Pages

Sunday, January 8, 2017

SUPERFICIAL



One of my frustrations in watching local and national news on television is the lack of depth in reporting. Seldom does a segment last more than thirty seconds. Yes, we get the basic what, who, when and where (only four of the five Ws of reporting). The fifth W, WHY, is often omitted or superficially given. Even watching programs like Face the Nation do not seriously deal with “why” of actions. Why did the officials in Flint, Michigan take the actions which ruined the water supply? Why, if the national legislators repeal the Affordable Care Act, is there not a comprehensive replacement plan available for immediate consideration? We are told we should not guess at the motivations of others. Is it not the responsibility of those in authority to be transparent about their reasons, the why, for their actions? Without knowing the “why” trust in leadership devolves.

The level of reporting and public debate is, at best, superficial. A trusted definition of superficial includes the following denotations: a (1): of, relating to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface; b presenting only an appearance without substance or significance. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superficial) As long as reporting on actions, either by the actors or news organizations, only the give the public the what, who, when and where information without the WHY, clarity and transparency are lacking. The public does not need fake news or fantasy explanations.

It is not only in local and national governments where actions are taken without a thorough explanation of WHY. It happens in the Church/church, also. When programs are changed, or eliminated without a sufficient explanation about the “why” we are only left with the option of guessing. Why was it necessary to change for what an offering is designated? Why are changes to the organizational structure being made? Why did the pastor really decide to accept a call to a new location?

From personal experience and observation, the “why” is either not given or glossed over due to a desire to avoid conflict. Conflict is often seen as something which is to be avoided, at all costs. Conflict can provide an opportunity for clarifying organizational values, which then provide a solid basis for positive greater unity and positive organizational outcomes.

It is the responsibility of those in leadership to propose a change and to give a coherent statement of WHY the change is proposed. When the public is given an opportunity to consider the change and the WHY, even if in disagreement with the change or the why, trust in the leadership can be built. Trust goes from superficial to having depth.

No comments:

Post a Comment