Image - “The Intrigue” by James Ensor.
In Du côté de chez Swann, the first volume of Marcel Proust’s monumental In Search of Lost Time, the author delves deeply into the intricate nature of memory, perception, and human behaviour. One notable character, Aunt Léonie, views the world from her window through a distorted lens shaped by jealousy and insecurity. Her selective interpretation of reality serves to protect her constructed world and maintain a sense of superiority. Proust masterfully illustrates how personal biases, emotions, and desires can warp our perception, leading us to see what we want rather than what truly is.
We all navigate the world through personal “circles” of perception—some narrow, some wide—based on our capacity to handle complexity and openness to different views. These circles reflect how much of reality we allow ourselves to see and understand. When the stakes are high, these circles often constrict, narrowing our view to what feels manageable or safe. We tend to avoid challenging information that threatens our comfort zone, a natural response that can limit our understanding.
Aunt Léonie’s dismissal of Swann’s accounts perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. Her rejection of Swann’s observations isn’t just about ignoring facts; it’s about protecting a reality she has meticulously constructed. By filtering out information that disrupts her preconceptions, she maintains a sense of control and superiority. This selective perception is a common human trait, where intellect is employed to reinforce existing beliefs and confine understanding to what feels manageable.
Similarly, managers, especially those new to their roles or under significant pressure, often fall into this pattern. They might reject external input to safeguard their control or to avoid questioning their competence. This impulse to “take charge” can result in decisions based on a restricted or skewed view of reality, just as Aunt Léonie’s narrow circle prevents her from acknowledging Swann’s insights. Such “anti-perception” clouds judgement and can lead to misguided strategies and costly errors.
The impact of high-stakes pressure in the corporate world mirrors the emotional investment that drives Aunt Léonie’s perceptions. When faced with crises or ambitious goals, managers often turn inward, relying solely on their instincts and seeking validation from like-minded peers or by sticking to familiar practices, even when these may no longer fit the evolving business landscape. This behaviour aligns with Proust’s observations: people often distort their perception to match their internal beliefs, especially when they fear losing control.
Additionally, this inclination towards seeking validation from similar viewpoints can perpetuate the “cloning effect,” where diversity of thought is stifled. Managers might unconsciously surround themselves with people who reflect their own perspectives and experiences, rather than embracing diverse viewpoints that could challenge their assumptions. This organisational blind spot can lead to a lack of innovation and missed opportunities for growth, as the same thinking patterns are reinforced rather than expanded.
Studies show that leaders under stress frequently exhibit “confirmation bias,” seeking information that supports their existing views while ignoring contrary evidence. This tendency can lead to costly detours and abrupt course corrections in decision-making. By the time managers recognise their “oversights” or “errors in forecasting”—terms they may prefer to use for these blind spots, often after significant damage has been done—they may focus on quick fixes rather than addressing deeper, systemic issues. This approach can undermine trust and confidence within teams, perpetuating a cycle of poor decision-making and neglected root causes.
As managers navigate their teams, they might feel assured that they fully understand their organisation. However, this confidence can mask a more complex reality. Much like Aunt Léonie, who distorts reality to fit her self-image, managers may filter the information they share with their superiors or colleagues. Employees often do the same, influenced by fears of judgement or a desire to manage issues on their own.
This selective communication is a common behaviour, driven by the need to protect oneself. Ironically, while many organisations advocate for a culture of “empowerment” and “ownership”—implying trust and open dialogue—managers often tighten their control under pressure. This can stifle genuine empowerment, creating an environment where transparency is hindered by a lack of willingness to listen and confront uncomfortable truths.
True empowerment goes beyond implementing processes and tools; it requires a commitment to listening, welcoming challenges, and fostering an environment where dissenting views are valued. This is at the core of the contributor safety and challenger safety we aim to foster in the organisations we work with. Contributor safety allows team members to feel confident sharing their ideas, while challenger safety ensures they can question decisions or raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Without these critical elements, managers risk creating echo chambers where selective disclosure becomes routine, and real issues remain hidden.
In our conversations with managers, we often find that what’s shared with peers or higher-ups is sometimes carefully filtered. This isn’t surprising—certain challenges can feel more manageable when kept within our control, and we often wait to address issues until we believe we’ve found a solution. However, even well-meaning omissions can have unintended consequences, leading other departments to base decisions on incomplete or inaccurate information.
As you reflect on the following areas, consider how selective disclosure, while sometimes tempting, might affect the broader picture for your organisation:
1. Operational Problems
Have there been situations where small operational failures or resource shortages were downplayed to avoid signalling a lack of control, especially when you thought these issues could be resolved quickly? If other departments rely on this information for their planning, how might such restraint create ripple effects? For example, incomplete information could impact their scheduling or resource allocation, leading to coordination issues or project delays.
2. Employee Issues
Handling low morale or internal conflicts quietly can seem like the best approach to protect your leadership image. However, if key team members are disengaged or at risk of leaving, might delaying the disclosure of these issues undermine efforts across teams that depend on your staff? Additionally, when employees discuss motivational problems among themselves, could this lead to broader discontent and mistrust, affecting team cohesion and productivity?
3. Project Delays
When projects experience delays or budget overruns, it’s natural to want to address the issues before drawing attention to them. But if timelines and budgets aren’t communicated promptly, could this disrupt the plans and expectations of other teams relying on your project’s progress? Lack of transparency might lead to misaligned priorities and impact overall project coordination, affecting the organisation’s ability to meet its goals.
4. Dissenting Opinions
If you’ve had reservations about a strategy but chose to keep them to yourself to avoid challenging authority, might this short-term harmony come at the cost of long-term problems? Addressing dissenting opinions early could prevent costly mistakes and lead to a more robust decision-making process. Could the avoidance of these discussions lead to issues surfacing later, potentially causing greater disruptions?
5. Performance Metrics
Presenting performance data in a more favourable light to buy time for a turnaround can sometimes mislead others about staffing numbers and workload appropriateness. This might create a false sense of security, leaving the team under constant pressure to meet targets. Over time, could this misalignment result in increased stress and burnout as the team struggles to cope with unrealistic demands? Ensuring accurate and transparent performance metrics can help maintain realistic expectations and support a healthier, more sustainable work environment.
6. Client or Customer Complaints
Delaying the disclosure of client issues or complaints until a solution is found might seem responsible, especially if the problem seems manageable. However, could waiting too long lead to greater damage if the situation worsens or if others managing the client are caught off guard? Early and transparent communication can help address issues more effectively and maintain stronger client relationships.
7. Personal Challenges
It’s common to internalise stress, burnout, or work-life balance issues, particularly in leadership roles. But if these challenges affect your decision-making or team dynamics, could keeping them to yourself lead to broader impacts on both your performance and your team’s wellbeing? Openly addressing these challenges, when appropriate, can foster a more supportive work environment and enable you to seek necessary support or adjustments.
8. Internal Politics
Avoiding discussions of internal politics or power struggles might seem like a way to prevent unnecessary drama. However, could failing to address these dynamics allow issues to fester and affect the broader team or organisation in ways that might have been preventable? Open discussions about internal politics can help resolve conflicts and prevent them from escalating, leading to a healthier organisational culture.
Each of these areas provides an opportunity to reflect—not to assign fault, but to recognise where the drive to keep things under control or avoid scrutiny might inadvertently affect the wider organisation. Increased openness in these areas could contribute to more informed decision-making and stronger collaboration across the board.
External leadership coaches and management mentoring programmes are instrumental in addressing these challenges. Their unbiased perspectives reveal blind spots that internal leaders might overlook. They are adept at identifying hidden issues, promoting transparency, and facilitating open conversations.
In our work, we provide neutral mediation, pinpoint process improvements, and support leadership development. By fostering a psychologically safe environment, we create a space where team members can comfortably share concerns and challenge the status quo. This approach ultimately contributes to a more transparent and empowered organisational culture.
In summary, while managers may believe they have a clear understanding of their teams, the reality is often more complex. Like Aunt Léonie’s skewed view of reality, managers who resist external input or fail to embrace diverse perspectives risk leading their organisations into avoidable pitfalls. Engaging with external coaches can break through layers of selective disclosure, fostering a culture of openness that enhances decision-making and organisational success.
As you reflect on your leadership role, consider how your practices might shape the transparency and effectiveness of your team. Are your actions genuinely fostering an environment of empowerment and autonomy, or are they inadvertently reinforcing control and limiting openness? Embrace the opportunity to challenge your own assumptions and practices. What does true empowerment mean to you, and how can you ensure it translates into genuine autonomy for your team? The path to effective leadership and organisational success lies in confronting these questions honestly and taking deliberate steps to cultivate a culture of transparency and trust. The future of your team—and your own leadership—depends on it.
Comments