While on the surface this phrase may seem rather innocuous and in the abstract true — a boss or organization is paying any employee to work — beneath the surface, it is a thinly veiled invitation to join the boss’s personal “pity party”.

Let’s start with what I call the work contract we enter into with any organization or individual.  Simply stated it is “YOU WORK, WE PAY”.  This contract is usually either a formal document signed by the various parties, a guarantee carried by an organization’s policies for pay at various levels of employment, or simply a verbal agreement reached between an individual and his or her prospective boss.  Whichever, it is still a contract, although something in writing is always preferable.

The specifics of this contractual arrangement are usually worked out in terms of hours, days, specific work requirements, skill demands, and output quantity and quality.  As an employee, the best contractual agreement generally enables us to understand the work and deadlines required, the quality and quantity standards we must meet and what we can expect as pay and any benefits in return.

Unless the work contract itself needs re-negotiating for some reason — new duties, standards, or responsibilities, or an increase/decrease in pay — there is no rational reason to keep referring to it on a regular basis.

Most bosses will quickly tire of hearing regular employee comments regarding how hard they are working, or how difficult their job is.  Asking a boss to feel sorry for us for having to do the work for which we expect payment, is not a winning strategy for continued employment and advancement.

Similarly, most employees will quickly tire of hearing regular comments from their boss that imply that the employee’s monetary compensation constitutes an undue burden requiring exceptional gratitude and sympathy.  Why did you hire me — one might ask — if you can not afford the cost?

In today’s world of work, many organizations and employers regularly terminate a “work contract” because they can no longer financially afford to maintain their current staffing.  Astute employees understand these realities and cope with the uncertainties involved.  The best bosses and managers do not add to these uncertainties with constant reminders that their subordinate’s efforts are costing them the very salary they have agreed to pay.

According to Ephron, everybody sat at their typewriters and wrote something like “Margaret Mead and X and Y will address the faculty in Sacramento, Thursday, at a colloquium on new teaching methods, the principal announced today”.  “We were very proud of ourselves” said Ephron, but Simms “just ruffled through” our efforts “and tore them into tiny bits and threw them in the trash”.  Then Simms said “the lead story is this:  There will be no school Thursday!”  ”It was like an epiphany moment for me”, said Ephron, “Oh my God, it is about the point!  It is about finding out what the point is.”

I simply love this story and its point:  who is your audience and what is the most important point of your communication.  And nowhere is this point more important than in providing meaningful and useful performance feedback to another individual.

Unfortunately, the process and structured format used by many organizations to conduct performance reviews can easily complicate the challenge of arriving at some meaningful overarching point.  Many formats I am familiar with contain lists of mandatory categories to address and are often assigned an alphabetical or numerical grade.  Overall performance grades or scores are common and written narratives must support the grades assigned.  It is easy to see how managers can become so absorbed in getting the format right and the scores to add up, that they fail to identify what Ms. Ephron would have called the right lead for the individual involved.

We all know in our hearts that we humans are not reducible to a grade or score on any performance measurement device.  But many individuals nevertheless succumb to the habit of seeing themselves as a test score, letter or numerical grade, or adjectival descriptor.  And if there is anything negative in a performance review, those comments can overwhelm anything positive that surrounds it.  Thus the lead becomes critical.

The LEAD, as I use the term here, is the overarching characterization — positive or negative — that captures the essence of the individual’s performance under review.  Everyone’s performance has some transcendent quality or unique set of characteristics that effectively summarized as a point of departure, should set the tone and context for everything that follows.  Moreover, the lead is something the best managers wish a subordinate to remember long after the review session itself.

Getting the lead right is not easy.  It demands a thorough knowledge of the individual’s performance over time and the ability to observe and assimilate changes in that performance when they occur; this year’s lead may differ from those that worked before.

But getting the lead right, should help the person under review place the more detailed elements of his or her  performance assessment in a context that gives these elements the appropriate weight.  Getting the lead right, should help the individual keep his or her own sense of their performance in the appropriate professional perspective.  Getting the lead right, should also provide the motivation for a subordinate to continue on the path they are on, or to make the performance adjustments your review aims to encourage.

Regardless of the process and structured format requirements for a performance review, the best managers take the time to step back and determine the appropriate lead for the individual’s performance under review.  Then the lead is where they begin the review session itself, it is a theme to which they return whenever they think necessary, and it is often where they choose to end a review session so as to emphasize the lead’s centrality to everything else the review contains.

As you can see, the best managers never bury the lead.

All three statements can leave you wondering whether the boss is so uncomfortable with his or her own attachment to the feedback, that they need the support of others to render it valid.  These statements also raise the question of whether the boss himself or herself has any substantive facts or observations of their own to support what they are telling you.

Granted, much depends on what the boss says in the conversation that follows these statements and whether you are given an opportunity to respond to the feedback.  But as a general management rule, one should avoid employing the views of “anonymous others” in support of negative feedback unless absolutely judged necessary.

The American Judicial System refers to such information as “hearsay” evidence — the evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others – and it is inadmissible in an individual’s trial.  Primarily, direct personal observations or experiences constitute admissible, valid  information and these are a far stronger foundation for a boss’s negative feedback than the views of unnamed others.

It is a manager’s responsibility of course to evaluate a subordinate’s performance and to deliver any negative judgments likely to effect that subordinate’s advancement and job tenure.  Accordingly, every subordinate has the right to expect that his or her boss will personally “OWN” every aspect of their performance feedback and have taken the time to verify and support it with facts.  That is why anonymous negative feedback alone is simply a cop-out.

Even worse, anonymous negative feedback has the potential to poison the working environment into which its recipient must now return.  It is easy to imagine some of the questions any of us would have:

• Which one of my colleagues or teammates was talking behind my back?
• Did the boss really mean everybody feels the same way?
• Why are my colleagues or teammates trying to undermine me?
• Who, if anyone, can I now trust or consider a friend?
• Should I confront my colleagues and demand direct feedback from them?

In addition, if one’s teammates or colleagues are aware that we have been taken to the woodshed by the boss based on their input, they will likely have their own uncertainties concerning the working environment ahead.

As a manager, it is inevitable that you will occasionally hear both positive and negative comments made by others in reference to your subordinates.  They are potentially valuable clues to activities outside your awareness and to the performance quality of those you must evaluate.  But they are just clues and not hard facts until you have done some digging and investigating on your own.

The best managers are never comfortable that they have a precise handle on the performance quality and potential of all their subordinates.  Such assessments are extremely difficult and there is so much one can miss.  Thus the best managers are those willing to invest the personal time required for observation and direct involvement in the performance activities of their subordinates and they never take — or pass along — as gospel the hearsay views of others.

The cover story of Bloomberg Businessweek’s May 13, 2013 edition chronicles what it calls “one of the all-time great comebacks” by Netflix over the last eighteen months.  Was this all due to their apologies and abandonment of Qwikster?  Of course not.  But it is easy to imagine the critical role their rapid reversal played as a catalyst.

What I love in stories like this is how they illustrate the power and positive impact of acknowledging a mistake — or if you like, a stupid or dumb move — and doing so reasonably fast.  It quickly disarms most of your critics who lose the ability to claim you made the mistake that you have just acknowledged.  They may still wish to focus on your fallibility but from your perspective,  you are now free to engage in what I call “a do-over”, or golfers call a “mulligan”.  You may have some damage to repair but the faster you get at it, the better.

So if a rapid acknowledgement of a mistake has such advantages, why do so many of us — managers and non-managers — often refuse to do so?  I believe this is a very complicated psychological question that I will leave to others more qualified to answer.  Suffice to say the process is challenging.  It requires the intellectual and emotional ability to distance ourselves sufficiently from our actions to see the facts for what they are and the maturity to humble ourselves in front of others by admitting we were wrong.

Putting causation aside, I believe it is more fruitful to focus attention on the damage done when an individual simply refuses to acknowledge any misjudgment or mistake, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Essentially, time spent defending a mistake is time wasted.  Counter-productive efforts delays productive behavior.  Needed damage control and repair are delayed, while others are forced to witness a painful and  immature display of denial.  Worst of all, the therapeutic and cathartic effect of rapidly acknowledging a mistake erodes proportional to the length of one’s disavowal.

It helps, I believe, to remember what the admission of a mistake actually amounts to:  THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE ARE JUST HUMAN and that’s not so bad after all.  Especially for managers who must make so many decisions and judgment calls that the law of large numbers virtually guarantees that mistakes will occur, the self-acceptance that we are not perfect, have our flaws, possess our blind-spots, and will from time to time get it wrong, makes it easier to acknowledge a mistake and rapidly move on.

The best managers make a practice of confronting reality square in the face, acknowledging their misjudgments to others, and turning their do-overs into corrective action.   Moreover, achieving adult maturity requires that all of us learn to practice such honesty and corrective action in our every day lives.

In this series of articles under the category “MANAGING POOR MANAGEMENT”, I will share what hard-won experience has taught me about coping with the less than ideal boss with whom we are sometimes required to cope.

But bear in mind, that managing poor management in all of its manifestations is always a challenge, because it means attempting to manage your boss or bosses. Thus, as I have written elsewhere in these articles, it is critical that one asks — and honestly answers — the vital question “does it really matter”? Does this act of bad management seriously affect my ability to do my job, or hinder the performance of the organization for which I am responsible? If it does, then you should act to confront the issue as best you can, assuming you can. If it does not really matter in any significant way, then save your powder for the engagements that really do.

THE “OPPRESSIVE” BOSS

The manager I have in mind here may sound like a stereotype but is very real.  He or she is defined by a range of behaviors that can make a subordinate’s work life a living hell.   Label these managers what you will but many of my readers will have real names to attach to the behavior I now describe.

Specifically, these managers appear totally consumed with themselves and demonstrate little empathy for the feelings, views, or concerns of others.  They are often cruel, mean and ruthless when crossed.  They are frequently charismatic and crave and cultivate absolute loyalty and constant signs of approval. They can also be devilishly manipulative, pitting their loyalists against others .

The “oppressive” manager displays an inflated sense of his or her own ability and accomplishments, often takes credit for the achievements of others and will prevaricate and embellish to impress.    To challenge and oppose them — especially in public — risks almost certain retribution.  They are suspicious, often bordering on paranoia, and can adopt a take no prisoners approach to their perceived enemies.  These managers generally RULE BY FEAR.

Again, this is a stereotype and hopefully one never encounters the entire package in their boss.  But I have counseled my share of victims of such management to know these folks exist.  A few have actually lost their jobs for daring to criticize or challenge their boss’s behavior.

I wish I could tell you how these types get selected as managers or remain in their jobs while their bosses pay little or no attention.  I can not; remember I said they were charismatic and manipulative.  What I can do is offer a few suggestions for coping with them.

First, and I’m not kidding, if you can get another job.  These managers rarely change, seem oblivious to the destructive aspects of their personality, and will make you pay if you try to reform them.  They can literally make you sick both physically and emotionally if you let them, so moving on as soon as possible is a good choice.  It is safe to consider these managers beyond your best corrective efforts.

Second, when another job is not an option, protect yourself.  Keep your head down, do not seek to argue with or challenge the oppressive boss unless you must and limit your interactions to those necessary to do your job.  Trying to befriend or curry favor can easily backfire.  Remember, the oppressive manager is suspicious and will often read devious intent when there is none.

Third, do not play games or sell out in order to convince her or him of your loyalty and support.  Quietly doing your job to the best of your ability — being productive — is the better way to remain under the radar.  Remember, your high quality output makes her or him look good as well.

Finally, whatever you personally may think, try to avoid choosing sides.  Some subordinates assigned to these managers will spend considerable time complaining about and discussing the boss in harsh and derogatory terms.  Try to remain neutral in what you say and stay focused on your work.  The oppressive manager is keen to discover her or his opposition and generally has ways — via selected loyalists — to learn what others are saying.  Try to avoid being part of that discovery.

With luck, you will eventually escape to another job and boss.  Or higher-ups will conclude they have had enough and remove the problem manager for you.  The common thread in all my suggestions regarding the oppressive boss is YOUR SURVIVAL.

As the crippled spacecraft’s crew battled long survival odds 205,000 miles above the earth, it suddenly became apparent to ground-based Mission Control that the spacecraft was rapidly running out of breathable air due to near toxic levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Mission Control scrambled to help find a solution.  The core problem was how to connect two incompatible parts to build an air filter; a contingency they had never remotely considered.

With time — measured in minutes — of the essence, a lead engineer quickly assembled a small team of engineers in a room and deposited several boxes of apparently un-related space items on a table in front of them.  “OK people listen up —  the lead tells his team — the people upstairs have handed us this one and we have to come through.  We’ve got to find a way to make this – he holds up a square object — fit into the hole for this — he holds up a round object — using nothing but that — he points to the gear on the table, representing the limits of what the spacecraft crew had to work with.   Lets get it organized and build a filter”. 

What I love about this scene was its simplicity and straight forwardness.  There was no lamenting their responsibility for — or the difficulty of — the task, no wasted discussion of the “whose responsible or how could this happen” variety, and no abstract speculation about how they could address the problem “if only they had this or that item”.  The group simply got straight to work and as we know from history, found a way to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

The more I thought about this movie scene, the more I became convinced that it contained a simple, three-part formula fit for a wide variety of management problems and situations.  I applied it myself many times subsequently, so I can tell you it does work.  It will not work for every problem a manager faces but it is worth considering especially for the tough ones.

THE RIGHT PEOPLE – Knowing who these people are in any given situation is one of the great skills of the best managers.  It is not a matter of blind intuition.  Rather it requires the ability to really get to know the talents, skills, experience, personality and temperament of one’s subordinates, colleagues, and the other people with whom one regularly works.  Really good managers endeavor to cultivate this ability, knowing it will pay off when it comes to making critical assignments and assembling just the right team for a very specific problem.

THE LEADER’S CONFIDENCE IN THE TEAM’S ABILITY TO SUCCEED — Do not underestimate this critical factor in empowering a team to accomplish the difficult.  The attitude of a team’s leader defines an outcome expectation that powerfully influences the task’s results.  And the attitude that has the greatest impact is CONFIDENCE; confidence that this is the right team composition and that the team will succeed.

The confidence I am referring to can not be faked.  It is not exhibited through arrogance or swagger, nor does it require a stirring pep talk.  It is a genuine — often quiet — expression of the leader’s demeanor, words, tone of voice, and body language.  It is easily read — consciously and sub-consciously —  by all team members and it inspires team confidence and maximum effort.

The power of the leader’s confidence resides in the overwhelming tendency of human beings to live up to the expectations placed upon them.  Thus when the leader conveys in some way his or her own skepticism about a successful outcome, any doubts team members might have will likely be magnified.

THE NEED FOR PERIMETERS THAT PROVIDE FOCUS AND LIMITS – Can you imagine the ideas a team of talented engineers would have generated for creating the required filter if they had not been limited to the items on the spacecraft?  It is an invitation to waste time and energy to approach a problem without somehow setting some limits on what is possible.  The tighter the focus, the more precise the perimeters concerning what is possible and impossible — on and off the table — the easier it is for a solution team to concentrate their efforts on the art of the possible.

Again, the formula does work.  Give it a try.

Others, however, perhaps less self-confident and self-assured, have let the “right person” thought enter their consciousness and often far too often for their own good.  So here is a bottom line:  a small dose of self-doubt will serve a manager better as a motivator over the long run, than will an arrogant, over-confidence that inhibits one’s ability to learn from her or his mistakes.  But I have counseled many to avoid taking on — or continuing to shoulder — the responsibility inherent in managing human beings and their productive efforts if they: haven’t the desire; conclude the job is not for them; or lack the basic confidence deep within that they are up to that task.

But what if you are one of those individuals who is especially sensitive to what others think of — and about — you and are ever attuned  to environmental cues?  For example:

• The winner of a competition for a key management post often faces a band of losers and other bystanders who openly express their belief that they or someone else would have been the better choice.

• There are also those subordinates who have no compunction about making clear from time to time that they believe they could do a better job than their current boss.

• And organizations frequently send mixed messages by attaching the qualifier “acting” or “interim” before the title a manager carries.

How a manager responds to these cues — if at all — goes a long way towards determining their successful performance in their job.

Let’s start with the notion of “right person” or “right choice” for a management job.  I have long believed that this is a conviction that can only truly be reached in retrospect.  One person is chosen for a management position from a range of potential individuals.  Whether she or he was the right choice can only be empirically demonstrated by how they perform over time.

I have seen way too many “can’t miss” management selections flounder in the job — and too many “I’m not sure individuals” become stars — to believe that there is any true way to judge the wisdom of a management selection other than how they do the job.   At the time any of us were selected for management, someone was simply engaging in an act of faith.

As for those who would actually tell someone directly that they believed they were a poor management choice, I have one simple response.  Tell them you wanted the job and that they selected you.  Because your parents did not raise a fool for a daughter or son, you said yes.  That should end the conversation.

And let us not forget that the nature of a manager’s job itself guarantees that you will make your share of unpopular decisions.  Some of these, in turn, will almost certainly convince a few others that somebody else could do better.

There is, however, no way around the tentativeness inherent in the “acting” or “interim” connotation when applied to a management selection.  It implies, at a minimum, a test period and yet another decision down the road to either remove the label or replace you with somebody else.  But I have never accepted that there is any such thing as acting like a manager.  You either manage or you do not.  You either exercise the full authority inherent in a management position, or you do not.  You either make the many daily decisions required of you in a manager’s role and accept accountability for the outcomes, or you do not.  When you don’t do any of these things, you will drive your subordinates crazy, cause your organization to seriously underperform, and hasten your removal.

If you accept a manager’s job on an acting or interim basis, then do it ignoring the label.  Resist any hesitancy to exercise the full range of your responsibilities and let the future unfold as it may.  If the “acting” label represents a test, an aggressive approach to the job is the best way to earn a passing grade.

In time, both your superiors and you will have the opportunity to evaluate your performance in a management role.  Giving it your best effort while trusting in yourself and in the results you achieve, is as good as it gets in determining if you were the right person for the your job.

“For a new generation of workers, the idea of seeking out a single career confidant is as old-fashioned as a three-martini lunch.”

“According to Jeanne Meister, co-author of The 2020 Workplace, younger workers seem less respectful of more experienced colleagues and don’t feel compelled to follow in the same path as their superiors…..Millennials can be bold and hungry when it comes to getting what they want, Meister says, and today’s new mentorship models are more like Twitter conversations than the long-term relationships of days past”.

“Millennials look for those few to help them reach their goals in as short an amount of time as possible, Meister says”.

“The younger tech-savvy generation sees themselves as better equipped for the ‘new world’ work environment than their experienced senior colleagues, who still do things the old ways, says Susan Adams, a professor of Management at Bentley University”.

Reading these comments set me to thinking about similar articles and comments I have read — and countless conversations I have had  over the years — focused on the challenges of managing and mentoring across generations:  the Baby Boomers (Born 1946-1964); members of Generation X , aka. “The Busters” (Born 1965-1983); and the generational cohort now referred to as The Millennials, also frequently called “Generation Y”  (Born 1984-2002).  I have even seen speculation concerning the challenges the upcoming Net Generation will present to organizations in the near future.

Now if you think I am about to say that I believe there is actually little difference between these generations at work, you would be quite wrong.  I have worked with Boomers, Xers, and Mellennials and believe me the differences generally ascribed to them are real.  Each generation brings to the workplace a different world view, future outlook, attitude toward authority, preferred working style, technological acumen, and set of goals and ambitions profoundly shaped by the world into which they were born and raised.  This, in turn, has a profound effect on the management skills and insights required of managers determined to help all their employees reach top performance and achieve professional success.

That is not, however, to say that all members of a given generational cohort are the same.  We can only describe generations in general terms, knowing that various individuals will deviate — sometimes greatly — from those generalizations.  I and many of my age colleagues for example —  tail-enders of the “Silent or Traditional Generation” – were far less conservative, disciplined, trusting of the system and risk-averse than many of our older generational cohorts.  Perhaps the 60′s and the Viet Nam war had a lot to do with that.  And I can not even begin to speculate how all this plays out for the millions of each generation raised in non-Western cultures.

But for all the differences across generations that we can identify, their remains in my experience a few basic needs — mentoring only one of them — that all aspiring employees of any generation require if they are to succeed professionally in most organizations.  How these needs are met will differ: they may be met with the help of managers alone; a series of manager and non-manager partnerships over time; or perhaps by an employee-constructed series of temporary social networks composed of managers, colleagues, peers in other organizations and experienced old-timers.  Others may volunteer their services or we arrange things for ourselves.  The important thing is that the following basic needs are met.

Need 1:  Early ORIENTATION — How a new employee regardless of her or his generational cohort, is — or isn’t — welcomed into an organization and oriented with regard to basic expectations, organizational values and cultural norms, creates an initial and lasting impression that strongly shapes their attitude, work habits and performance.  In high performing organizations, management plays a direct and active role in sculpting the features of their orientation process because they recognize its fundamental importance.

Need 2:  Time and task-appropriate COACHING — I use the term coaching here to mean the teaching of basic professional skills that an employee does not initially bring to a profession or tasks specific to a particular organization.  In my case, I needed to abandon the writing style of an academic, former college professor and learn the more succinct, less wordy style required of a government analyst.  A wise and patient editor was my coach and a key contributor to my improved writing and career prospects.  Whether a coach finds us or we find them, acquiring profession-specific skills is generally critical to one’s effective performance and advancement.

Need 3:  Time and situation-appropriate MENTORING — While coaching involves skill acquisition in my view, mentoring as I use the term relates to the input we receive in situations where we must make important decisions that will shape our careers and advancement.  Coaches teach us how to.  The best mentors lay out options and choices, then give us the room to make our own important decisions.  The best mentors are not interested in replicating themselves.  Rather they are keen to ensure that we have sufficient information to make a wise and informed choice. Most successful professionals acquire several mentors during the course of their careers.  ( See an earlier article in this series — “A Mentor, Mentoring, Being Mentored” — for more of my thoughts on this topic).

Need 4:  Time-appropriate SPONSORSHIP — Finally, no matter how good any of us think we are, none of us generally make it without a sponsor.  That is, someone or someones at critical junctures along the way who speak up for us, who personally attest to our skills and quality of performance, and who forcefully urge those in authority to undertake our advancement.  In essence we need a sponsor to make a case that would only seem like self-serving, bragging if it came from us.  I doubt this has changed much despite the generational shifts that constantly impact the world of work.

When the subject of generational differences arises in my management workshops, it is the above basic needs that I emphasize, stressing that it is management’s responsibility to ensure that they are being met for all employees.  Organizations succeed through their employees.  Effective management and managers ensure that all their employees have access to — and the latitude to exploit in their own ways — all the  requirements for success.

“A study by the American Psychological Association found that women report higher levels of work stress than men, “as well as a gnawing sense that they are under appreciated and underpaid.”  But bad feelings are strong throughout the workforce:  61% of employees feel they lack advancement opportunities, and just half of them feel valued at work.” (P. 32)

I have seen employee opinion surveys like these many times and listened carefully to the response they often receive in organizations.  When the data is negative and unwelcome and management wishes to deny or ignore the data’s cry for corrective action, management’s rejectionist response often takes one of three forms:

When the source of the data is a national level organization like the American Psychological Association, one often hears the argument that their particular organization is so unique, that data reflecting an aggregate of national organizational responses would not apply to them.  In essence, “nothing for us to worry about, our managers are doing just fine”.

Even in cases where the employee opinion survey was conducted by an organization’s own Human Resource staff, I have marveled as I watched managers in one part of the organization choosing to assume that it is the other guys and a bunch of their  malcontents that the data reflects, surely not those who work for them.  In essence, “nothing for us to worry about; no corrective action required”.

Or management often simply chooses to attack the survey itself; its question construction, sample size, sample representation, data collection method, or statistical analysis methodology.  In something as complex as opinion surveys fraught with subjective elements and always a margin of error, a manager or management team in strict denial can easily find some reason to ignore the possible implications for their own workforce or the need for corrective change.

Looking specifically at the American Psychological Association’s data, I believe there is only one way for a manager to really know the degree to which that data actually applies to those under their responsibility:  he or she MUST DISCUSS DIRECTLY WITH HER OR HIS SUBORDINATES issues like work stress,  feeling unappreciated and underpaid,  absence of advancement opportunities, or whether they feel valued for their work.

Whatever the results of any employee opinion survey might say, they beg for a direct discussion between a manager and his or her work team.  These discussions afford individual managers a golden opportunity to open up lines of communication, to learn how their subordinates really feel and why, and to build trust.  Regardless of the larger organization’s response to survey findings, the best managers take advantage of their opportunity for learning and collaborative problem solving, by discussing the survey’s results with their subordinates and peers.

How to hold these discussions is a matter of individual preference.  Some topics will lend themselves to a group discussion where different perspectives can be brought to bear on an issue.  Other subjects — especially those where an individual may not wish to share their feelings and emotions with others — are better suited for private one-on-ones.  The better a manager knows and understands each and every one of their direct reports, the better he or she will be at making the right distinctions.

I would also caution that some negative perceptions communicated in employee opinion surveys can have very deep organizational roots, have persisted even in the face of considerable contrary evidence and will not change over night. Patience and continual attention to these perceptions is the best option.

It is also usually wise to avoid arguing with the perceptions a manager hears in survey discussions.  The important point of these discussions is to gain an understanding of how one’s subordinates actually feel about important work-related matters and to identify actions to address problems that beg for immediate constructive engagement.  Arguing that what you hear is inaccurate, only communicates close-mindedness to those you manage.

Bottom line, opinion survey or no opinion survey, one mark of a really good manager is her or his understanding that the only reliable way to stay reasonably informed about how one’s subordinate’s actually feel about important work-related topics and why, is to discuss these things with them and often.

“I keep six honest serving men they taught me all I knew, their names were what and where and when and how and why and who“      Rudyard Kipling

In an earlier article in this series entitled “Untested Assumptions”, I described such assumptions as one of  a manager’s worst enemies.  Acting on untested assumptions can have dire consequences necessitating much undoing and significant embarrassment.  To avoid the problem, I recommended the artful use of QUESTIONS designed to put one’s assumptions to the test.

The best managers learn over time that the ability to ask questions —  and the gut feel for where, when and for what purpose to ask them — is perhaps one of the most powerful tools in their manager’s kit bag.  They also learn quickly that the ability to use the questioning tool effectively is not as simple as it might seem.  Anyone reading the masterful use of the questioning art form employed by Socrates in Plato’s “Apology”, is easily impressed for life by his power to uncover facts and the truth.  But few of us can aspire to reach the level of mastery the “Apology” depicts.

Still like any skill, the harder we work at improving our questioning ability — the more we practice it — the better we are likely to get.  There is a considerable body of literature covering the dos and do nots of effective questioning available both on and off-line and various training opportunities as well.  What follows here are a few of my thoughts and suggestions that will hopefully ignite your desire to evaluate your own questioning skills and design a plan to further develop them.

First, begin with the mind-set that as good a questioner as you may currently be, you can still get better.  I have known far to many managers way to interested in letting others know what they think, rather than take the time to ask questions designed to elicit the different perspective and knowledge of others.  Do not be one of them.

Second, it is important to think carefully about what precisely you need to know in any given situation.  Not all questions are equally likely to serve your knowledge-gaining purposes, so be discriminating and try to avoid wasteful data excursions.

Third, in many situations — provided you have the time — you will benefit from questioning a variety of sources.  The best managers become keen judges of who specifically they need to question based on the issue at hand.  Moreover, you can generally take for granted that always talking to the same folks regardless of the issue, is not the best questioning strategy.

Fourth, the best questions are DIRECT, OPEN, and PROBING.  And the best questioners favor a SIMPLE VOCABULARY that leaves little doubt about what they are asking.  Good questions reveal nothing about the questioner’s opinions, view, or potential bias and allow the answerer to respond in whatever way he or she deems best.

Fifth, good questions probe for FACTS not opinions.  To be a good questioner, one needs to develop a keen ear for answers that appear to have little factual basis to support their assertions and the ability to dig deeper when necessary.  I can recall far too many gatherings — especially those with highly confident executives in attendance — where splendidly articulated points of view were exchanged with only the thinnest substantive support to back them up.  So learn to dig for the facts.

Sixth, always be aware that your use of direct, probing questions in search of facts may strike those being questioned as threatening, intimidating, or presumptuous.  Thus your ability to read the verbal and non-verbal feedback your questions generate and willingness to refine your approach if necessary, will enhance your prospects of realizing your knowledge goal.

Finally, It is critical to know when to persist with your questions and when to stop.  The time constraints for action faced by most managers often dictates that stopping point.  But the pursuit of more information can also be used to put off unpleasant decisions or to procrastinate in hopes of avoiding a decision you would rather not make.  The very best questioners generally have the knack for knowing when enough is enough.