Speaking Truth to Power

It happened again yesterday. This trope was trotted out in a Zoom meeting when someone was talking about something frustrating in their work life. I hear people say “speaking truth to power “ a lot, but I’m not sure anyone really thinks about what it says about them, or their workplace.

This durable phrase was first coined in 1942 by Bayard Rustin, a Black Quaker and a leader in the Civil Rights movement. I’m reminded that the original context for the phrase was to advocate for using one’s voice as an alternative to violence. And in that context, speaking truth to power was about activism and weaponizing “truth” in a power dynamic where truth and power were framed as being at complete odds with each other.

This is generally not how it’s used in a work setting and that alone should be enough to retire it from the workplace. But there are other reasons.

Let’s start with the question, what is truth? Truth is, today, a very contested word. On one hand there is the ubiquitous problem of misinformation and purposeful distortions of the truth. On the other hand, there is more openness to the idea of personal truths, how there can be different versions of the truth depending on one’s lived experience. Even things that are generally assumed to be true become contested as we learn more about unconscious bias.

And what about power? Who or what is power in a work setting? How does power appear? How is it legitimized? Is speaking truth to power referring to powerful forces of some kind, or just someone who has power over you?

When I hear the phrase “speaking truth to power” it sends up all kinds of red flags about culture, lack of trust and psychological safety in the workplace. Speaking truth to power is short hand for the risk associated with honesty. It’s about sharing some kind of information that is most likely not going to be appreciated by someone perceived to be more powerful. It establishes the psychological dynamics of a situation, and they do not favor the “truth teller.”

I’m particularly bothered when the person saying “speaking truth to power” is someone in a role whose job is to represent different perspectives and amplify marginalized voices. Speaking truth to power implies that the person with the truth is at risk for the telling. The greater the power, the higher the risk. But really, it’s just the opposite. It’s the organization that is at risk when “truths” cannot be shared.

Maybe we should call it an inconvenient truth. People do not take a risk in speaking up if they fear retaliation. They will not show up as their true selves if they fear being penalized, ridiculed or disrespected. They cannot be their most productive, or creative, or innovative when working in a organizational culture that is not equitable and safe. If someone, especially the person whose job is to speak up for others, is silenced by lack of trust, dysfunctional habits are never broken.

Why is this important to organization leaders, the so-called power? In an ongoing study of their own employees, Google analytics determined that the most influential factor in creating effective and productive work teams is psychological safety. This is defined as having a work setting where people can take risks and speak up without feeling unsupported, insecure, embarrassed or fearful. Connect this to businesses success and it means that a safe and equitable workplace is a precondition for optimizing creativity and innovation.

The lesson here is more about power than truth. Organization leaders should have an understanding of how their power is perceived by others, and how it can be used for good. How creating psychological safety encourages not just “truth telling,” it unleashes the creativity and innovation that can lead to exceptional performance. It’s a message they need to hear.