In a May 21 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel Coleen Rowley spells out what transpired in mid-August 2001, as her office sought permission from headquarters to search the computer and other personal effects of Zacarias Moussaoui. INS officials had arrested Moussaoui on a visa violation after local FBI agents learned that the French-Moroccan was seeking instruction in flying 747s. Checks with French intelligence about Moussaoui turned up ties to radical Islamist groups. But even in the face of desperate calls for action from local agents, superiors from FBI headquarters scuttled the investigation. They also failed to disclose to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had earlier warned of Al Qaeda operatives seeking flight training for terrorist purposes.

Rowley’s motives for writing the scathing memo seem noble: “Until we come clean and deal with the root causes, the Department of Justice will continue to experience problems fighting terrorism and fighting crime in general.” Based on her years of experience, she speculates about the causes of the apparent ineptitude from the central office: Because missions in the past that have turned out badly have damaged or destroyed careers, many managers in the FBI avoid all “unnecessary” actions and decisions. “Since one generally only runs the risk of [being reprimanded for making an error] when one does something, the safer course of action is to do nothing.” The Bureau further responded to previous missteps by centralizing decision-making and requiring numerous rounds of approval for even the most routine tasks. The resulting climate of fear chilled aggressive FBI enforcement and discouraged the best agents from entering the management career path.

Rapid Response, Lasting Problems

Rowley believes that one of Mueller’s proposed solutions to the FBI’s shortcomings on these cases—developing a rapid-response team of terrorist experts based in Washington—will only reinforce the culture of anxiety, caution, and indecision that the hijackers managed to exploit.

Mueller’s plan also overlooks the perceptive way in which field agents did their jobs, despite roadblocks thrown up by the central office.

Although Mueller has repeatedly stated that the FBI had no way of knowing about the plot to turn commercial airliners into bombs, Rowley pointedly says, “This is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious . . . that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action . . . did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th.” The FBI has announced a number of major reforms, but true change may not take hold until the Bureau erases the fear that has permeated its culture.

—Janice Molloy

Coleen Rowley’s May 21 Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller; “How the FBI Blew the Case,” Time, June 3, 2002

The post Investigating the FBI appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Spiral of Silence

But how can simply keeping our opinions to ourselves undermine organizational success? Perlow and Williams describe a destructive “spiral of silence” that begins when someone chooses to keep her mouth shut about a problem or issue. The reasons for doing so usually involve preserving a relationship, maintaining one’s status within a group, conforming with the consensus perspective, or avoiding conflict. In other cases, a superior may actually try to stifle concerns or criticisms from a direct report to expedite the work on a project.

But rather than resolving anything, this kind of censorship—either internally or externally imposed—can lead an individual to experience a series of negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, or resentment. Such strong feelings can cause him to feel disconnected from and distrustful of the person or group involved in the discussion and to become increasingly defensive in interactions with others. This sense of insecurity can bring more acts of silence and even higher levels of anxiety and other unproductive emotions.

According to the authors, the ultimate irony of this dynamic is that “we don’t speak up for fear of destroying our relationships, but in the end our silences create an emotional distance that becomes an unbridgeable rift.” When that happens, thinking remains stagnant, alternative courses of action remain unexplored, and the quality of work falls. In this way, trying to avoid rocking the boat can actually sink the ship.

Speaking Up

If the spiral of silence is so pervasive in our workplaces, then how can we overcome it? First, we need to create an organizational climate in which people feel they can speak up without fear of repercussions. As Perlow and Williams say, “Managers with a lot of authority need to be especially careful not to punish people, explicitly or implicitly, for speaking out.” At the same time, individuals can take the courageous step of expressing themselves in a constructive manner as well as valuing different opinions and perspectives. In addition, asking tough questions can be easier with the support of others who share the same perspective. Finally, taking these steps can be easier if we remember that we’re doing so for the good of the company as a whole. As the authors say, “Don’t forget: Your boss needs you, too. And knowing that should empower you to speak up and help him appreciate your point of view.”

—Janice Molloy

Causal loop diagrams don’t need to be complex to offer insights—hone your skills by drawing some of the loops described in this article. Also consider the following: Where are the leverage points for change; that is, how might a small change in the structure lead to big results?

The post Breaking the Organizational Code of Silence appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Vicious Cycle of Foreclosures

Meanwhile, with all of the defaulted loans, the banks are in trouble and must call in the ranchers’ loans. When the ranchers can’t come up with the money, the bank forecloses and puts the property up for auction. Slim, disguised as an upstanding landowner, then buys the properties for a song and continues his rustling ways.

When Alice, owner of “Patch of Heaven,” is forced to come up with $750 to pay off her loan, it looks as though all is lost for her and her menagerie. But three enterprising cows—Maggie, Grace, and Mrs. Caloway—manage to put an end to Slim’s nefarious deeds by capturing him and using the reward money to pay off Alice’s bank debt. Three cheers for bovine ingenuity!

—Janice Molloy