See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Photo: orvalrochefort.
In his recent book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell introduced me to the idea of Mitigated Speech a linguistic term describing deferential or indirect speech inherent in communication between individuals with a perceived High Power Distance. Gladwell defines mitigated speech as "any attempt to downplay or sugarcoat the meaning of what is being said." The greater the perceived difference in social status between individuals (Power Distance), the more difficult it becomes for an individual of lower status to communicate in direct terms with the superior.
There are 6 degrees of mitigation with which we make suggestions to authority:
- Command: "Strategy X is going to be implemented."
- Team Obligation Statement: "We need to try strategy X."
- Team Suggestion: "Why don't we try strategy X?"
- Query: "Do you think strategy X would help us in this situation?"
- Preference: "Perhaps we should take a look at one of these Y alternatives."
- Hint: "I wonder if we could run into any roadblocks on our current course."
The term Power Distance was coined by Dutch organizational sociologist Geert Hofstede who defined it as: "the extent to which a society accepts hierarchical differences." Power Distance is determined by measuring people's attitudes in a series of questionnaires, and, not surprisingly, it turns out that different cultures have different levels of Power Distance. Some cultures have small Power Distance (e.g. Australia, Austria, Denmark). In these cultures, people tend to relate to each other more as equals, and subordinates are more comfortable challenging those in positions of power. In cultures with large Power Distance (e.g. Malaysia and Slovakia), people expect relationships to be more autocratic. Subordinates accept the power of their superiors based on their hierarchical positions. In cultures with High Power Distance it is much more difficult for subordinates to communicate in direct terms than in cultures with Low Power Distance. This can raise significant cross-cultural issues.
Gladwell illustrates the degree to which mitigated speech can be detrimental in high risk situations which require clear communication--including a number of commercial airline crashes in the late '90's. He offers an example of an airline crash investigation that showed how, because of mitigated speech, the control tower was unaware of an emergency onboard an incoming aircraft. The aircraft's co-pilot [subordinate] who was communicating with a control tower (superior) hinted at a serious problem ("we're running low on fuel") rather than being clear and direct ("We have an emergency. You need to bring us in NOW").
So, what does any of this have to do with design? If Mitigated Speech can bring down an airplane, surely it can bring down a product development program. In the ideas around mitigated speech, I see a connection to my own experiences in product development. In a studio environment like ours at Artefact, complex programs are tackled by work-teams comprised of people of different levels of experience and responsibility: junior people, senior people, principals, and directors. Counterparts in our clients' organizations and in our partners' organizations also span the range from junior to C-level. Decision making happens at all levels in both cases. Add on top of this the dynamics of a client-consultant relationship, and it's easy to see that our environment creates plenty of hierarchy and, consequently, plenty of mitigated speech.
(more...)