Culture

Scottish Review : Walter Humes

8 December 2008 · Walter Humes

The polite society II

Niceness is not enough

Walter Humes

Readers may be astounded to learn that I was recently described as ‘that unkind observer of human frailty’. And there you were thinking of me as a warm and cuddly teddy bear. The comment was made in the gossip column of a publication in which articles of mine appear regularly. I know the editor well and did not take offence – it was a light-hearted piece – but it did make me reflect on modern attitudes to criticism, particularly in professional contexts. I want to suggest that a culture of universal niceness has decided limitations and that there are occasions when plain statement or righteous anger is not only a more honest response, but also more likely to lead to a better outcome.
     Consider the current financial crisis for example. We might not be in the state we’re in if, many months ago, someone at a senior level in the banking world had had the guts to say to his colleagues ‘Look – if we continue on this course of corporate greed we’ll all go to hell in a handcart’. Instead, they stuck to the conventions of polite business exchanges, toadying to chief executives and hoping that it would all work out in the end. Compliant ‘groupthink’ held sway when what was needed was a sharp injection of serious critical analysis.
     The recent dreadful cases of child neglect and abuse provide another example. In the aftermath of collective guilt, the focus has been on whether correct procedures were followed and whether the various agencies passed on relevant information. It might be more pertinent to ask whether anyone showed normal human emotions when faced with vulnerable children in distress. Just conceivably, a bit of old-fashioned moral outrage may have helped to cut through the bureaucratic red tape and get something constructive done.
     Part of the problem has to do with the received wisdom about approved ‘professional’ behaviour. Professionals are expected to show detachment, to avoid language that is emotionally charged, to ‘go through proper channels’ and to ‘give people (especially senior people) their place’. This is a recipe for conformity, back covering and abdication of responsibility. The truth is that sometimes harsh things need to be said if difficult problems are to be addressed.
     The latest term in the lexicon of professional self-interest is ‘collegiality’. This is said to promote a culture of respect and trust, but it is often just an excuse for avoiding hard issues and reaching an easy consensus. Genuine collegiality would pose challenges to both unions and management and would require them to question traditional attitudes and practices. Moreover, too much emphasis on collegiality runs the risk of putting employee interests above those of the clients. Public service professions need to remember that they exist to serve ordinary citizens. There are enough instances where they fail to provide an adequate level of service to justify subjecting them to some tough questioning. This should involve ‘Why?’ not just ‘How?’ questions, which may need to be put with a degree of robustness that is uncomfortable.
     So although I have no wish to be ‘unkind’, I do not apologise for being sharp and critical in my approach to issues that are important, and have no complaint if I sometimes find myself on the receiving end of the same treatment. In any case, too much niceness can come across as sugary and insincere. The astringency of a dash of lemon not only stimulates the palate: it can also concentrate the mind.

WEEKEND
INBOX

STOP PRESS
Kenneth Roy on the uncertain future of a great newspaper
[click here]