Does democracy work?

Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn. Donald Trump. Boaty McBoatface

All delivered by transparent and equitable democratic process. Yet, whatever your ideological stripe, almost everyone thinks at least one of these signals the collapse of intelligent civilisation.

All were ballot box democracy. All yes/no, tickbox responses. You can only express a single view; there are no shades of grey. Given a chance to expand, I imagine many supporters would say:

• Yes, I want to take back control, but, of course, to retain favourable trading with our biggest market
• Yes, I respect Corbyn’s principles, but I’d also like the pragmatism and charisma to sell it to middle-England
• Yes, I love the zeal and certainty of Trump, but maybe with some policies that aren’t so bonkers

But there isn’t a “Yes, but…” option. There’s no “Tell us why you gave this answer”.

That’s often what I do. I sit down with current or potential employees and ask them what they want or what they’d like to see. Often I am first met with awkward silences and exceptionally closed body language. Sometimes it’s been apparent that literacy is not strong. I’ve spoken to people who have never really been asked their opinion.

With the chance to speak, the creation of the right environment and some probing and encouragement, they open up. And they always, always give measured, considered, practical responses. It’s a constant reminder to never underestimate anyone, that everyone has opinions that should count.

But the true meaning of those opinions are only apparent in a dialogue. If you try to fix the questions, predict the response, or not allow people to fully express themselves then you can end up with unexpected results. That’s a problem for referenda, and many employee surveys.

Certainly, you end up with inexplicable results. Either in the sense that the decision may appear to defy reason, or in that you do not really understand what they mean by their answers. There isn’t the scope to expand.

So what to do? Well perhaps it’s time for the end of representative democracy and a chance for anarcho-syndicalism. Perhaps not…

For now, I think it’s about trusting employees to have the right answer and to give them the conditions in which to express it.

Swimming - and real beliefs

Swimming is pretty important to me. It's a great way to unwind. If I don't answer your call at lunchtime, that's where I am.

And so, when people don't play by the rules, I get cross. Cross enough to come up with a snarky flowchart.

But there's a thing about rules. And it's been highlighted by this year's headteacher-sends-home-kids-for-minor-infractions-of-uniform-rules headlines.

You can set out the rules as clearly as you like. But - as in my last post - it's hard to set rules, people are always trying to bend them, and most importantly, they ignore what contradicts their beliefs.

That's vital for company culture. You can state, promote and model the culture that you desire as much as you like, but if that conflicts with the fundamental beliefs of others, it won't change.

So in the pool, the belief might be: "It's not important how busy the pool is, others will have to move round me". Not a disaster, just some annoyance. At worst, a mild concussion.

But at work it could be: "The customer can wait, it's my break", or "That decision's above my pay grade", or "The most important thing is to hit my targets, everything else is secondary", or "Someone else can clear that up, that's not my job". None of which may have any great consequence. But they might. Especially if these are widely held beliefs, or if this is the real culture, rather than the prescribed one.

So before you can embark on changing or tweaking your culture, or encouraging new behaviours, you first need to understand what the reality is now. What do your people really believe?