The Iceberg of Ignorance

A coaching client talked about the iceberg of ignorance on a call recently, and it was a perfect example of how cost of poor engagement makes our organizations more fragile. An iceberg of ignorance helps explain how risks are shared within the organization when problems are hidden from senior leadership. If you’re unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a famous 1989 study by Sidney Yoshida. Yoshida’s research shows how problems are known and understood by different levels of an organization. While the research is decades old, we know empirically (and sometimes just in our gut) that the research still holds. This is also proven by many experts still writing about and trying to find ways to melt the iceberg.

For example:

• On the organization’s front lines,  100% of the problems are known to the staff.
• Their supervisors know 74% of the problems known to front-line staff.
• Middle management knows 9% of the problems front-line staff are aware of.
• Shockingly, executives know and understand only 4% of problems known to front-line staff.

The iceberg of ignorance warps executives’ perspectives regarding problems and where their attention should be focused.   They’re making decisions with only partial information – and about only some of the issues in the organization.  

There are two main dynamics why the gap between front-line and executive knowledge exists:

1. One is the positivity bias in communications that go up the hierarchy. Employees are reluctant to share bad news, so they put a positive spin on or downplay the severity of the problem to their supervisors. This positivity bias increases if an organization’s culture doesn’t reward truthful feedback.
2. Another reason is the need for authentic organizational engagement to prevent people from sharing what they see, know, and experience with their supervisors. Our employees watch their supervisors and organizational executives. They assess (based on observed behavior) what is safe to share – and what topics they shouldn’t engage in. Often it’s because they saw someone get into a hot situation by giving feedback that the supervisor didn’t like.

The above points explain why critical information isn’t shared and why our employees remain silent about frustrating topics. It also demonstrates the reasons for the tremendous gap between what is known by our employees and what is known by our executives.

Fragility and Engagement

Ignorance is bliss is another way of expressing the iceberg of ignorance. As an executive, to be ignorant of what is actually occurring will have a direct negative impact on the resilience of our organization. Often our organizations don’t acknowledge that we don’t have a complete picture of what is happening inside or in the external environment. This makes us more fragile because we are making decisions based on limited data.

Systems thinking is supported by good data, cooperation, and sharing knowledge outside our departments. When we don’t create conditions that support the sharing of experiences, knowledge, and perspectives from a wide range of employees, we increase our fragility. 

Control and engagement have opposite impacts on organizational culture.

These dynamics sets up the iceberg of ignorance. Without authentic engagement, the leaders at the top of a hierarchy live with the illusion that they already know what they need to know to make good decisions and set the strategic focus of the organization

Our organizations become more vulnerable because our ignorance, self-confidence, or arrogance trumps what will help the organization be more effective and resilience. Engagement is the antidote for this kind of hubris. Engagement based on an authentic invitation and response mechanism is an essential capacity for an organization who wants to absorb disruption and still maintain function!

What do you think? Are we getting better at melting the iceberg of ignorance?