Episode 110

In the previous episode of the series, we discussed our first major dilemma – whether the leader should follow the process or bend the rules. Today, we are travelling through the next land in an attempt to find answers regarding sharing information with our team. The question today is – should the leader be fully transparent with whatever is going on around, or rather shield the team from all the bad news? Beware, here be monsters.

Monsters Behind the Glass

The team may encounter several types of monsters on their quest. The company may be in financial trouble – there may be grim news of layoffs or painful cost cuts. The future roadmap of a product the team is working on may be in doubt. There may be some management turmoil. Perhaps a toxic attitude toward the team from someone high up in the organization. A non-constructive feedback from short-tempered clients.

Or just a lot of noise that’s usually only visible to the leader because of his role, formal access, contacts, and information flow, but not visible to regular employees. All those monsters are stalking just outside the window, they are not going to attack just yet, but they could definitely be seen. So the question is, should the leader keep that window open for everyone to see, or should he draw the curtains and shield the team from all of this in the hope of preserving their morale? If we can’t see the monster, then the monster isn’t there, right? Right…?

Shielded Morale

Shielding the team from all possible negativity of the outside environment and letting them focus on their work seems like a good idea at first. It seems that if there is no bad news, the team will be happy and feel secure, and productivity will skyrocket. But sometimes no news is worse than bad news. People talk and gossip, information may leak, and there might be clues from outside of the company. Everyone may connect the dots on their own and come up with their own story or explanation of what’s really happening, and there may be many versions. People may lose confidence in their leader. Often we end up in a worse situation than if we were just transparent. Shielding from bad information does not equal high morale and this article’s title is purposely deceitful.

On the other hand, not everyone needs all the information. We’re already overloaded with input in our lives and work, and adding anything that’s not really necessary or helpful is a waste. Also, if our communication setup requires everything to go through the team leader, he may actually be the bottleneck and weak link, slowing down and hindering the work.

In Plain Sight

High transparency has its benefits. People want to understand not only what they are doing, but also why they are doing it. Being transparent about certain elements of the business and high-level corporate strategy can help here. You can refer to Simon Sinek’s book “Start with Why” to dive much deeper into this.

Being transparent, or sometimes even over-transparent, helps build trust with the leader. It makes you feel a little closer to the action, closer to the decisions and their impact. One of my managers in one of the projects used to tell me in our 1on1 meetings “Hey Paweł, I shouldn’t really be telling you this, but this and that is going to happen in a few days in the company”. It felt somehow good, maybe a little rebellious, but in the end I think it helped my morale.

The Flow

The flow of information in the company is complex and has a life of its own. Similar to what we discussed in the previous article in this series, we can try to think of it in terms of software systems, such as networks of nodes in different subnetworks, labels, and layers. Certain packets are routed here and there and forwarded or sent based on rules and policies. But that’s naive. The real world and real people don’t work that way. We have our emotions, fears, desires, weaknesses, and levels of extraversion. Leaders have different styles, and while one might withhold certain information, the other might happily share it under seemingly the same circumstances. Also, the most interesting insider information is probably shared during integrations after a few beers or shots. Life.

The Line

We may have weaker or stronger restrictions on sharing information. Sometimes it may not be officially stated that something cannot be shared with your team. Sometimes it may be up to the team leader. Sometimes we follow unwritten rules and use our judgment. Other times we’re told not to share information, but we do it anyway if we think it’s a good decision. A lot depends on the situation, the people involved, and the culture of the organization, but also whether it affects the privacy of other people or formal rules, such as contractual NDAs, or rules imposed by law, such as GDPR.

What’s the Goal?

We’ve gone through a lot of pros and cons that could push you to one extreme or the other in terms of shielding your team from interactions, as well as some complications around that. So what do you ultimately do, dear leader, with all the monsters big and small behind the window?

The most important question to ask here is what we want to achieve by sharing the information. What will be the result of our action? What will people do with this information, how will they feel, will it help them or is there a risk that it will hurt them? How would you feel in their place if you heard this from your leader? As always, there is no silver bullet or universal answer to this question, as it also depends on the personality of the individual. Fortunately, leaders’ words are not the only source of information for their teams – we have Slack channels, emails, company blogs, recordings of CEO speeches, town halls, etc. There is a lot of information to be shared, and each team member can decide whether they are interested or want to avoid the noise.  Still, what you choose to say or keep to yourself is an important decision.