [www.NEXUS4change.com/events] for more on the power of Design Teams, the Change Formula, Collaborative Roadmaps, Appreciative Benchmarking and more.

Diplomacy?

— Transforming Organizations, Revitalizing Communities and Developing Human Potential