Mastering the art of addressing tough topics is a vital skill that bolsters both personal and professional relationships. Equally crucial is the ability to listen to information and perspectives that unsettle us. Failing to do so may confine us to echo chambers, ultimately diminishing our effectiveness.
Reversing the Manure to Fertilizer Cycle
An executive once told me that the higher you climb in an organization, the more the information you receive resembles fertilizer rather than manure. This metaphor highlights how people often sanitize information, obscure problems, and depict situations more favorably than they are.
He emphasized that a leader’s role involves probing deeply to unearth the “manure,” including identifying omitted data, recognizing unheard voices, and distinguishing root causes from superficial issues.
Leaders who cultivate a reputation for penetrating the superficial noise ensure that their teams remain vigilant. This environment discourages obfuscation, prompting individuals to either rise to the occasion or exit. Such dynamics progressively fortify the organization.
Being Approachable
In contrast, leaders who penalize messengers discourage open communication. A notable example is Elon Musk, who in 2018 dismissed a new delivery operations executive for predicting Tesla’s production capabilities could fall short of his expectations. Her figures aligned closely with eventual output. This generated negative publicity for Musk without boosting productivity.
Leaders deemed unapproachable often remain uninformed about critical issues. Their eventual departure can leave a legacy of unresolved challenges, or they may struggle to mobilize necessary support while in charge. Proactive leaders, however, prefer early warnings about emerging problems, to have enough time to get ahead of them.
Creating a Culture of Truth-Telling
Truth-telling is facilitated in environments where leaders genuinely value transparency. For instance, in 2 Samuel 12:1-14 Nathan effectively advised King David using a parable, leveraging his understanding of the king’s empathetic yet flawed nature, as we discussed in the previous article. King David had the original “When you’re a star, they let you do it” attitude yet he was willing to repent when the prophet called out his entitlement.
Similarly, companies like Pixar encourage rigorous, candid feedback during internal previews, resulting in consistently successful films. Conversely, organizations under authoritative figures, from corporate leaders to religious institutions, might suppress dissent, fostering systemic issues rather than addressing them.
In an interview on The Roys Report, Tim Alberta, author of The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, observed, “The church’s great weakness at an institutional level — and to be clear, this is common among all institutions — is an unwillingness, and perhaps more commonly an inability, to police itself.”
An example of this is the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) handing of misconduct allegations. Prominent voices like
and urged the association to study the issue closely and establish new forms of accountability. Meanwhile, many other leaders preferred to treat incidents as isolated cases. They effectively shut down broader investigation that could have uncovered uncomfortable truths.Courage to Uncover Root Causes
Nathan’s success with King David wasn’t just due to his storytelling; it was his direct approach to confronting underlying issues, challenging the king’s entitlement and immediate desires without offering superficial remedies.
Likewise, business leaders are often positioned to tackle systemic problems rather than merely addressing symptoms. This requires not only strategic questioning but also a commitment to thorough, integrated solutions.
In my time as a product manager, I saw this firsthand. Whether wrangling with stubborn technical issues or fielding endless questions until we found the bottleneck, these experiences were always better than dealing with executives who would rather not get their hands dirty digging in on intractable challenges.
Making Hard Reflection a Habit
Developing routines of introspection and continual improvement prepares us to manage difficult discussions effectively. Whether analyzing project outcomes or challenging our own media biases, such habits fortify our capacity to engage with uncomfortable truths.
Today, many organizations lack this reflective discipline. As Kaitlyn Schiess, author of The Ballot and the Bible observed “It is incredibly rare — in biblical history and in our own history — to be able to hear the word of the Lord as a word against our own interests.” She cautions it’s a red flag if our reading of “Scripture condemns sin in others, never in ourselves.” Encountering divine or moral challenges that confront our own biases is rare.
In the business realm, a reflective practice can reveal not only our strengths, but also the advantages held by competitors, equipping sales teams to better navigate market realities.
Conclusion: You CAN Handle the Truth
In the movie “A Few Good Men,” Jack Nicholson’s character asserts “You can’t handle the truth,” rejecting a prosecutor’s questioning about the deadly hazing of a cadet. Unlike Nicholson’s character, we should aspire to be more like King David — open to correction and eager for truth, enabling us to rectify mistakes and discover innovative solutions.
Embracing truth is not just possible; it is essential for growth and integrity. We must prioritize and cultivate the habits that embed this capability into our character.
Thanks for your ongoing inspiration, @Karen Swallow Prior