The Conspiracy of Silence

Its been a while since my last posting as I been coming to grips with this new year and all its challenges. With the start of the new year, we have seen many resolutions come and go. Promises we have made to ourselves have come and gone. Some we have kept, others...well...let's not get into that.

Another year of experience has been added to our lives. We have seen Kenya aflame and the ashes are still warm, though the Kriegler Commission will be assured of a tough task ahead with many expectations hanging in the air. We've seen protest season open after presidential elections in Georgia (including a referendum on Nato membership) and Armenia with opposition protests and a state of emergency declared in Yerevan. After the eventful run-up to the Pakistani elections we were all relieved to see an outcome not contested by an orgy of violence. Zimbabwe prepares for its election on Saturday, 29 March, with a new political rival emerging to contest the presidential seat.

With everyone being a year richer, what has changed in the management inside EMBs? From recent discussions with colleagues it seems that nothing much has changed. Those in middle management still participate in what I call "the conspiracy of silence." I know this is a generalisation, but unfortunately I see it all too often. In an attempt not to land in trouble or ruffle too many feathers, middle managers conspire unspokenly together to cover up any bad news that may stress executive or top management. They "collude" behind the scenes to get the work done, cover up any transgressions, paper over any mistakes and generally keep the spotlight off themselves, unless it is of course serving a good cause. It is not done openly or even voiced, but silently there is an agreement on the conspiracy. In the process the work gets done and top management are none the wiser. Some may say its a cultural thing to show respect for your elders in this way. Others simply find it to be career-limiting to speak up and identify problems in public forums such as management meetings. Maybe its status-driven? Who knows?

The critical thing is that this "conspiracy of silence" serves no one. In the world of elections, speaking the truth inside an EMB is essential component for the management of crisis and other related problems. If top management don't know about a problem, then they can't deal with it. Some problems are so small that they need not attract serious attention. However, how can this be judged if it is never known about? Inasmuch as this conspiracy is agreed to amongst managers (without any clear intention to do so), it does pose a question about the organisational culture that has been created within the EMB.

How does top management react when they come to hear of a problem? Do they simply shoot the messenger? If criticism or honest problem-raising is not something condoned within the EMB, how can there be an expectation that issues will get raised properly? I've seen managers shot down in flames for raising issues that require the entire institutional attention simply because it is an unpopular opinion or the timing is perhaps not right. What kind of institutional culture is being developed in these instances? Are managers getting the message to "know their place" and continue this conspiracy.

Let's strive to get this conspiracy out in the open and have honest discussions about some of the problems we are experiencing. We will all be enriched without prolonging meetings unnecessarily. This way we can tackle real issues and deal with potential flash-points that might be looming on the horizon. Encourage people to speak up and actively show through your actions that the conspiracy is in fact against the ethic of honesty and transparency. People trust actions better than words. So, look carefully at what you do. Examples of actions to demonstrate openness in an EMB are welcomed. Offer your opinion on this matter and let's hear more views.