Research shows that the primary reason CEO’s fail is not from a lack of skills or abilities, but rather from not being aware of information that could negatively impact their organization. Those at the top need to hear the voice of truth from those closest to the problem and are thus in the best position to recommend solutions.

The Upward Voice refers to communications directed to someone in the organization’s hierarchy with the authority to take action. Moving information up the chain of command begins by the formation of problem-solving teams consisting of representatives from all organizational levels who are known for telling the truth.

In order for the upward voice to be heard when it reaches the top-level, lower-level participants must first be assured that they’re not putting themselves at risk of rejection for speaking out and that they are not wasting their time voicing their concerns and proposing solutions.

Without the upward voice in place to clarify expectations and neutralize negativity an organization is opening the door to institutional rejection between the upper and lower levels. Just such a situation is illustrated by the following true story:

Picture a small rural city run by a manager serving at the discretion of an elected city council. According to the local newspaper, expenditures were getting out of hand, and the council was under pressure to monitor the budget more closely.

Adding fuel to the fire was the adverse community reaction to a recent round of pay raises for the city manager and the department heads. The city manager was under pressure by the council to justify the salaries of his department heads. After discussing various options including the freezing of all salaries, the council decided that department heads should get out into the community more so that the voters would see how effectively the city was being managed.

Later that day the city manager verbally passed on that directive to the department heads during a very contentious meeting. Hearing what he thought was a mandate the public works director and the maintenance superintendent spent that afternoon driving around the city.

Very early the next morning the superintendent met with the garbage collection crews as they were warming up their trucks and told them that instead of making their rounds as usual, they would be trimming mistletoe from the trees in the parks. The garbage would have to wait.

It was not long after that the city hall receptionist was flooded with complaints about the full garbage containers being left at the curbside. The city manager and the public works director tracked down the superintendent, who was surprised by their accusations of incompetence.

He explained that during their drive around the city, the public works director had told him that the council wanted some action to justify the recent pay raises. Since the only comment he made during their ride was about the overgrowth of mistletoe in the city park. The superintendent assumed that saving the oak trees was a high priority. Not wanting to question his boss and risk rejection, he moved tree trimming to the top of the to-do list.

The city council, in a mood to fire everyone connected with the fiasco, called an emergency public meeting. As the meeting progressed council members were stunned to learn that their directive to “get out in the community more” was the reason there was no garbage pickup.

All they had intended was for those who worked for the city to have higher community visibility. They envisioned appearances at chamber of commerce functions, speeches to the downtown association, presentations to service clubs and schools, and interviews on local TV and radio stations. In other words, the council expected the department heads to mingle with the citizens and promote the council’s vision of the city’s future rather than sit behind their desks.

The city manager perceived their directive differently. He thought that the council was upset with his “overpaid” department heads for not earning their salary. His strategy was to light a fire under them before he lost his job.

The public works director, in turn, viewed the request as additional work for him. If there were infrastructure problems somewhere in the city, he had better find them quickly and set about to fix them. After all, he was close to retirement and didn’t want anything to mess that up.

The superintendent simply thought the director was mad at him for something, which was not unusual. This made him very uncomfortable and eager to get back on his boss’ good side by attending to whatever was bugging him. The garbage pickup crews knew something was screwy but kept their opinions to themselves and did what they were told without question.

As the real story unfolded the players began to see, perhaps for the first time, that their communications channels were badly clogged. At first they were disappointed and disillusioned by the discovery. But, with a little push, they revisited some of their past misadventures.

The review was worthwhile, for it made them realize just how poorly they had been communicating their intentions from one level to the next. The council agreed to work with the city manager and the department heads to find better ways of communicating.

Soon thereafter, encouraged by the council’s eagerness to improve communications, management put the upward voice in place. It didn’t take long for supervisors and staff to get on board. Gradually, as citizen volunteers were drawn into the process of assessing the level of services and recommending changes, the atmosphere of tension and suspicion was replaced by one of anticipation and cooperation.