Dan Erwin

The Trouble with Saints

If you’ve read sociology, you’ve probably read Max Weber. Weber (1864—1920), one of the founders of the discipline of sociology, is the update to Machiavelli. Weber's brief pamphlet, Politics as a Vocation, is the best prescription for politics, especially the politics of the past two years. So, I was both amused and delighted by a brief article in the 1/24 issue of The Economist on Max Weber’s enduring wisdom. Lecturing in the midst of German turmoil of 1918, The Economist emphasizes how his insights still make sense of politics.

Germany was in a far worse state than our Trump world. Rival Berlin factions battled for power in the streets. Several leaders were murdered. On January 28th of that year, Max Weber lectured liberal students “On Politics as a Vocation,” one of the most important contributions to modern political theory, as valuable a map to the contemporary political landscape as it was 100 years ago. (The thirty-page pamphlet is available free on the web, via Google.)

Weber was contemptuous of leaders solely determined to stick to their principles, whatever the consequences. “This ethic of conviction was the hallmark of saints, pacifists and purist revolutionaries...

"Scaling Up Excellence"

Bob Sutton and Huggy Rao’s new book, Scaling Up Excellence, is one of those books you’ll go back to again and again.

Plenty of people know exactly what scaling is, but more don’t. I’ve got a lot of clarity on where I first encountered the term in business fifteen years ago--and the demands that were asked of me. A long-time friend and client wanted to make some very important culture changes in his leadership team. When we started our conversation, the focus was very clear and he kept going back to it over several interactions. He wanted the best scalable competencies to enable his leadership team to interact successfully with the company’s clients.

By scalability we refer to the ability of certain mindsets or competencies to expand from the few to the many.  

The scalable competencies that we decided on were able to enhance and expand the ...

The Authenticity and Effectiveness of Flattery

To a shocking degree, mentors and the training folk fail to develop the exceptionally important practice of ingratiation, pejoratively known as “brown-nosing,” for their trainees. A surprising number of people believe you should keep your head down, your nose clean and take what life throws at you. Yet the truth of the matter is that the world is sometimes not a very nice or fair place, and you’ll pay for that naiveté.

In a recent blog on managing up, How to "wow' your boss, I noted that ingratiation was one of the key strategies for managing up. Because of a number of emails regarding my post, I’ve decided to enlarge on the subject of ingratiation.

Indeed, studies show the unwillingness to engage in ingratiation, the term researchers use for flattery, sucking-up, brown-nosing and a host of other expletives as a motivational inducement, often results in career and life failure. Acting like everyone gets what he deserves is liable to mean that you’ll miss out on an awful lot: work satisfaction, gaining more favorable evaluations, better leadership opportunities, personal motivation, and even more tips if you’re a hair stylist or waiter. Of course, there are a number of possible reasons for this failure, the most obvious being sheer ignorance and forgetfulness. The traditional adage has a lot of believers: “He gets paid for this. Why should I compliment him?” Even more look down their nose at ingratiation, viewing it as inappropriate and beneath their dignity, questioning its ethical foundation.

Ingratiation, the ultimate art of emotional intelligence, is to become more attractive and favorable to another by deliberate communication strategies. Surprisingly, the psychological findings are that if you fail to use this interpersonal tool, you are not only limiting your own power base and overall career and life success, but also inhibiting the achievements of its recipients. So brown-nosing is not only good for you, it’s also extremely good for its targets.

Why does ingratiation work?
Research, dating back as far as 1963, has found three explanations for the effectiveness of ingratiation. Ingratiation tends to increase liking. As my readers know, the joint powers of liking and competency are the single most important characteristics in the persuasion toolkit. Likable people who are also competent have a lock on the rewards of career and life.

Ingratiation can also create a strong sense of similarity. Studies show that perceived similarity between people, what rhetoricians call mutual identity, is a door-opener for effective communication and persuasion. Most any effective salesperson, walking into a client’s office, searches immediately for similar interests to grease the conversation. Similarities are not only ice-breakers, but also relationship-builders.

Research reveals that positive labeling of a person, otherwise known as stereotyping, can result in significantly positive consequences. We know that negative stereotypes, like thief, sex deviant, card shark, or cheat, affect the self-concept and behavior of a person. But a study at Yale, by Robert Kraut, was designed to test whether ingratiating with (positive) stereotypes or labels can also lead to a change in self-concept. Specifically, Kraut wanted to find out whether labeling a person as charitable and generous had a stronger impact than negative labeling as a “noncontributory.” He found that positive stereotyping caused more powerful results, even, than the negative. So flattery produces changes in the target’s self-concept that, in turn, lead to changes in the target’s behavior. In short, flatter a person regarding a positive behavior, and the person will not only live up to the flattery, but give you more.

Three categories of ingratiation
The original studies of ingratiation by Edward Jones (1963) identified three basic types or categories of flattery. They are reflected by the psychological research on ingratiation. The first and most obvious category is paying compliments. “I have a lot of admiration for your leadership skills. You really get the job done.” A derivative of this category is having a third party deliver the compliment. “Dan thinks your leadership skills are just what this firm needs.”

The second form of flattery is opinion conformity. This involves agreeing with the target’s statement, ideas, and views. A variation of this technique is to initially disagree, then yield, creating the impression that the target has changed your mind. “You know, although at first I rejected your solution to that problem, I’ve decided you’re really correct.”

The third category involves good, old-fashioned bragging, talking about one’s own expertise or experience to influence another’s evaluation of oneself. The first two categories focus the flattery on the target directly, for the purpose of gaining power with that target. In contrast, the third category increases liking and respect by focusing on oneself. One of my best friends, a well-placed clergyman, commented to me last summer that he didn’t mean to be name-dropping. Ha! But while on vacation in London last Spring, he “spent three hours in a private conversation with Prince Charles.” Now that’s how to push the envelope on gaining personal favor by name-dropping. Though most would not view bragging or name-dropping as a form of brown-nosing, it’s clearly a means of gaining favorable acceptance from the other, the very heart of ingratiation.

So you don’t like to use flattery?
Is ingratiation an unethical influence strategy? Only if the ingratiator believes the flattery or positive social labels used are false. If the ingratiator believes in the praise he is offering, there’s no ethical problem in focusing on the positive side of things. Ingratiation is a highly sophisticated form of street smarts. Yeah, I know. Everyone claims to hate brownnosers--unless the brownnosing is directed at them.

But, a lot more than ordinary business skills are necessary to get ahead in today’s highly competitive workplace. Indeed, it’s often necessary to bend the rules of fair play or ignore them completely if you want to succeed. Complain all you want about the lack of justice, but it’s inevitable that you’re going to have to be vigilant and proactive to ensure your own success.

Indeed, contrary to conventional wisdom, hard work and high performance won’t guarantee a promotion or even career success. In his latest book, Power, Jeff Pfeffer warns of the weak link between job performance and career outcomes. Indeed, systematic research reveals that job performance doesn’t guarantee you a promotion. High performance may actually hurt you because your boss wants to keep you in your high-performing role. Furthermore, high performance may not even be that important for keeping your job. In sum, high performance doesn’t do much for your career or for job security. You’re going to have to do something else. And that something else is to make your bosses feel better about themselves by apple-polishing.

So, ingratiation is an important skill in the toolkit for career success. Although it takes time and practice to become astute in its use, ingratiation is a means of persuasion, a motivational inducement that can significantly modify a person’s feelings, moods and emotions. It can be a highly successful tool for jump starting your boss’ drive to support you and your career. It is performance, coupled with the political skill of ingratiation, which will help you rise through the ranks.

Flickr photo: lyk3 On3 tym3

How to "Wow" Your Boss

Managing your boss and other execs isn’t just apple polishing, brown-nosing or sucking up. You need to wow your boss to get the resources to do the best job for yourself, your boss, your boss’ boss and your organization.

Your boss can either help or hinder your career: wowing him will help your career. With an effective relationship, your boss can give you all kinds of support, insight and linking to others in the organization. Actually, managing your boss is not manipulation, but forging ties based on mutual respect and understanding. Harvey  Golub, the former CEO of American Express, always told his people they needed the skills of influence management. “Wowing” your boss is nothing more than “upward influence management.” Managing your boss is so important that many of my senior clients ask me to teach their subordinates to manage them better. In short, they want their people to manage them because they can get “more done better.”

Four tips for wowing your boss.

1.      Manage your boss like he’s your client. Is he print-oriented or ear-oriented? Listener or reader? Detail-oriented or big picture-oriented. Strategy oriented or tactically-oriented? Play to his orientation when you give him information, but protect him when his orientation will get him into trouble. Decision-making styles differ significantly. If he’s highly involved, touch base frequently with him like some strategic clients who just want to be kept posted about important decisions already made.  

2.      Give your boss what he wants and needs, organizationally. Effective bosses lay out their business goals and objectives on a regular basis. Make sure you understand them clearly and that you demonstrate they’re important to you in your performance. Make your boss’ goals your priority. If they conflict with your own goals, communicate with your boss and get his help setting priorities. Don’t think you can read your boss’ mind about his organizational objectives. Ask him. Check in with him so he knows that you’re taking care of his needs. But find out how often he wants you to touch base with him.

3.      Remember what matters to your boss, personally.  Your boss’ personal life and career are just as important to him as his business objectives.  Find out his career objectives, keep him updated on related opportunities, and keep him out of trouble. Pay attention to his family and lifestyle objectives, and provide whatever resources possible for those wants and needs. You may know someone who can offer him insights for his kids’ college decisions, a unique developmental opportunity, a vacation location, or even an investment opportunity.

4.      Flatter your boss. The surest way to keep your position and build your future is to make your boss feel good about himself. As Stanford’s Jeff Pfeffer puts it, worry about the relationship you have with your boss as much as you worry about your job performance. Most people, not just the insecure, like to feel good about themselves. That means be very, very careful about criticizing your boss. If possible, get someone else to do it. Most people underestimate the value of flattery, and therefore underutilize it. The technical term is ingratiation and it has been thoroughly studied. An overall, meta-assessment of the research finds that flattery works and it works well.

Furthermore, a study by JD Watt (1993) found that ingratiators were thought by their supervisors as being more competent, more motivated, and more qualified for leadership positions than their nongratiating counterparts. Not too shabby results. But use flattery as a compliment to the other three tips, not solely. To the degree possible, be sincere. Most execs are clueless about many of their strengths—so take advantage of that weakness through the use of flattery.

I have little doubt that some, perhaps many subordinates resent that on top of all their other responsibilities, they also need to make managing their relationships with their bosses a work priority. These folk fail to realize the importance of managing their bosses, how they can simplify their jobs and build their own careers through this task. They think that if they perform well on the job their boss will take care of the rest.

In more than twenty-five years of consulting with leading American companies I’ve never met an executive who failed to make managing his boss a job priority. But I’ve met plenty of employees who failed to manage their boss, either because they don’t believe in it or don’t know how. But I never saw one of those employees become a senior manager or an executive.

Flickr.com: by Koulutus.fi

How to Build a Great Work Relationship with Your Boss

Work relationships are learnable.

The work relationship between you and your boss is one of your most important investments. Your boss is key to your future and the primary source for the resources you need to get your job done. That being the case, it's an important reminder that your boss is also the one who can help you prioritize your jobs. Finally, your boss is the one who can best link you to the rest of the organization. In sum, more than anyone else, your boss can either help or hinder your career. 

So how can you go about building a great work relationship with your boss? The best way is by means of an informal social contract. But first, I want to disabuse you of some widespread, totally false notions regarding boss-subordinate relationships in all kinds of contexts. 

Whatever your boss’s style, typically it’s up to you to establish and manage the lines of communication. The first error many workers make is that they somehow believe that it’s their boss’s responsibility to communicate to them and create the work relationship. That’s a hangover from the old hierarchical mythology of the last century. It’s not true, never was true, and it won’t work that way. Furthermore, information rarely flows down. In short, if you want to know what your boss thinks, needs or wants, you’re going to have to find out for yourself. And if you think your boss is operating outside reality, you’re going to have to figure out how to tell him. 

Finally—and make certain you understand this—if you want to be noticed for your performance, influence the dimensions by which your boss will measure you, manage the powers that be and enhance the egos of those above you, the starting place is a great work relationship with your boss. [All three of these competencies are quite learnable. You’ll find a blog on influence here, one on managing up, and another on enhancing egos. Check my personalized Googler for more blogs on the subjects. It’s rare to meet anyone with these competencies, but today’s complex, diverse workforce makes them both more needful and more valuable.] In short, no one gets ahead in business without the ability to smartly suck-up to their boss (all without, hopefully, compromising their values too much). I would argue that it’s true in education, government, especially the non-profits and the church/temple/mosque ministry—and often in our own families. My brother always got in trouble with my mother—which meant he got in trouble with my dad—because he didn’t know how to suck up to mother. I learned early on, and realized that once I did the few things she really needed, I could do whatever the hell I wanted.  As a former family counselor, I should say that there are some healthy parents, but that they are few in number. 

Now back to that business of building a great work relationship with your boss. Years ago I adapted a relationship process from the work of Ed Schein, one of the world’s top experts in organizational behavior, now emeritus professor at MIT. Though originally a process for team relationships, it also works exceptionally well when applied to the boss-subordinate relationship. Indeed, bosses have requested me to coach their subordinates into the process. There’s no reason that bosses can’t manage down and teach the process to their subordinates, in spite of the fact that it is a managing-up strategy—but they just plain don’t like to spend their time communicating down. The successful bosses spend their time building a great work relationship with their own boss. 

The relationship between a boss and direct report is always rather straightforward. They need to build a work relationship, establish an emotional climate that facilitates getting things done effectively and develop a set of work methods. The underlying social and communication forces that shape the working dynamic are significantly overlooked in most boss-subordinate relationships. These work “methods,” what I call “infrastructure,” support the achievement of decision making and business processes and provide the underlying relationship logic.  Bosses and workers make all kinds of assumptions about their relationship, but this is one way of getting those assumptions on the table, talking about them, and enhancing the relationship. 

The easiest way to talk about these issues is to arrange a conversation in which you want to talk about or confirm your understanding of what your boss really wants from you. After all, you know that if your boss looks good, then you’ll look good. You’d be surprised how often you can say those actual words, get a laugh from your boss, and get all the information you need from him.  The conversations should include one or more of the following questions (you may find that your boss wants to spend the whole time on the first question you ask.  OK. Finish the other questions later. It may take several sessions.) 

How do you set mutually shared goals?

How do you prefer to solve problems?

What kind of information do you typically need to make decisions, and how do you go about it?

How do we ensure follow-through and completion of tasks?

How can we best collaborate in our efforts?

How will we keep our lines of communication open?

How do we manage our differences most effectively?

Again: These are best discussed early in a relationship. But my clients have initiated these conversations at all stages of their relationship with their boss. Although there are occasions in which this entire infrastructure has been covered in one extensive conversation—and bosses have asked for that—a conversation may include only one or two of the issues at a time. They do not need to be discussed in any special order. 

Furthermore, once you’ve gotten the information from your boss, and she thinks you understand, your boss may break her rules. That means you’ll have to renegotiate the issue once more. Renegotiation is normal for these relationships. As often as not, you won’t realize that your boss has stepped outside his agreed-upon rules until you’ve slept on it. Then you need to get right back to her, talk about the issue some more, renegotiate . . .  or whatever. And keep her happy. It should be obvious that if your boss is happy with you, you’re liable to be happy with her. 

I should also add that I’ve worked this process with 75 to 100 bosses and subordinates at some of the best companies in the world, and, without exception, they all love it. 

P.S. I note that Rosabeth Moss Kanter, the resident brain at Harvard Business School, argues similarly about boss failure, although fixing the relationship seems to be a more limited agenda.

Photo: Flickr, Hira10

4 Tips for Dealing with an Urgent Request

The business world is an urgent world. At least that's what managers want you to believe. Take a deep breath, lean back, and get real.

Here's the skinny: managers are paid to get results. The consequence is that they talk urgent, like a speeded up newscaster. So don't get spooked. It is exceedingly rare for any manager to move as fast as he or she talks. One of the few, really frustrating truths I've learned in nearly 30 years of consulting is that my understanding of urgent is different than my client's understanding of urgent. I've always got more time to respond than I initially thought. In the back of my mind is an important footnote: Bosses, even CEO's don't push McKinsey consultants and other powerful people with "urgent requests." McKinsey, in very measured and articulate fashion, will push back on corporate people so that they can do the job in the form they want and make the money they expect.

Here are four tips on how to respond to an urgent request, borrowed and freely adjusted from Ron Ashkenas.

1. Don't think that urgent means right now. Talk to your boss or your client about what he wants accomplished. And in the conversation, move beyond the specific, concrete task to his objective. He'll want to talk task, you want objective. What will this task achieve for him? Be smart about the question. Respond like, "so what you want from me is blah, blah, blah. Right?" If he says yes, then ask how doing that fits into his overall objective. If he tells you to "just do it," respond with, "I can do a lot better job for you if I understand how this fits into . . . ."
2. Listen for the politics. Here's my rule: All tasks have a political component. Who besides your client or your boss is making this an urgent matter? That information will help you make a timeline decision. If it's the CEO or board chairman, get your ass in gear. If it's several of your boss's colleagues, you can usually slow down.
3. Respond, but don't be in a hurry to act. Get real. Ninety-five percent of the time when you finish the task for your boss or your client, it'll sit on his desk for a week or more before he does anything with it. Think about it. Your boss probably needs to clear out his in-basket. Since he'd like to get it done today, that's his rationale for making the task urgent. You might say, "OK. I have number of high priority tasks, but I can get it done by the end of next week. Will that be OK with you?" Don't forget that one of the reasons that your boss is a manager is that he's learned how to juggle priorities. You can be certain that he knows how to put off projects for other priorities, so your request will be a familiar issue.
4. Be prepared to say no. Once you've figured out whether it's a real crisis or your boss (or client) is crying wolf, then you're ready to say yes or no. If your client or your boss thinks he needs something right now, it's quite OK to decline the request.  A second way of saying no to your boss is to force him to reprioritize your tasks.  Say something like, "I understand that this task is urgent, but you've given me a number of priorities . . . A, B, and C. How would you suggest that I repriortize?"

There is a very important, and "urgent" assumption under all of this. And that is that you have an effective and open relationship with your boss. In today's economic climate, success with your boss is your highest priority. Don't skim over that. Your boss is your highest priority, not your other tasks. That means that you manage him. If he trusts that you manage him and his needs well, you can probably get away with murder. You're too valuable to him, personally, to ignore. Check out my posts on managing up. In one especially potent blog, I reveal the real secret to managing your boss. 

Erwin rule: business never moves as fast as it would like the world to think. Plodding along, making slow, political decisions is the norm. If you think government moves slowly, check out business. It moves just as slowly and makes just as many mistakes. Maybe more. I have that info on good authority from leading execs. Business just has better PR.

How to Get Information Out of Your Boss When He Doesn't Want to Give It

One frustration most employees meet very early in their work experience is that they can't get info out of their boss. Their boss stonewalls them.

Glenn Roberts, an engineer at his firm's national headquarters in Indianapolis, had been working on a project for the firm's Los Angeles plant. He'd been very successful with his projects in LA. So when he took his proposal to his boss, he expected an immediate OK. But the boss turned him down flat, telling him to do the proposal differently. When he reminded the boss that he knew the client and that he'd had success with him in the past, his boss stopped him and said, "Do it the way I told you."

Thinking the conversation was over, Glenn, frustrated and angry, went back to his desk to make the necessary changes. The LA client, as Glenn anticipated, was unhappy with the new proposal. When Glenn reported back to his boss, he simply responded, "Too bad," and turned away, ending the conversation.

These kind of experiences are not all that unusual. Even though you might not get your way, the truth of the matter is that if you understood what the hell was going on in such situations, you'd be a lot better off. You'd be able to make still better decisions in the future.

How do you get information out of your boss when he doesn't want to give it to you?

Although this kind of experience is happening less in today's workplace,  Glenn's interaction is still not unusual. First and foremost, cool off and put on your analytical hat.

Based on all the potential players, there are at least four different ways to think through Glenn's experience: issues with himself, his boss, upper management or the client. Although you may not be able to figure out the exact problem for some time, you can usually up the ante on your knowledge base and come up with a way to get some information for future use.

FYI: As a general rule, think management first--both your boss and upper management. Not the client or yourself.

But don't waste your time ascribing your boss's response to defensiveness. You want to know what's going on. So forget the psych crap and go for the facts. This is not Oprah stuff. I had to write a PhD dissertation to understand that, but it can be learned on the first week of anyone's career.

Understanding the situation

To understand your boss's response you should have a general understanding of his business and your division, the client's business (Los Angeles) and the company's business. So keep up-to-date on the company's important fiscal and competitive issues. Is the company losing business or under an unusual amount of financial pressure? That will quickly lead you into what's going on in that LA plant. Is that plant doing well or not, and why? If the company is under pressure or the LA group is in trouble, those difficulties may be impacting Glenn's proposal and his client. And often, because of organizational politics or concerns about competitive intelligence, the boss is not free to comment on issues like that. For a better understanding of such issues, go to my blog on strategic ambiguity.

Then, what do you know about your client's relation to headquarters and the company? If there've been recent problems or he's having difficulties of any sort that might possibly affect your proposal, you've got another potential explanation for your boss's resistance. For personal and professional reasons many bosses aren't going to comment on another's difficulties. You'll have to look to your internal network to get that information. Perhaps from a trusted colleague. If that client is having personal issues such as productivity, relationships, etc., that might explain the situation. Never forget that all business issues always have a people side to them--they're always political as hell and that's reality.

What about your boss? Is he under pressure? Are there some new players he's having to deal with? Or has he failed to manage power inside the organization? Furthermore, studies show that bosses have vastly different perceptions of their relationship with their subordinates and they're very consistent in their use of the chosen relationship. At one extreme are bosses who see clearly defined roles and contracts for themselves (very hierarchical). They will keep information close to the chest. At the other end of the continuum are bosses who whose relationships are built on trust, support, liking and a lot of interaction (participative). Dealing with the differences requires flexibility on your part. Companies tend to be moving to rewarding bosses who are far less hierarchical, engage in a lot of coaching and readily offer both power and responsibility to their people. Obviously, the participative boss is easier to deal with. (BTW: Under pressure, over the long term bosses can change and move from one extreme to another. When a culture changes its management expectations, most managers will adapt. Painful, but they'll do it.)

Finally, look at yourself. Has your boss been consistently giving you information and solid feedback, occasionally intervening and making suggestions? Is there a great deal of liking and respect between you and him? Are you getting the cold shoulder and is the relationship getting difficult? Don't just pay attention to your own insights. Ask a few trusted colleagues to weigh in with you on what they see happening.

Steps to take

If your boss's comment is frustrating and/or out of character, you should be ready with some smart talk to check out his comment. He's not liable to answer directly, so calculate your conversation. Use an affirming, knowledgeable statement--a paraphrase--rather than a question.

Here are some evaluative paraphrases I've found to be very useful. When your boss shuts down, look at him directly, and with a smile, say:

• Sounds to me like that was a decision made above our grade level. (Not my or your. You want to know whether upper management made the decisision. Furthermore, no boss will easily admit to a decision made above his grade level.)
• Sounds like somebody else has his finger in that pie.
• I wasn't ready for that response. Guess you know more about my client and his plant than I do. 

Enunciate clearly so there's no question about what you're saying. If you're a fast talker like me, slow down your speed and hit the consonants with a punch. You want to make certain there's no question about what you're saying.

There's a less than 50% chance when your boss is stonewalling that he'll comment. That's to be expected--and OK. Watch his nonverbals with a laser focus. A smile, wink, knowing grin, etc. mean that your guess was correct. This also assumes that you've got a baseline sense of what your boss's nonverbals mean and how he uses them. (If you can't read your boss's nonverbals, get with the program. Nonverbal failure will land you in la-la land or on the streets looking for a new job.) I've also found that a deadpan response and no discussion more often than not means my paraphrase was correct. No information is information. Using a paraphrase for information gathering is liable to earn your boss's respect rather than his rejection.

Once you've gathered your info, you can check it out elsewhere. It is especially important to adapt to that new information. With the changes in place, you'll be back in your boss's good graces--or working your network to look for other job prospects. Both options are a lot better than fuming about the information you didn't get from your boss. This is just a job, not life or death.

It would be stupid of me to promise that you can always get information out of your boss. But I'm after raising your batting average. And these processes will significantly raise most workers' batting average--as much as 25%. Any baseball player would be thrilled with such an improvement.

So You Think Your Boss Should Give You the Straight Skinny? Fat Chance.

Openness and clarity are the keys to effective communication.  Or at least, that is what is taught and encouraged by most educators, especially in business schools and HR departments.  You ask a clear question, you should be able to get a clear answer.  And so when you go to a management meeting, you expect to find out what's really going on in the company.  Well, that ain't necessarily gonna happen.

Before I  explain why you won't get the straight skinny, I need to clear out some of the underbrush.  I'm not talking mostly about deception or outright lying.  Sure, that takes place, but most managers understand that if they deceive often they're going to earn a reputation for it.  That'll make it especially difficult for them to communicate a straight message when they need to.  Also, they know that the trust of people is a key incentive for organizational productivity and team motivation. Besides, it takes a lot of energy to keep your lies consistent which means that you'll eventually get tired of it--and be found out. Deception is not an effective path to work and team success.

But if you critically examine the communication of most managers, execs and government officials, you'll notice that the usual definition of (effective) communication as clarity and openness is sometimes, well . . . just bullshit.  So beware of the leadership literature and the HR department.  As a matter of fact, recent research in organizational communication finds that intentional miscommunication is often as prevalent as intentionally clear communication.  I'd argue that often "effective communication" is intentionally ambiguous.

Why is this?  

On many, many occasions, managers and leaders are caught in multiple, conflicting constraints.  Rather than maximize the achievement of any one goal in particular, the leader winds up in a catch 22.  He's caught in numerous conflicting situations, but has no real control over the final outcome.

Although any senior business manager can recite numerous examples of ambiguity, a great example comes from Tom Friedman's article in which he opines on President Obama's ambiguous statements explaining the intervention of America and its allies in Libya. These were the conflicts Obama faced, detailed by Friedman.

In Libya, we have to figure out whether to help rebels we do not know topple a terrible dictator we do not like, while at the same time we turn a blind eye to a monarch whom we do like in Bahrain, who has violently suppressed people we also like -- Bahraini democrats -- because these people we like have in their ranks people we don't like: pro-Iranian Shiite hard-liners. All the while in Saudi Arabia, leaders we like are telling us we never should have let go of the leader who was so disliked by his own people -- Hosni Mubarak -- and, while we would like to tell the Saudi leaders to take a hike on this subject, we can't because they have so much oil and money that we like. And this is a lot like our dilemma in Syria where a regime we don't like -- and which probably killed the prime minister of Lebanon whom it disliked -- could be toppled by people who say what we like, but we're not sure they all really believe what we like because among them could be Sunni fundamentalists, who, if they seize power, could suppress all those minorities in Syria whom they don't like.

Sometimes, as Friedman coments, the truth is too hot to handle.  It's too displeasing, too frustrating, too messy, too tentative, too incomplete, and so on.  In those situations, inconsistency can't be avoided.  Still, inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing.  Making a hopeless impasse clear may be unwise and likely to make things worse.  Inherently, many readily succumb to personal, often destructive biases such as the drive for immediate decisionmaking, either-or decisionmaking, or even that the most colorful, vivid option is best.  

Inevitably, therefore, the wise leader often chooses ambiguity. And rightly so.  He understands that the downside of ambiguity is a lot better than the downside of a very tentative set of strategies that may or may not succeed.

Effective communication as "strategic ambiguity."

Academics have a technical term for that form of presentation: "strategic ambiguity."  In a seminal piece of research, Eric Eisenberg argues that clarity and openness are not the only definition of effective communication.  Sometimes, he argues, the truly effective leader has to be strategically ambiguous.

• Ambiguity can provide the leader with a great deal of flexibility and creativity, not limiting that leader to a narrow resolution of a problem.  In politics, it's just good PR.  Ambiguity can promote a great diversity of ideas and actions.
• Ambiguity facilitates organizational change.  It gives the leader permission to make various moves that a single objective would not permit.  He can pilot numerous initiatives and not have to engage in full disclosure.
• Ambiguity also preserves privileged positions.  If there's no single objective that can be readily measured, you've limited the critical options of your public, whether subordinates, commentators or journalists.  The ongoing complaint, for example, that Obama hasn't revealed his strategy or endgame is reflective of a governmental or business leader's smart, purposeful use of ambiguity.  It limits the criticism that can be leveled at him.  "he won't tell us his strategy and endgame" is not much to critique or write about.

There are plenty of situations for which the dumb thing is for your boss to be candid.  Smart bosses refuse.  That's the nature of effective organizational communication.

Eric Eisenberg, Ambiguity as a strategy in organizational communication.

4 Tips for Giving Your New Boss Feedback

Focusing on the relationship with your new boss--from the start--is key to long-term success.  If you've never done it before, giving your boss feedback can be nervewracking.  Still, many, if not most strong relationships are based on openly sharing advice and input.  That kind of communication relationship weathers the storms of personal disagreement and corporate difficulty.  So here are four tips for building a relationship with feedback and advice at the center.

1. Start early.  Most new bosses try to have one-on-ones early in their tenure.  Pay close attention to her input, guaging her willingness to listen and openness to relationships.  Be attentive to the smallest hints of concern that she may voice.  Make a few comments and ask a few questions that telegraph your desire for a relationship and willingness to give unsolicited input.  Research clearly reports that your ability to enhance the ego of your boss is a key success factor. 
2. Determine her willingness to listen.  Since silence is open to many interpretations and meanings, define early on how your boss uses silence.  Is she paying attention to what others are saying, formulating her own response, accepting or rejecting ideas?  Keys to a real listener include her use of questions, definition of terms, clarification of input, as well as summary application of a speaker's insights.  Pay close attention to her "turn-taking" skills.  Does she talk, listen intently with silence, talk again, listen more with questioning?  If not, be wary and very carefully filter your messages to her respectfully, always assessing her response until you get a better handle on her expectations and liking.
3. Schedule your feedback.  Always set up the meeting with your new boss.  And do it within the first four to six weeks of her tenure.  Tell her that you've got a couple important issues you'd like to talk about.  Be ready to give and explain a very positive contribution she's making to the organization. Detail it's success.  Then suggest one change or new action that would make her more successful. Explain your rationale, give an example, and suggest the positive consequence.   Never, never take her by surprise until she lets you know that she's comfortable with "walk-ins."
4. Gauge her reactions.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the best of us are more often wrong than right when it comes to assessing a person's reactions.  So pay close attention to how she goes about problem solving and making decisions.  How much info does she need?  Listen to assess her ability to determine the consequences of her behaviors.  And pay attention especially to her self-awareness. Can she admit error, talk about her thinking and laugh at herself.  And after you've dished out positive and negative feedback, check in by occasionally asking, "Does this make sense?"  Or, "Did that work?"

The majority of bosses are completely lacking in both interactional skills and self-awareness.  That's neither condemnation of bosses nor of business/technical education.  Relationship skills were not required in the 20th century industrial economy.  Indeed, giving and following orders in a controlled environment required little relationship intentionality.  In the New, Global Economy relationship skills are the ultimate distinguishing characteristic of the successful.  Technology, the so-called hard science is rather easy to learn especially because it is largely controllable and predictable.  In contrast, many struggle to learn the so-called soft power skills where the ability to control and predict consequences is far more difficult. Even today, few business and technical colleges and universities are up to the demands of the world environment.  And you'll often find, much to your dismay, that many managers and execs are clueless.  So be wary as you go about managing your boss.  But don't fail to do it.

Relationship building is never an event, but a long-term campaign.  It can be costly, but as I've emphasized in an earlier blog on managing your boss, it'll also provide job opportunities, resources, links to the rest of the organization, and often a very good raise.  

Wanna Play Hooky This Afternoon?

It's a beautiful Spring day and you're tired of the snow and the rain, and you'd really like to hit the links this afternoon.  Uness you're the Governor of South Carolina or self-employed, it's hard to disappear from work--especially in the middle of the day.  (BTW: Many of us who are self-employed laugh at the idea that we've got more time to play hookey.  I worked a lot less--and a lot fewer hours when I was an employee.) 

BloombergBusinessweek had three ideas for playing hooky.  Distract your boss and the other employees by saying that somebody from HR is coming in to inspect everybody's computer files.  If that doesn't work, sabotage the copy machine.  A second is to set up a Skype conversation from your office computer to your smartphone--and then just disappear.  A third one is to leave your desk, cubicle or office a mess.  Nobody's going to think your gone when he/she sees that. 

Well, after you've decided those three are nutty, here's one that often works, especially if you've been overloaded recently.  Just ask your boss if you can't disappear after one or two-o-clock this afternoon.  If you're a good worker and you've got a decent relation with your boss, you'll be surprised how often you'll get an OK.  Since they don't want to condone such absence, many bosses avoid the "yes" when they mean yes.  I was sitting in a CIO's office sometime ago when a guy stuck his head in and asked the question.  The boss, ever politically correct, smiled broadly at him and said, "I can't imagine you asked me that."  One CEO, with about 150 employees will comment to the question this way: "I'm sure I won't be walking by your cubby to check up on you this afternoon."  If you've been the recipient of a unique "yes," I'd like to hear about it.

The BusinessWeek article also laid out some unsuprising statistics that revealed that Americans, especially in contrast to the Brits and the French, put in some whopping long hours.  Statistics from the Center for American Progress reveal that 86% of men and 67% of women work more than 40 hours a week.  Furthermore, the International Labour Organization claims that Americans spend 260 more hours a year at the office than the Brits.  Americans also spend a whopping 499 hours a year at the office than the French.

So what's a hard worker like you supposed to do?  Once in a while, just go play hooky.