How Can They Not Understand That? Making the Implicit, Explicit
I've always loved invisible ink.
There's something there, but it's not there. Workplace expectations and practices are sometimes like that. For some, they are as clear as can be. Often, that's because they helped create them, or they represent a way of doing things that has existed for so long no one can remember who decided it to begin with. This article isn't about eliminating existing practices. I've written other articles to help you decide which walls in your organization are load-bearing and which may now need to be torn down. This article is about the ways of doing things — big or small — that we assume others will see and understand as clearly as we do, and our frustration when they cannot.
A few weeks ago, I spent the day doing a Gentelligence workshop with some outstanding physicians at a medical school. Much of the time was spent focusing on the challenges they encountered with residents, and how many of the long-standing best practices in the field (not medical ones per se, but rather those related to aspects such as professionalism and communication) seemed to be eroding. Whether it was responding to emails in a timely way or understanding that "optional" social gatherings weren't actually optional, but important for building culture, "they just don't seem to get it" was a common refrain.
As I listened, a question occurred to me. Gentelligence is always about uncovering the why behind generational differences and understanding the root problem so we can have smarter intergenerational conversations. So I asked: "Why do we think the younger generation would know or understand this? Have you explicitly told them this is the expectation?"
I bet you can guess what the answer was: "We shouldn't have to tell them, they should just know." But why would they? I frequently discuss in my work how norms evolve over time and why, as well as how we should refrain from judging norms that don't align with our own as wrong, regardless of whether we are older or younger members of the workplace. However, there are some norms we need to align on to maintain a strong organizational culture and work together effectively. Some norms don't belong to a particular generation, but are essential to a profession. When it comes to those norms (what I would call those load-bearing walls), we often assume that they will make as much sense to those walking in the door as they did to us, or that through magic means (telepathy? osmosis?) the next generation will seamlessly absorb them and act accordingly. How's that working?
We need to make the implicit, explicit. If we implicitly just know or understand something as a member of a culture or organization, we need to resist assumptions (Gentelligence Practice #1!) that those who are significantly older or younger will find that obvious as well. Instead, we need to explicitly set the standard again and again. And beyond this, when we are explicit about that standard, we need to explain why. Why does this practice matter here? Why is it so important to our profession? What have you seen happen when it didn't occur, or what are you concerned the result will be if it disappears?
Let's take communication norms, which do evolve for logical reasons. Let's say we have a norm that we have pressure tested and are confident is still relevant and mission-critical, such as responding to an email from a supervisor or client within a reasonable time. (If you've been paying attention, you might have caught what I just did there. The word "reasonable" is subjective, and we need to make that explicit as well).
I have actually lived this example. I direct our Center for Business Leadership at my university, and in the last few years, more time was being spent chasing down responses to emails and invitations than I care to admit. I was incredibly frustrated, especially because our students are on the whole quite responsible. I was assuming they implicitly understood something that no one ever had to tell me explicitly: when someone in charge sends you an email, you respond as soon as possible. When they weren't exhibiting this same practice, it was easy to jump to all kinds of judgments and conclusions, none of which were helpful or made it more likely they would magically respond. I heard this same concern during my medical school visit: physicians concerned their residents would be perceived by others as rude because of their non-responsive tendencies.
Instead, we took the leap and decided to set the standard explicitly. We waited and announced the standard independent of any specific message or any recent frustration; rather, we rolled it out as a best practice we expected everyone in the organization to embrace: emails from leadership denoted "action required" were expected to have a response within 24 hours. We made sure to explain why it was important (remember, our youngest generation in the workplace has grown up with unlimited access to explanations thanks to Siri, Alexa, and Google, so context is essential).
In our case, we simply said, "As a center devoted to developing future business leaders, we wanted to implement a standard we believe will serve you well: a 24-hour response rule. When you receive an email from leadership with an "action-required" subject line, we expect that you will respond within 24 hours, and we will do the same. While individuals differ in their communication habits, this practice balances respect for our own time and that of others, while also helping to build your reputation as someone who is both reliable and professional. We look forward to how this shared standard will help improve our work and our culture. Please let us know if you have any questions."
It's been about a year since we implemented this standard. While I won't pretend we have perfect adherence, I have noticed a definite shift. Those who are committed to the organization now definitely respond much more quickly, as the expectation has been made explicit. Some do not, but we have found that this is often a symptom of a deeper problem, typically overall disengagement or a lack of interest. The standard has enabled us to identify those issues more quickly than we did previously.
What practices or expectations in your organization need to move from implicit to explicit?
