There is a parable about planning that has circulated on email and on the internet that describes the phenomenon of “filtering” as well as any other explanation I have seen.
In the beginning was the plan, and then came the assumptions, but the assumptions were without form, and the plan was without substance. The workers spoke among themselves saying, "It is Bull, and it stinks.” The workers went to their supervisors and said. "It is a pail of dung and none can stand its odor.” The supervisors went to their managers and said "It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, so that none can come near.” And the managers went to their directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none can stand its strength.” The directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "This aids plant growth, and it is very strong." Then the directors went to the vice-presidents and reported, "This promotes growth and is very powerful." And the vice-presidents went to the President and told him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and efficiency of this company.” The President looked on the plan, saw that it was good, and the plan became policy.
This story is an example of what I call Type A filtering, i.e. others modify or censor the information that an individual receives. To protect themselves or to avoid unpleasantness, they filter out parts of the message to make it more palatable before they pass it along. In large bureaucracies, senior management often form falsely optimistic conclusions about organizational wellness because Type A filtering weeds out warning signs or other negative news before it reaches them.
There is a complementary process I call Type B filtering, which is the screening out of information that individuals do for themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously. The process differs, but the impact is the same. Filtering creates a distorted picture of reality by limiting the data that can be used to understand a person or situation. The chart below summarizes typical causes and effects.
| |
Filtered by Others
(Type A)
|
Filtered by Self
(Type B)
|
|
Possible Causes
|
Cover up problems
Minimize criticism
Gain approval
Avoid blame
Please others, esp. superiors
|
Preserve self-image
Achieve certainty
Avoid ambiguity
Satisfy conscience
Minimize conflicts with strongly held beliefs .
|
|
Possible Effects
|
Unpleasant surprises
Confusion
Poor decisions
Lack of accountability
Loss of credibility
|
Defensiveness
Over confidence
Poor decisions
Lack of accountability
Rigidity
|
The causes of filtering – whether Type A or Type B – are normal human behaviors. That is why filtering is so common. Nevertheless, the consequences are significant, especially for someone who wants to learn from experience. Because filtering distorts reality, it limits the opportunity to reach sound conclusions and make good decisions. Filtering creates the likelihood of repeating ineffective actions or patterns of behavior.
Any level of supervisor or executive, who faces Type A filtering as described in the opening parable of this chapter, needs to create an environment where truth-tellers get rewarded. This is easier said than done, because the temptation to “shoot the messenger” is a typical inclination of most organizations. They can maintain an illusion of safety and stability when uncomfortable messages are discouraged. Therefore a leader who wants to hear the truth must demonstrate that fact continuously. A single false step – or a report/rumor of a false step – will undo months of otherwise solid and consistent effort. Managers must not only be diligent about their behavior and that of their colleagues, they must also assume that filtering is still a fact of organizational life they must deal with.
Dealing with Type B filtering may prove to be even more challenging than Type A. We are often blind to behaviors in ourselves that we can see readily in others. We seldom see instances of our own filtering, so we must exercise personal honesty on a daily basis. Holding our own ideas as provisional and seeking out alternative perspectives are not practices that come easily. They may even be discouraged in some corporate settings where pride, confidence, and decisiveness are often confused with ability. A model to adhere to is the “Level 5” leader described by Collins in Good to Great. Such a leader combines personal humility with a passionate drive on behalf of the organization’s mission. Such a person avoids filtering for self-protection and personal enhancement, and serves as an exemplar of making experience matter.
Application: Assume that there is filtering in your organization. Demonstrate willingness to hear, listen to, and act on other perspectives. This will help reduce both Type A and Type B filtering. But remain alert; there will still be filtering, so you must also create accountability and follow-up mechanisms.