Hi to all readers,
William Johnson asks about the uses of silence in organizations and I felt
moved to speak (write): the best example I have is that of the Quakers, who
begin all their meetings (religious and business) with silence.
They started as a religious movement in the mid 17th century in the turbulent
aftermath of the English Civil War. Their central theme was the rejection of
external authority and tradition as a spiritual guidance. Thus they rejected
the hierarchy and ritual of the Catholic and Anglican Churches as well as the
Old Testament. From the New Testament they made use mostly of the Book of
John, because of the emphasis on Christ as being present in real time, and
the Sermon on the Mount. They were totally egalitarian to the extent that
they rejected professional clergy ("hireling priests") - each Quaker had to
find her/his own way to the Spirit. They were also remarkably open to members
of other religions - Jews, Moslems etc.
The Quaker meeting became their mode (or "node") of organization for via
connections with other meetings it became a dynamic loosely-coupled network.
In meetings their distrust of authority caused them to shun all trappings of
formal control - agendas, texts, prepared statements, verbal formulations of
any kind. Meetings began in silence and continued until someone felt "moved
to speak". The two greatest sins were to speak if not moved and not to speak
if moved. With our incessant meetings and packed agendas this sounds
incredible inefficient but what the Quakers were interested in was surfacing
deeply held concerns. The silence and absence of structure together with
shared values and mutual trust supplied an environment in which this could
happen.
When religious persecution abated toward the end of the 17th century the
Quakers emerged as the most talented group of entrepreneurs of the Industrial
Revolution. They dominated the iron and (later) steel industries and their
egalitarianism and trustworthiness allowed them to found the financial
service industry. Both Barclays and Lloyds began their lives as Quaker
institutions. They also came to dominate transatlantic trade through their
"Atlantic Community" - the Boston Tea Party was "held" aboard two Quaker
ships! A significant number of English businesses have Quaker roots - ICI,
British Steel, Cadburys. Rowntrees, Clarks, Huntley & Palmer, Price
Waterhouse, J. Walter Thompson to name a few. In the US they were active in
iron and steel (Lukens and Bethlehem) as well as retail (Macy's) and a host
of other businesses.
The Quakers used the same meeting format in their business meetings so that
items of real concern could be discussed. Members were grilled on their
trading practices by their peers. Over time the meetings became well known
for regulating the ethical behaviour of their members and conversely
membership of the meeting became a guarantee of ethical business practices.
Consumers flocked to Quaker-owned stores, banks etc. because they could rely
on the quality, prices and the integrity of the owners. In fact the Quakers
may have invented the concept of the market price - for ethical not economic
reasons. The Quaker meeting is probably the origin of our Western form of
corporate governance via boards and meetings. Although when one looks at the
highly orchestrated charades that corporate AGMs have become, it is clear
that while we may have retained the structure we have lost the process
completely.
It is almost inconceivable to think of using silence in this way at meetings
today, although I understand that Scott Peck and his community building
colleagues use silence regularly in their activities. There are also some
brave consultants around who sometimes try to use the "pressure of silence"
to get to the real issues in organizations - it does require a lot of trust
and special circumstances. An interesting variation can be found in the 5th
Discipline Fieldbook where people sit in a circle wearing airline type
blindfolds so that speakers cannot be immediately identified visually.
Listening skills become paramount as members cannot be distracted by doodling
etc. I have never run a meeting this way but I understand it's incredibly
intense: there are fewer interruptions and people realize how critical the
perceived status of the speaker is in their reception of what is said.
There is much more on the Quakers and dialogue in my book "Crisis & Renewal:
Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change" (Harvard Business School
Press, 1995)
Best wishes,
David Hurst
([email protected])