The value of collectively shutting up

My generation grew up with the quote 'Silence is golden'. And my mother also used to say, 'If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all'. Another stellar quote, in my opinion. We were encouraged not to open our mouths on all occasions as young adults, and as children, we were strictly instructed not to. Overall, we were raised to not talk back to our parents or elders. The key word was respect. We were taught to respect our parents and/or elders whether we liked it or not, and whether or not they actually deserved it. When I was around twelve years old, I began to understand that not all adults deserved my respect. But I didn't tell them that to their faces. I simply tried to avoid having anything to do with them whenever possible, which was not always easy. But not always opening my mouth to tell people what I thought--of them or about specific issues--was valuable training. 'Think before you speak' was one of those quotes that took root in my brain from very early on. I learn to be a bit wary of people who were quick to tell you their opinions, who were quick to judge others, who were quick to shift their opinions, and who tended to dominate with their opinions.

But back to the first two quotes. The world appears to have forgotten their value. Every time we turn around, some pundit is telling us what he or she thinks. The media and just about everyone else have an opinion about everything. Everyone is an expert on just about everything. I respect those people who when asked for their opinion, are honest and say they don't have one, or that they don't know enough about the situation to have a conclusive opinion, or something along those lines. I also respect those people who take their time in answering a question about how they think or feel about something. I fall into the latter group--someone who doesn't always have a ready answer or an immediate opinion, someone who needs to retreat into herself in order to think about what she really thinks and feels about a specific situation. I would say that my opinions about things are for the most part well-reasoned. I don't tend to 'open my mouth and insert foot'. I like working with and associating with people who are not quick to open their mouths with their opinions about everything under the sun. Modern workplaces encourage employees to brainstorm. It's all well and good, but again, the opinionated people tend to dominate. Those who wish to think about a specific issue, or who need time to do so, do not. In the world at large, it's the brash and the aggressive people who dominate in the media. Turn on the TV news, and there's another story about Trump--always larger than life, and who never shuts his mouth. After a while, you lose interest. Everything is drama, over-the-top drama. Everything is a crisis, except that it's not. The crises are Trump-made, and he uses them for all they are worth. He incites his followers, many of whom adopt his opinions uncritically. Trump is one example; the media generally are another example of those who never shut their mouths. They are paid to keep talking, to keep spouting the same story, the same rhetoric, over and over. I miss the days when I sat with my father on a Sunday afternoon and watched 'Meet the Press' with him. The debates were interesting; it was possible to listen to reasoned opinions from both political sides without name-calling, harassment, degradation or embarrassing situations. I don't want a world where the press is muzzled; I would appreciate a press that used more time on figuring out what is worth reporting and how to do so. Not everything is interesting, nor does absolutely everything need to be dissected ad nauseam.

I think we need to take a break from talking all the time. We need some silence. We need time to evaluate whether the opinions we are spouting are well-reasoned, and whether they are really our opinions or the opinions of media and political pundits. The world would benefit from a 'collective shut up', e.g. one day a week. We could use that day to digest the news and current events; we could figure out what we really want from our politicians and from the media. Or we could just 'enjoy the silence' as Depeche Mode sings. Whatever we use the day for, it's got to be a better use of our time than being the passive recipients of a constant bombardment of others' opinions. It may even help us to learn to better communicate. Because when we are constantly being bombarded, we lose our footing and we end up adrift. We end up irritated, confused, and even angry--angry at those people and situations that are constantly destroying our peace of soul and peace of mind. That cannot lead to anything good.

Reflections on communication

Much is written these days about the importance of communication and of being able to communicate regularly, properly and well. We live in a society that prioritizes communication in all its forms: regular mail, emails, text messages, telephone calls, instant messaging, multi-media sharing, TV, radio, newspapers, books, movies, internet, etc. There are so many ways to communicate as well as a huge emphasis on doing so. One need only walk down a city street or order a coffee in a local café to register that we as a society are connected to others on a nearly-constant basis. One is constantly bombarded with individuals talking into mouthpieces that one cannot see; I have wrongly assumed several times that I am being followed by a crazy person talking to himself or herself, until I realize that no, he or she is talking to another person on an otherwise hidden phone with an invisible headset. We have a plethora of ways to communicate and a plethora of devices with which to communicate, and yet, relationships between people on personal as well as global levels have not noticeably improved, evolved, or reached perfection during the past decade. The latter is an impossible goal anyway, although advertising would have you believe that as long as you are connected to everyone around you at any given time, you can achieve communication nirvana. I cannot understand that there is so much to say to anyone that one must be connected at all times to another person, be that person a spouse, a child, a friend, a colleague, or a parent.

I don’t know when silence and reflection became de-prioritized in our society. I only know that I prioritize them more than ever before, in a society that cannot be quiet. It does not even attempt to be silent at times, except during very rare moments of global silence in response to a death or a historical event. I go to work and am told I must network and communicate more with my colleagues. I thought that is what I have been doing, when necessary, all these years. I don’t need to be told to do more of it. I don’t wish to burden my co-workers with every single thought that emanates from my brain. Because what happens is that words become devoid of meaning, messages become empty, and people become weary of the ennui associated with ‘communication’. Besides self-promotion, I detect a note of desperation in the constant cry for attention on the part of administrators and other well-meaning souls who simply cannot accept that not everything they say is worth listening to in a work context. I don’t need to be told repeatedly, in the form of well-meaning emails, seminars, leadership courses, lectures and whatnot, how to do my job or how to communicate with my colleagues. I try to apply the golden rule in my dealings with others: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think that’s a good rule, and I wish it was practiced more. Respect for others, for their thoughts and words and for what they value, is at a premium in my workplace. The tough cookies who run the show run roughshod over the poor souls who sit in the meetings where they are expected to participate, yet when they do, they are told that what they say is not relevant or important; or when they talk, they are constantly interrupted by those who wish to take over the show. If this is communication, spare me.

There are ways of communicating with others that work, and ways of communicating that guarantee a failure to connect with those one wishes to communicate with. The ‘emperor’s new clothes’ philosophy does not work for me. I don’t want ‘same shit, new wrapping’ foisted upon me in a communication context. I want to choose how, when and where I wish to communicate. I am not available 24/7 to anyone, not even to my spouse, and certainly not to my job. My home life is valuable to my development as a kind and good human being. My home is my haven, my port in a storm, a place where I find peace and quiet. I don’t want it invaded by constant chatter in any form—empty gossip, superficial conversation, TV blabbing, mindless radio chatter, and all the rest that passes for communication. Because now we come to the crux of the matter, at least for me. What is communication? Wikipedia defines it thusly: communication ‘(from Latin commūnicāre, meaning "to share" ) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior. It is the meaningful exchange of information between two or a group of living creatures’. For me, the emphasis is on meaningful. There is far too much meaningless communication in our world. And if we fill our heads with too much of it, there is no room for reflection, peace, quiet, or creativity. And if those disappear, real communication dies. 

Figuring out the Norwegian workplace

The job section of this past Sunday’s Aftenposten had an interesting article about Norwegian workplace culture entitled ‘How does the Norwegian boss think’? Foreigners who work in Norway often find themselves at a loss when it comes to figuring out how their bosses think and how to interpret what they say to you—what do they really mean by their comments and remarks, and have you understood the context of what was said? The importance of understanding your workplace and the signals given you by your bosses and colleagues cannot be overemphasized, especially where career advancement and salary are concerned. The article interviewed three Norwegian company directors/leaders who are Norwegian and who had worked internationally; they were asked to comment on what makes Norwegian workplaces different from workplaces in the rest of the world, since Norway’s workplace culture is quite unique (of course, why is this not surprising to me). Here are their thoughts:

• Leader #1 meant that Norwegian workplaces are ‘process-oriented’, not ‘solution-oriented’, and that a problem or an issue could be discussed ad nauseum before a decision is made
• Leader #2 had a similar opinion to leader #1, stating that many foreigners are simply not used to having the entire organization get involved before a decision can be made about a particular issue
• Leader #3 meant that Norwegian workplaces are relatively ‘flat structures’ where each individual employee has a high degree of authority to make his or her own decisions without having to consult a boss

Whenever I read such articles, they trigger some interesting feelings and thoughts, so that I ‘feel a blog post coming on’. I can relate to the first two leader comments; specific issues are discussed over and over in multiple meetings over many months, perhaps years, before decisions are reached. Frustrating? Yes. My question is why this has to be the norm. However, and this is the crux of the matter, someone ultimately has to make the final decision. Whether it is a committee at the top of an organization, or one person, someone has to take the ultimate responsibility. An organization of several hundred individuals is not responsible for a final decision; some of them may come with input and advice toward a decision, but the responsibility lies ultimately with company leaders. Who makes the ultimate decision can often be a mystery, and whether or not employees are informed about a final decision rests with those who are responsible for communicating it. Information flow downwards can be a true exercise in frustration. There is no transparency at the top of huge public sector workplaces, in any case. And I disagree entirely with the third leader; it has not been my experience in my public sector workplace that each individual employee has a say concerning a decision to be made that will affect them. Simply not true. The third leader has simply not visited my workplace recently; the six or more levels of (administrative) leadership between the individual employee and the top echelons ensure that you as an individual employee have little to no authority to make decisions that affect your daily work life. You can individually be the most ‘solution-oriented’ employee in the world; it won’t matter. You are forced to deal with the top-heavy administrative levels above you. Take ordering a lab reagent or small piece of equipment, for example; before a necessary item can be ordered, at least six to eight people need to be involved in the process of ordering—the person who needs the product and who informs the relevant department person who then registers the order and passes it along in the system to the person (or persons) who actually order the product on the computer. But we’re not done yet. They may order or they may pass the order along to yet another office that will do the ordering. It all depends, on what I’m not sure. Project funds have to be checked to make sure there is enough money to order the product; that can involve the accounting department. And if the item is actually ordered, it is shipped to a central receiving department that then delivers the item to the person who registered the order, not to the person who needed the item. This means that the secretarial consultants who register the orders receive on average ten packages a day. They must check their files to find out who needed the product ordered and then chase down the relevant person who requested the item. The actual invoice goes to an unknown place; no one is really sure where it ends up or how it gets paid. If this was truly my call (if I had any real authority), I'd call, fax, or email the company myself with my order, cutting out the multiple middlemen, and have the item delivered directly to me. The current ordering process reminds me of the excellent film Brazil, about the tentacles of bureaucracy and how when they find you, they can destroy your life and peace of mind. My question is—why do we need all these people involved? This was not my decision, to make it so complicated. And perhaps more importantly—is there any one person who understands the system well enough to explain it to others? No one seems to have thought of that. 

My conclusion is that these three leaders espouse a politically-correct rhetoric. It makes employees feel good to read that they have some autonomy and can influence the decision process; in truth they have little autonomy and little influence, at least in the public sector. We may have had more of both back in the 1990s, but no more. 

According to the article, a number of companies have started to offer courses about understanding Norwegian workplace culture, to employees who come from other countries/cultures with a different way of doing things. Such courses, along with formal career guidance, were non-existent when I arrived in Norway. I don’t know if they would have helped or not, since I work in the public, not the private sector, and most of these newspaper job articles seem to deal with the private sector. But one thing is certain; communication with bosses in the public or private sector can be muddled, messages from them unclear, ditto for job tasks and definitions. How can you know for sure if your recent efforts on a particular project are praiseworthy or not? Are you being considered for advancement in your organization? Should you actively seek out career advancement, mentors and advocates? Will you be considered too aggressive if you do, or will it be considered appropriately professional to do so? No one really tells you what to do or how to behave, at least not directly to your face. You have to figure out most of these kinds of things on your own, because communication is often very indirect, and suggestions to employees as to how to go about doing things may be presented in a rather offhand informal manner. This is the art of thinking like a Norwegian in your workplace—figuring it all out for yourself, except that if you are Norwegian, you have understood this from the get-go. As a foreigner, you will miss the signals that tell you that what you’ve just been told is important, you will make a fair amount of mistakes before you understand how to respond or react, how to deal with your bosses, and how to understand their dealings and communication with you, and you will waste a fair amount of time trying to understand a system that cannot be understood (my impression). In that sense, I miss the directness and assertiveness of American workplaces; communication between boss and employee is often much clearer and easier to understand, perhaps more formal and professional, yes, but I prefer that to ambiguity and vague promises and suggestions.  

Too busy to be kind and courteous

It has been commented on before, but I will comment on it yet again. We live in an information technology world, where because it is possible to communicate via so many different devices and platforms, there should be no problems informing others as to what one is thinking or about what is going on. Yet, time and again, communication fails, or if it does not directly fail, it is poor at best. I am not the only one to notice this; I have colleagues and friends who say the same thing. Emails pile up in my work inbox, and I start off my workday trying to make sense of them. Most are replies to previous emails, not necessarily sent by me, but sent by others to multiple recipients including me. Most of them are non-informative unless you read the entire email threads, which no one has the time to do. You might as well just tell me to ‘see below’ instead of sending me an email that says ‘yepp’ or ‘ok’ or some such thing. The level of rudeness in work emails has reached an all-time high; it is very rare that you get addressed by name. I do address others by name; on the rare occasion when I don’t, it’s to emphasize a point—that the person I am responding to has been rude and doesn’t deserve a courteous response. Most of the emails just state in one or two sentences what the email writer wants, or what he or she wants to inform you about. I have a problem with this lack of professional courtesy. Text messages can be even worse. They are often the preferred form of communication for many busy souls these days. And that’s ok, except when they resemble emails in the form of responses like ‘yepp’ and ‘ok’, with no reference to what has transpired previously. Again, I am not a mind reader and have no plans on becoming one. So if you want me to understand what you’re thinking about, if you really want to communicate with me, take the time to talk to me. Come by my office and stop in for a chat. I promise to listen.

I know that this problem has mostly to do with that everyone is so busy at work, that no one has the time anymore to really communicate, to have a conversation, to listen to others, or to try to understand others. Some of the ‘multiple recipient’ emails expect you to be a mind-reader; you’re expected to just understand what has been going on with very little explanation. I ignore these emails for the most part; if you cannot take the time to explain what’s going on, it cannot be that important for me to comment on it. So I don’t. In this way, I reduce the level of responsibility I feel for certain work situations. And that suits me just fine. The same goes for cryptic text messages. If you cannot take the time to write a coherent text message, I will ignore it.

I keep coming back to kindness and courtesy. We are losing these virtues in our busy world. They have been sacrificed on the altars of efficiency, productivity, and saving time. I’m tired of it. If you cannot be kind, if you cannot be courteous and professional, if you cannot behave in a civilized manner, I don’t want to deal with you, via any mode of communication. It’s that simple. And I don’t feel bad about saying that.