Have you ever laughed out loud after reading a Dilbert carton? Scott Adams created Dilbert, the office truth-teller, after working in a corporate bureaucracy.
In one of his favorite cartoon strips, he shows Dilbert in a meeting where the boss is saying, “From now on, we will refer to “problems” as “opportunities.” In the next frame, a secretary enters the room and tells the boss, “One of your idiot spawn was playing with the oven and burned your house down.” In the last frame, an employee turns to the boss and asks, “Camping opportunity?”
Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) photocredit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
But Eric McNulty, the Associate Director of National Preparedness believes that Dilbert-like skewering of corporate-speak can be harmful. He writes,” we need to remember that our words will determine our future and the futures of our companies, industries and societies.” Choosing words to realistically describe future risks in facing potentially catastrophic disruptions in “technology, climate and geopolitics” is critically important. In fact, our word choices have never mattered more. Choosing the wrong words may well be one of the biggest risks in business.
Like junk food, “junk words” lack vital nutrients. They can harm our economic, cultural, and physical well-being. Whenever we call problems “opportunities”, or use words like “punt” to dress up a decision that avoids a more difficult, but better decision – we are choosing fear over candor. This will limit our ability to see practical solutions to problems. We will more likely mislead ourselves into believing what is expedient – and untrue.
To counteract this risk, McNulty recommends avoiding imperfect words like “consumers,” “empower,”, and “align.” He dislikes the word “consumers” because it suggests that humans are mere units of economic activity, rather than individuals with special dreams, needs, talents and hopes. He prefers the word “people.”
But why not use the word “humans?” Today, when our life-style and business choices are putting our planet’s survival at risk, “humans” puts “people” in an evolutionary context. It recognizes that we are just one species out of the roughly 1.3 million species on the planet. It reminds us that our human gift of symbolic language can be used to evolve intelligently, not stupidly.
Porto, Portugal2018 LJ Rittenhouse
It recognizes we have unique super powers – and therefore – responsibilities to protect natural systems that make all life possible. Would P&G invent different kinds of products if they were designing them for humans, instead of consumers?
McNulty also dislikes the word “empower.” It is an industrial-age word from a time when command-and-control was the preferred management style. It implies that I will bestow power on you, if I believe you are worthy. Not only is this condescending, it ignores a truth of our time: if humans are going to survive the increasing threats from exponential disruptions, we must fully access and share our creative and scientific imaginations. McNulty suggests replacing the word “empower” with “inspire.”
“Inspire” is a word that dates back to medieval times and literally means “breath” as in the breath of life, of God. It recognizes that leaders must not only imagine strategies and actions, but also visions. Sure, some CEO visions are lists of depressing platitudes, but others can breathe new life into old ways of acting and organizing.
Finally, think about the word “alignment”. It makes McNulty think of a hierarchical organization chart, in which job titles are arranged from the most to the least powerful; where communication flows downward, not up. This linear structure distracts leaders from seeing strategic context. It blinds them from seeing the quality of relationships between positions.
Try using the word “balance” to replace “align.” Instead of a top-to-bottom hierarchical structure, imagine a business that is organized as a networked, interdependent model like this:
Candor Analytics2018 Rittenhouse Rankings, Inc.
Business success in this organization is based on a CEO’s commitment to candor, a word which means “to shine light into dark places.” When leaders take candor seriously, they will inspire authentic communications that can advance the execution of strategy, inspire credible visions, demonstrate accountability, practice capital stewardship and activate stakeholder empathy.
Can executive candor influence financial performance? Research over the past decade shows that companies excelling in candid communications posted returns that, on average, were two times greater than market. Conversely, companies that failed to demonstrate candor have consistently underperformed the market.
Why is executive candor linked to success? Because candor builds trust and nurtures positive, corporate growth cultures. Without trust, corporate creativity, resilience and vision cannot thrive, capital will be wasted, and jobs will be destroyed. In other words, McNulty’s mission to replace weak words with strong words cannot only defuse business risk, it can also grow profits and returns.
It’s time to take Dilbert seriously and not just as satirical humor. Relying on corporate-speak over candor is risky business. We humans can change this.
Read again How to Defuse The Biggest Risk in Business : https://ift.tt/2qGQ2HxBagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How to Defuse The Biggest Risk in Business"
Post a Comment