The term plausible deniability was introduced into
the English language in 1975 when the Church Committee, a US Senate
committee, conducted an investigation into the intelligence agencies.
It
described the situation where the President was not informed of actions
such as to assassinate Fidel Castro, but in the view of the Church
Committee, was clearly in favour of the action. By not being informed,
the president could state that he had no knowledge of the actions. He
had a plausible denial.
Plausible deniability has been honed
since in government and private enterprise, into an art form. We all do
it, at home with the kids, at work, with our mates from our club and
sometimes sadly, with ourselves.
The problem for me is that plausible deniability is a phrase that equates to lack of accountability.
There
are, however, telltale techniques that we and others, wittingly or
unwittingly, use, created on the base of fallacious arguments that
should let us know that what we are being offered or are offering is
not the whole truth.
The technique I have heard most often used
of late is the technique of offering a plausible argument whilst
setting up a defensive shield to deny any request to justify the
original proposition embodied in a query.
For example, a hypothetical reporter might ask, "Have you seen the cable referring to the corruption allegations?"
A
hypothetical politician or civil servant might answer, "I receive
hundreds of thousands of cables into my office every year. I can't be
expected to read all of them".
This technique, in terms of
regularity of use of late, has been closely followed by use of a word
to attach a clear but subtle change in meaning to what seems to be a
simple unequivocal message. The reason for using this technique is to
enable the respondent to be equivocal at a later stage if their lines
of defence have been stripped away.
Our hypothetical reporter
might ask, "Were you involved in a meeting where the details of the new
concessional taxation arrangements were discussed before the budget was
announced?"
Our hypothetical politician might reply, "I have no specific recall that any details were discussed".
The
plausible denial has two parts; "specific" and "recall". An alternate
answer might have been, "Sure we had a meeting and discussed the
concessions but I can't remember the exact words in the discussion".
Another technique to look for is the omission of information. Look for what is not said rather than what is said.
For
example, a hypothetical human resources manager might ask of a line
manager who is recommending someone for promotion, "Tell me about her
performance."
The hypothetical line manager may answer," She is
always punctual, everything is done on time. She has a very good
knowledge of the subject matter and is considered to be an authority on
the topic of policy."
The inference in the answer is that the
person is competent. However, by looking for what is not said one can
pick that this may not be the whole truth. There was nothing said about
personal skills, for instance.
Another answer consistent with the
first might have been, "She has no interpersonal skills and the quality
of her work, whilst good technically and punctual, has no human
element. Her work colleagues are frustrated because of that and it
negatively affects the team performance."
By not answering the
unasked questions the line manager can move an unproductive employee on
through promotion, which is much easier than managing their
performance. At a later date when the capability of the individual
becomes obvious, the line manager can be truthful in stating that he
told no lies.
Another technique often used is to attack the
credibility of the questioner rather than addressing the substance of
the question. Adjectives and phrases such as, "minor official", "not
close to the day to day operation", "intellectual" and "cynical" are
used to describe the individual and therefore lessen the credibility of
what they have to say without providing any proof that what they said
was wrong.
Plausible deniability is an issue for public and
private enterprise alike. It is an issue because it leaves open the
door to abuse of authority and resources, shifting blame and deflecting
accountability.
The most serious aspect of plausible deniability
is that it increases the level of distrust between senior management
and employees. Whilst plausible deniability works some of the time, one
can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Leaders who duck
accountability by using the technique of plausible deniability or other
techniques lose the trust of the very people that they need to follow
them. They, conversely, win the admiration of the unscrupulous as an
"operator".
When we lose trust we can no longer lead. Of that, there is no denying.
