Censored

18/8/2016

I re-watched The Imitation Game and A Beautiful Mind this week. One of the things that occurred to me whilst enthralled by the brilliant portrayals of Alan Turing and John Nash was their apparent lack of social inhibition. They were willing to say the un-sayable, to challenge peers, authorities and so-called experts, unconstrained by established cultural and political norms. It’s as if this enabled them to think the un-thinkable too and I wonder how far this accounted for their incredible genius.

By contrast, a concern about offending is becoming increasingly commonplace in UK universities and, perhaps, wider Western liberal democracies as a whole. It’s tricky to balance freedom of speech with freedom from harm, especially in an age of extremism. However, as Joanna Williams (author of Freedom in an Age of Conformity, 2016) comments, what passes for formal education often appears more concerned now with social inclusion than with knowledge. What risks lay in this for us?

I spoke with some young people recently who commented on how scared they feel to say anything controversial at school. This is about more than holding and expressing a contrary opinion that others disapprove of. It is, in effect, about not being allowed to hold that opinion at all. This leads to self-censorship driven by social vetting by peers, often compounded by institutions. It can feel like only current mainstream views are permissible. All divergent views and voices are suppressed.

This has real implications for leadership, OD, coaching and training in organisations. What scope is there for truly radical creativity and innovation if people feel constrained from thinking the un-thinkable and imagining the un-imaginable? How can we model and support healthy, critical thinking and conversations? What can we do to spot and address it if a person or team is editing their questions, views and ideas to conform with what they perceive as culturally-acceptable norms?

39 Comments

Adrian Spurrell

19/8/2016 10:01:56 am

Completely agree. Free speech has to come first. We can then engage and move the abusive and hear and engage with the malcontents and disenfranchised. Stopping speech drives everything underground to fester. and as you point out - kills innovation and creativity.

Nick Wright

19/8/2016 10:11:04 am

Thanks Adrian. One thing I notice is how often 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from harm' are presented as a polarity, as if we must choose one or the other. A different way to look at this could be, for instance: we will safeguard freedom of speech as paramount and, given an environment in which freedom of speech is protected, we will consider - also - how to safeguard vulnerable people from potential or actual harm in that environment. This could involve building the resilience of people and groups who feel and/or are vulnerable rather than trying to reconstrue the whole cultural environment to avoid risk of offence. Easier said than done in practice though! Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Liné Rudolph

21/8/2016 05:27:06 pm

We experience the same in South Africa. I just wonder how we can use a caring approach to coach those that think before they speak. I tend to agree with Mr Brand Pretorius, former CEO of McCarthy....it is all about servant leadership. The way you express your mind can be build but need a sence of love... If clients use self-censoring, I think it is about giving them time to see you really care for them? It is a culture of Ubuntu that needs time to develop.

21/8/2016 05:45:05 pm

Hi Liné and thanks for the note. I found it very interesting to hear from your different cultural context. It sounds like it may depend on what is influencing a person or group's decision (insofar as it is a decision) to self-censor?

I have worked with people from 'restricted contexts' (that is, countries where it is risky or dangerous to speak openly) who have said that speaking cautiously - which is a form of self-censorship - becomes second nature in those contexts. Sometimes, these learned behaviours persist even if the perceived source of threat is removed.

I guess it may follow that, if we have learned to self-censor in one context (e.g. in a particular family, community, organisation etc), we may continue with that self-censoring behaviour even if we move into other contexts or different periods where the conditions that led to self-censorship no longer apply. A kind of learned reflex, so to speak.

I really like what you said about a love. Is your sense that love and servant spirit can create the conditions in which someone who is self-censoring may feel more able to open up and, perhaps, to reflect on their own self-censoring too? Can you say a bit more about Ubuntu? All the best. Nick

Laura Ayers

21/8/2016 06:48:34 pm

Having been a child during the 1960-70's, I watched as the generations ahead of me struggled within families, communities, employment and public policy they struggled about white supremacy and about poverty, class, gender, generational power and war. Because of that struggle, I live in a better country.

21/8/2016 06:57:12 pm

Hi Laura and thanks for the note. Your comments reminded me of Martin Luther King whose now-famous 'dream' was, at the time, unthinkable and unimaginable for many people in that context. You also reminded me of King's determination to take a stance that represented 'maladjustment', that is, a refusal to adjust to the social, political and economic dysfunctions of that time. You inspired me to revisit his speech on this topic: http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/10/martin-luther-king-1963-proud-be-maladjusted; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j-4cTtecuM All the best. Nick

Janice Tollini

22/8/2016 05:14:15 pm

Good insight. How can we grow if we continue to do what has always been done, never challenging the status quo? With that said, I believe in a certain amount of respect for tradition. Challenges and questioning needs to be done with equal respect.

22/8/2016 05:15:52 pm

Hi Janice and thanks for the note. Can you say a bit more about what lays behind, 'I believe in a certain amount for respect for tradition' for you? I'm interested to hear more! All the best. Nick

Aremin Hacobian

23/8/2016 09:04:32 am

This is so true especially for those immersed in the social media forums (Facebook, Twitter, etc) where dialogue is often eschewed in favor of put downs and shouting over people. There is very little active listening and embracing (with a true open mind) of differing perspectives for the sake of learning. Everyone wants to be "right". Implications for OD? Role model the behaviors that are often minimized by a society seeking conformity--name what we are observing and ask for reflections. In my opinion, much easier done face-to-face rather than online. Online, people have a persona they portray--breakthroughs may be easier in person.

23/8/2016 09:14:54 am

Hi Aremin and thanks for the note. Yes, some social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) seem to invite broadcasts rather than dialogue. Perhaps it's partly because there is such limited space to post anything of substance. Having said that, the spirit of many conversations on Twitter can mirror the spirit in wider society, that is, attempts to attack, ridicule or suppress the views of those who see and believe things differently. OD-wise, I agree that role modelling dialogue can be very powerful and that it is often easiest face to face. I think social media can play a useful role in OD too. You may be interested in this short related piece? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/leadership All the best. Nick

Christina Tralmer

24/8/2016 10:20:21 am

I think the current, sometimes extreme, emphasis on cultural fit during the hiring process and coaching candidates on the importance of mirroring during interviews can push the issue of conformity even further. If the goal is to consistently bring on and praise like-minded employees, it's no wonder so many people feel disengaged and under-utilized. Without fresh thinking, idea exchange, and debate how are people suppose to remain interested and build an emotional connection.

24/8/2016 10:20:55 am

Thanks for posting such interesting and stimulating insights, Christina. On the culture question, I once heard an inspiring leader from Google say that they hire people who (a) love their culture and (b) are willing to contribute to it.

In other words, rather than inculturating people, they attract and recruit people who share Google's core vision and values and are willing to shape it for the future - and that often involves radical innovation.

On the mirroring front, I worked with a coach training agency (3D Coaching) that had certain key principles that underpinned its practice. One was 'match for rapport; mismatch for change'. I think the mismatch principle resonates well with what you are saying here.

A challenge for organisations is sometimes how to intentionally create and capitalise on sufficient diversity to stimulate creativity and innovation - and yet how to avoid that same diversity tearing a team or organisation apart.

I was reading bits from the New Testament recently about the 'body of Christ' having lots of different but interdependent parts. In both places that the writer, Paul, talks about this, he immediately goes on to talk about the criticality of love.

We don't talk much about love in organisations but perhaps it's something like that - fostering relationships where there is sufficient care, commitment, forgiveness, trust etc. that enable us to hold very robust conversations without it feeling threatening.

All the best. Nick

Amanda Davie

24/8/2016 11:09:29 am

Would being uncomfortable with conflict and being unable to have difficult conversations fall under this self-censoring label?

I spent 15 years working in media agencies where forging deep and long-term client relationships is business critical. Often we would have clients who didn't have great interpersonal or social skills, and therefore couldn't convey what they wanted, didn't want, or what they were happy or unhappy with.

This is why having really strong EQ skills on the client servicing and account management teams is essential. As service providers we have to build empathy and excellent relationship skills so that we can 'overcompensate' and interpret for those clients who struggle to communicate effectively.

24/8/2016 11:15:22 am

Hi Amanda. I think that's such an interesting question. Yes, I guess people self-censor for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it is because of fear of conflict or of a felt inability to hold a difficult conversation. This means that creating the right relational, cultural and business conditions in the type of relationships you describe is so important. I would be interested to hear more about what you mean by 'overcompensate'. Can you say a bit more, perhaps with an example to illustrate it? All the best. Nick

Steve Kopp

24/8/2016 01:11:21 pm

It's interesting to hear about self-censoring when one of our current problems is dynamics of cyber-bullying - that people use the internet to say things they would never say aloud.

24/8/2016 01:19:40 pm

Thanks Steve. I think that's an interesting point. Cyber-bullying may be a dimension, an expression, of the same phenomenon. On the one hand, the risk of being bullied is one reason why people self-censor. On the other hand, some people who feel their voices are suppressed in the real world may find expression in cyber-world, especially if they can voice their views and feelings there anonymously. What do you think? All the best. Nick

Paul Kloppers

25/8/2016 09:02:50 am

In this sense, organisational culture could also determine the degree to which an organisation can effectively embrace (constant) change. An organisation that stifles creativity but wants to remain effective/competitive runs the risk of becoming obsolete.

25/8/2016 09:06:55 am

Hi Paul and thanks for the note. I agree. The organisations that are best able to stimulate and embrace change are often those whose cultures are most resilient - and this tends to be about agility adaptability rather than creating even stronger defences and barriers against change. Agility and adaptability require trust cultures where challenge, risk-taking and innovation are supported rather than directly or indirectly suppressed. Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Bernadette Willems, Business Peacemaker

25/8/2016 09:40:02 am

Interesting article and I mostly agree with it. I do however believe that when you are in position of leadership, 'A willingness to say the un-sayable, to challenge peers, authorities and so-called experts, unconstrained by established cultural and political norms.' can be dangerous and you have a responsibility to make sure your words are not divisive, or inflammatory. Take in point the US Presidential campaigns. Whoever wins, the words will have been spoken, and you cannot have an attitude of 'don't care, aprés moi le deluge'.

25/8/2016 09:58:32 am

Hi Bernadette and thanks for posting such helpful comments. I think you have highlighted a key point of tension in this whole area. On the one hand, I believe some of the behaviours we're witnessing in the national and international political arenas at the moment are a reaction (by a significant number of people) against a feeling of disenfranchisement and being, in effect, 'silenced' - often by what is referred to as 'political correctness' or 'the establishment'.

I think this is part of the backdrop to the alarming (in my view) rise of the far right throughout Europe. If people raise what they believe are legitimate concerns, e.g. around immigration, and are branded as racist, xenophobic etc, it creates a powder keg, a bit like a volcano building up pressure to erupt. As Martin Luther King said, 'Violence is the voice of the unheard.'

On the other hand we, and leaders in particular, need to be very careful about what narrative we construct and reinforce by the way in which we talk about e.g. ideas, questions, concerns etc. I think this is a real challenge for leaders, particularly in social media world: how to be authentic and, at the same time, to be care-ful. It feels like we are in new territory in this area - with some rough seas ahead.

A question I'm grappling with is how to find ways to hold authentic dialogue about things that interest and really matter to people that allow even the most extreme (which is a construct) views to be expressed rather than suppressed and, at the same time, to avoid creating or inflaming ideas and situations that can be incredibly destructive (again, a construct).

I'd be very interested to hear what ideas you have on this front. 'Business Peacemaker' is a great title, by the way! All the best. Nick

Jean-Luc Bernaud

26/8/2016 09:51:31 am

Thank you for this very interesting question. I work in Paris in a counseling and career counseling practice with several methods inspired by positive psychology. Self-censoring is still a work axis. It starts after at least an interview and with these questions: what do you allow yourself to do and say? And what you do not allow? Why, in your opinion, do you adopt this attitude? These simple questions are very high for the client participates in the analysis of its own social codes, its limitations and the social influence process he meets.

26/8/2016 09:57:59 am

Hi Jean-Luc and thank you for sharing such interesting insights. Exploring with a person what they 'allow' themselves (which is an indicator of self-censorship) to think, say, feel and do can be a great way to raise awareness of personal, relational, cultural and contextual beliefs, assumptions, influences, norms etc. I think a challenge that may follow is how to expand the client's scope for self-expression - if that is something they want to do - bearing in mind those wider influences and constraints and potential impacts on other people, relationships etc. How might you address that in your counselling practice? I'd be very interested to hear more. All the best. Nick

27/8/2016 12:21:01 pm

Thank you Nick. Indeed, the first step is very important : awareness. The second step - and it’s much more difficult in my point of view - is change. My experience is that this process is quite long ... one of the levers that seems interesting is vicarious learning (in Bandura’s theory): discover the course of people who have matured in their report to censorship can help to « cross the bridge ». It is an idea, which I use successfully ... You may have more! Warmly.

27/8/2016 12:28:05 pm

Hi Jean-Luc and thanks again for sharing such great insights. I'm not familiar with Bandura's theory but I can see how vicarious learning - similar to observing role models - could enable some people to imagine what a change could look and be like. It could also build their motivation and courage to make a change themselves.

In my experience, one of the tricky parts in making and sustaining change is that our behaviour is influenced by the relational and cultural contexts that we live and work in. Sometimes, therefore, a person is more able to make and sustain a change if they move into a different relational and cultural environment - e.g. to a different team, organisation, community etc.

All the best. Nick

Catherine Lastré

26/8/2016 09:59:11 am

Thank you for these very interesting réflexions and testimonies. Personally I tend to think that education and culture have a great impact on self-censoring. In organization, I have observed that the management culture shapes individual "words" and finally "thoughts". Even if some organization genuinely want to promote creativity and constructive conversations, the important is the "how" managers welcome this mindset. Not willing, or being able to question, be questioned, or change their views or even simple processes, and at the same time having a directive management style and power is inevitably creating a self-censoring attitude. It is very motivating as a coach to help organization better their performance WHILE changing this limitative mindset.

26/8/2016 10:12:33 am

Hi Catherine and thank you for expressing that so well. Yes, if we find that a person is self-censoring in an organisation, it is often an indicator of something about that organisation's culture. It may be amplified by things in the person's (and/or their community's) wider experience too. For example, if I have been taught as a child not to challenge people in authority, I may subsconsciously act this out in an organisation as an adult, even if I am unaware of it. I agree with you that leaders and managers have a signficiant impact on organisational culture. The language we use, the attitudes we display, the behaviours we adopt, the things we affirm, the policies we agree etc. all construct and reinforce important aspects of organisational culture including implicit messages around e.g. who and what is valued, who and what is acceptable, who and what is frowned upon etc. Does that resonate with your experiences too? All the best. Nick

26/8/2016 12:29:27 pm

Hello Nick, and thank you for your feedback. This resonates perfectly to me and my experience indeed. It's like an echo effect between the person's educational system and family and the organizational culture, at every level...All the best. Catherine

26/8/2016 12:30:14 pm

Thanks Catherine. I think 'echo effect' is a great way to describe it! All the best. Nick

Rod "RJ" Nafziger

26/8/2016 12:46:56 pm

Nick you make a great point. A conversation that is difficult to structure. How does a leader set the narrative in a diverse business environment? In a business setting there must be a Mission Statement, that needs agreement first and foremost. If there is not agreement in those points by all members then, there are not common interest. Other than small discussion their cannot be much conversation in a meeting. Leader needs to set the agenda and keep session on point. After all we still have a hierarchy structure. In a family setting issue is slightly different but again is starts with flexible planning and quarterly review on all 6 esteem fronts. Each then discussion as a team, adjust and then to work. We still perform best in a well structured environment. I think that structure is where true freedom comes from and everyone feels safe in that structure.

26/8/2016 12:50:32 pm

Hi Rod and thanks for posting such an interesting perspective. Yes, I think that if an organisation, team or meeting has a clear purpose and agreed ground rules, it can provide a framework for holding robust conversations where people feel less need to self-censor. Trust, support and understanding in relationships are important factors too. All the best. Nick

Laura Lingle

26/8/2016 09:46:44 pm

Is there a real threat of actual harm, or is this anxiety about some people not liking you? (The general you, not you personally.)

I am not qualified to diagnose or treat phobias, nor would I or can I or should I compel anybody to do or say something they do not wish to do. However, I can work to establish a certain level of trust and voice my expectations about that. I usually begin with "What happens in the class stays in the class."

Also, for better or for worse, you (general you) can control only yourself. Be impeccable with your words and never take anything personally. What others say or do is not about you. Speak up or whither into the background. People who prefer to whither than confront any issue ever... kind of deserve to whither back there while they figure out how to grow a spine. Depending upon your relationship with the jellyfish, you could point out your observations and encourage the person to stop hiding his light under a bushel.

26/8/2016 09:54:08 pm

Hi Laura and thanks for the note...and colourful metaphors! I think your question about whether the threat or harm is 'real' is an interesting and pertinent one to this debate. The weight of argument at the moment appears to be towards not saying or doing anything that you (general you) would find hurtful or offensive. In other words, it's how you experience it rather than whether the 'it' is threatening or harmful per se. Does that make sense? That begs the kind of questions you touch on, e.g. whether person/group A should avoid saying or doing anything that person/group B may find offensive, or whether person/group B should 'grow a spine' - or some combination of both or something else altogether. All the best. Nick

Pete Mosley

27/8/2016 10:18:32 pm

Thanks Nick for developing another interesting thread.

27/8/2016 10:19:12 pm

You're welcome, Pete. All the best. Nick

Yolanda Gray

29/8/2016 10:43:04 am

When you have the leader of the free world putting down or ridiculing the opposing side, blaming instead of trying to find dialogue, acting as a peacemaker, inviting free dialogue, you have an environment that is not free for challenging, discussing or giving an opposing view or even a solution.

I'm probably older than most of you here, but I remember when comedians would make fun of ethnic groups, religions and other cultural practices. I laughed out loud when they made fun of my ethnicity because it was stereotypically true and I know he/she wasn't begin malicious.

Now, we all walk on eggshells, hoping nobody will take a comment out of context, which by the way, the anti-riot comment by MLK didn't mean he wasn't anti-violence, or if one has an opposing viewpoint, he isn't marginalized or called names.

29/8/2016 10:43:58 am

Hi Yolanda and thanks for the note. What do you think accounts for how things have changed..? All the best. Nick

30/8/2016 09:10:43 am

Nick, as to your questions about what I believe accounts for the change--it's a spiritual (not a religious) issue. That's a deep discussion.

It's also a freedom issue--which here in the US we have the freedom to challenge or say what we think or feel. Except it seems these days, you need to be on the right side--that's the side where the pendulum is currently swing to.

Also, in my opinion only, when my grandparents immigrated here they accepted the cultural norms--no they embraced them--without feeling that they had to give up their own established traditions. They didn't expect this country to change everything to the way things were done in their country of origin. Assimilation--again another long, deep subject.They came here for the freedom to do this. Oh, all this and common sense which has completely left the country.

I was thinking this morning about Hunger Games--the trilogy--it is a reminder of what true oppression, marginalizing and control really looks like.

Tina Leibbrandt

29/8/2016 03:08:53 pm

Nick I find this a fascinating discussion. My first instinct was to disagree. There is such a groundswell of reframing, innovative thinking, questioning and creative thought.

People are encouraged to relook at almost everything in new and alternative ways. Within coaching itself, what we are offering is an environment that is safe enough and non-judgmental enough for our clients to share their views honestly.

But then again, the more I thought of this I realised that there are enormous areas that we are not encouraged to discuss openly. Top of mind are gender and race. This calls for more thought. Thank you for broaching the subject. I hope you get more responses. Tina

29/8/2016 03:28:51 pm

Thanks, Tina, for such an honest response. Yes, I agree that in what we may call a Western-postmodern culture, everything - at least in principle - is up for grabs. Everything, that is, until we touch on cultural taboos or deviate from the prevailing mainstream consensus in areas such as sexual identity, race, religion - and even culture itself.

I spent many years working in the international development sector where one of the most significant - and yet very rarely spoken about - influencing factors is culture. It's as if 'respect all cultures' is an unspoken cultural imperative that must not be broken. Only in recent years has the Western NGO sector been brave enough to challenge openly, e.g. child marriage and FGM.

A risk now is that a paradoxically illiberal-liberal agenda dominates Western mainstream thought and what is considered as legitimately discussable. Who decides, for instance, what is 'progressive'? I'm encouraged to see challenges arising to the 'political correct' vetting of conversations in Western universities and hope we can find a new and truly liberal form of dialogue and education.

All the best. Nick

Censored

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Censored

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives