THE DAMP COURSE - where is it in your organisation?

[Dave Stringer]

In all brick houses, there needs o be a membrane at some low point that stops damp rising into the mortar and dry-rot falling into the foundations. This membrane is called a 'damp course'.

In business, there is often a 'layer' that traps messages from the depths of the business and stops them rising to the attention of those at the top, and which also traps the messages from the top and 'translates' them for the 'lower levels; usually into a 'steady as she goes and more of it is all we need from you' type communication.

I'm having some interesting 'battles' with this type of layer right now. SO have come to wonder if its location in my business is common, hence my question.

All comments gratefully received and appreciated

[Michael Buksas]

I can't say where it is for sure in my organization, but I suspect it exists all the same. There are so many layers above me that I probably can't even see it from here, anyway.

You might find this take from Bruce Webster in the context of project management interesting. He calls it the thermocline of truth.

[Dave Stringer]

Mukesh
Your perspective is intriguing and worthy of deep consideration, which I will give it. However, I don't think it is the 'damp course' that I am describing. I remember it being described to me once, by Sir John Harvey-Jones, a brilliant CEO in the following terms . . . .

I stood on the bridge and took the helm of the Super-Super-Tanker ICI for the first time, knowing that to change direction will take significant time, and anxious to get started. I move the wheel, to indicate a five degree turn to the port side, and flag full speed to the engine-room; I smile, I am on my journey, I have begun.

What I didn't, at that time, realise, was that there were two hundred people in isolated cubicles just under the bridge. My helm was not connected to the rudder, it was connected to an indicator board in each of these cubicles. When I 'dialed-in' my new direction and speed, the 200 started to consider my wisdom and understanding of 'their bit' of the business, and decide if what I intended was good for them and their future. Only if a significant majority did agree were the messages passed on to rudder and engine room, if there was no majority on my side, the company kept going as it was, though I was sure I had done what was required, and they assured me that all was going to plan!"

Somewhat challenging for Sir John, he ended up clearing the damp course right out and stakeholders rewarded him for his fortitude and determination. I believe, but would not attest, that the removed layers went on to become senior civil servants!

[Amarnath Bose]

The damp course functions beautifully when the going is good. It is in difficult situations that the upstream and downstream communication becomes a challenge. The strategic needs - manned by the upper layers are often in direct conflict with the ground realities of projects that some lower layers are responsible for. In extreme situations the intermediate layers often fail to correct this impedance mismatch. This results in outcomes that people are not prepared for or results that drastically belie expectations.

I found the following lines from Mike's link very pertinent:
"... upper management tends to reward good news and punish bad news, regardless of the actual truth content. Honesty in reporting problems or lack of progress is seldom rewarded; usually it is discouraged, subtly or at times quite bluntly. Often, said managers believe that true executive behavior comprises brow-beating and threatening lower managers in order to “motivate” them to solve whatever problems they might have."

I do not think that there is any single location for the "damp course" in an organization. It is dynamic, muti locational and deeply entwined with the roles and responsibilities of the incumbents.

The task of the intermediate, damp-course layers is to provide the right amount of abstraction (upward communication) and concretization (downward communication). All organizational layers, including damp-courses, have their preset tolerance for inputs - based on strategy / vision (upper layers) and project / personal goals (lower layers). In extreme situations the ground reality stretches the limits of this tolerance with results that are not palatable.

I think that it is best to ensure greater transparency in organizational communication in order to make the task of translation (upwards or downwards) less daunting. Damp-courses should be accountable at two levels - (a) information conveyed to upper level should contain relevant risk indicators, in spite of the summarization (b) information conveyed to the lower level should include a bigger picture. One could possibly device metrics to measure if the right blend of information is conveyed up and down.