I was involuntarily let go once.  I was 19 years old and a busboy at a resort hotel in Florida.  I was one of the last new hires for the summer rush and thus one of the first let go come September.  I had worked hard, tried not to irritate anybody, was reasonably good at the job, and let them know that I wanted to stay on for the Fall.  Although my dismissal was perfectly rational, economically sensible from the hotel’s perspective, and understandable in the abstract, I was — irrational and immature though it was — really hurt and still remember the feeling.  Thus I can only imagine the intensity of that feeling in an adult with a family to support.

Over a decade ago, I encountered a marvelous book entitled “Die Broke” by Stephen M. Pollan — a highly respected and well-known financial advisor.  The book sets forth a fairly radical financial plan that allows one to live well, spend it while you have it, and realize your life dreams.  Pollan advises that the last check you write in your life should be to your undertaker and it should bounce.

I have recommended this book to many others and one part, in particular, is especially relevant to the notion of losing one’s job.  In an economy and time where job security is a myth for most of us and where, as Pollan writes, “many white-collar, middle-class, college-educated folks are seeing their standards of living and prospects for employment drop” (P. 22), Pollan’s advice is to remember above all that it is “just a job”, “short-term is the only term” and that you should always be prepared to “jump ship” if something better comes along.  He called it “quitting in your head” (P.26).  I call it “what will I do if thinking?”.

Coming to grips with the idea that it could happen to you, I believe is an important first step toward the productive coping and adaptation process that losing one’s job requires.  At a minimum, it lessens the likelihood of total surprise and it forces you to begin to explore — at least mentally — some realistic options.  However, there are additional important steps one can take, especially when your suspicion of impending trouble has factual merit.

First, resist denial, an extremely powerful defense mechanism readily available to us all.  Denial prevents constructive thinking and action which is critical in the near-term if our suspicions are accurate.  Reality is always confronted more effectively head-on.

Second, seek someone at work you trust enough to confide in, who can provide some reality checking. Chances are if your suspicions are well grounded, you are not the only one on alert.

Third, never panic, another common human response that paralyzes the thinking process.  Instead, develop a plan of action.  Assuming you have considered alternative employment options — i.e. engaged in some prior “what will I do if thinking?” — begin to explore them more seriously.  Discretion is always wise but be proactive and become your own advocate when it comes to changing jobs if required.  This is the time to test the waters elsewhere.

Fourth, do not shut out your family and friends.  I have known so many people over the years — mostly men but some women — who have, for a variety of reasons like false pride, tried to shield loved ones and friends from the troubles facing them.  This is almost always a bad idea.  It is times like this that we all need support to help us get moving and maintain our sense of mental and emotional balance.  It is important in times of employment uncertainty to let those who care for us, care for us.  Seek, listen to, and weigh carefully the advice of those who matter in your live.

Finally, unless for some reason you really deserve to lose your job, try your best not to take personally the prospect of temporary unemployment or the need to move on.  This is not the time for feelings of persecution, self-pity, or losing your self-confidence.  In the vast majority of cases, losing one’s job is not about the individual.  Rather it is about a set of circumstances generally beyond that individual’s control.

Nothing I have said in this article can ease the emotional stress and daunting set of challenges associated with losing a job.  But being in control of how you respond is far better psychologically and for your sense of self-esteem, than remaining in a passive, reactive mode.

It is almost impossible to take a management course or read a management book that does not drive home the importance of delegation, if a manager is to do her or his job properly and succeed.  And when the discussion turns to managers who have delegation difficulties, these discussions tend to focus on the scourge of “micromanagement”.  When, for whatever reason, a manager just cannot let go or trust subordinates to do their job sufficiently well, the micromanager steps in and either does it her or himself, or insists that the job be done as he or she dictates.

The subsequent organizational results from chronic micromanagement include lowered unit morale, subordinate underdevelopment, unit underperformance, subordinate turnover, management tasks that go ignored from lack of attention, and over time, usually a burned out manager as well.  This is never a pretty picture and the habit of micromanaging will eventually impede a manager’s prospects for success.

But what if the manager’s delegation difficulties run in the opposite direction?  That is, what if a manager ends up delegating far to much of his or her own work, or as often occurs, simply ignores basic responsibilities forcing subordinates to  pick up the slack?  This is an equally dysfunctional working arrangement, with many of the same negative organizational impacts mentioned above.

The art of effective delegation is often a matter of sound judgment.  While some things are obviously management responsibilities, and others are not, the difference can seem blurry at times.  So here are a few general hints that may help a manager make some important delegation decisions.

First, non-managers are responsible for doing the actual daily work of the organization, while managers are responsible for doing what is necessary to make that happen in the most efficient and productive ways.  Requiring subordinates to undertake tasks — via delegation or by default — that pull them away from their core jobs are best weighed carefully against the cost.

Second, if the task is essentially administrative — meetings, planning, data gathering, briefing preparation, resource allocation, personnel administrative matters, negotiating, etc. — these are most often management responsibilities.  Many senior managers have staff officers to handle some of these tasks but most line managers do not.  Delegating these to subordinates is rarely the correct call, since they fall outside their job jar and pull them away from their core jobs.

Third, if the task involves a difficult conversation with another employee, manager, or superior, those come with the management job.  Unpleasant though these conversations are at times, delegating them, or forcing others to intervene by your avoidance, is an abrogation of management responsibility.  Delegation is not appropriate in these situations

Fourth, representational duties — representing and accepting responsibility for, as opposed to selling, your product or service with clients and customers — are generally a manager’s responsibility.  You can choose to have experts and specialists accompany you in these situations to address specific substantive issues, but a manager must assume overall responsibility for the quality and value of the products and services they represent.

Fifth and finally, personal tasks are — except in extraordinary circumstances — personal tasks and are usually inappropriate matters for delegation.  Asking subordinates to run errands or do favors for you is an illegitimate use of management authority, bound to irk most subordinates and slowly undermine your management credibility.

While micromanaging has an inevitable negative impact on subordinates, a boss who allows others — directly by request, or by abrogation — to do his or her work for them, creates considerable irritation, animosity, and disrespect as well.  It is hypocritical to expect subordinates to work hard in support of organizational objectives, when a boss is too lazy or hesitant to do her or his own job.  Moreover, it breeds considerable cynicism among a workforce when a boss is allowed to function in that way by his or her superiors.

Being seen as LEGITIMATE as a manager is essential to the exercise of the full range of a manager’s authority and responsibility.  As a manager, allowing or encouraging others to do significant portions of your job, is a guaranteed way to squander that legitimacy and fast.

When one becomes a manager in many organizations, there are numerous symbols of power and authority that often accompany this newly acquired status.

An office, for example, is generally construed as quite a status  improvement over a cubicle in the bullpen.  Perhaps the office comes with a window to the outside and, of course, it’s likely to have a door you can close for privacy.  Occasionally, there is a reserved parking space  as well.

Managerial status also comes with a figurative “admission ticket” to a variety of closed-door, management meetings, off-limits to most of your non-managerial colleagues; you know, those gatherings where you supposedly get to become “in the know”.  I recall I once opened up my staff meeting to everybody in a fairly large organization, after hearing numerous complaints about them being exclusive and supposedly secretive.  For the first few meetings after my decision, the room was packed.  Soon, however, almost nobody except those required to attend, showed up.  When I asked my partner why they were now avoiding the opportunity they had clamored for, she simply said:  “it was the right to attend they were after, not the content that bores even us a lot of the time.”

Many managers also add their own symbolic touches over time designed — consciously or unconsciously — to signify their status and importance.  I refer to those embossed name and title plates on their desk, fine and expensive (not from the supply room) wood or leather “in” and “out” boxes and pen holders, signed pictures of themselves with luminaries on their walls, various certificates on display, even in some cases a new wardrobe to symbolize their elevation in status.

Don’t get me wrong, in moderation this is not a “big deal”, I’m not against offices, and yes, I engaged in some of this myself during my management career.  But if you have followed all of the articles in this “Little Things Matter” series, you know by now that an underlying theme in each of them is that the less distance — whether personal or symbolic – you put between yourself as a manager and those you manage, the better.

The trouble is that those you manage really notice these symbolic things.  What might seem like light-hearted affectations to you, are often given quite a different, unflattering connotation by others.  When that connotation takes the form of “he or she sure  thinks they are better than us”, you are in trouble.  So give those power symbols you have access to as a manager some careful thought.

I began to learn this lesson early on when I was assigned to manage an organization, housed in a large open space; one door in and out, no windows, and no real privacy to speak of.  Having had a private office in my prior assignment, it was quite a shock.  How was I to conduct private phone conversations?  How was I to shut out hearing everything that was going on around me? And certainly, how was I to have a private, performance-related review with subordinates, without broadcasting it on what in those days was our version of You-Tube?

In this environment, symbols of power and separation were useless.  We were in it together and in close proximity, yet with different roles.  It turned out those were perhaps the most educational and beneficial years of my early management career.  I discovered the power of being involved without getting in the way, of supervising close at hand without taking over,  of coaching without doing, of hearing things I wish I hadn’t and then ignoring them, and most importantly, of being flexible, adaptable, and creative in approaching managerial tasks.  For example, I discovered the value of having a performance discussion with a subordinate while walking outdoors; a  tension reduction habit that facilitated dialog, that I continued over the years.

Managerial roles are important within an organization but so are the hundreds of other roles that make an organization a success.  When everybody recognizes and celebrates the contributions of those around them — managers and non-managers alike — the barriers of separation quickly disappear.  As the best managers know and do, it is always wise not to rebuild them unnecessarily in symbolic ways.

Back in the 1950′s, one of America’s most popular television shows was a program called “Father Knows Best”.  Once I became a father myself and gained a little experience at the demanding fatherly task, I began to seriously doubt that was always the case. And once I became a manager, it became quickly evident that most of the time, I — the designated authority figure — certainly did not know what was always best for others.

But tradition is a powerful force to overcome.  Fifty years ago, the management of most organizations operated on the belief that management most certainly knew best.  They believed that their company’s success demanded that their employees be owned and controlled. Management needed to dictate assignments, work, and career development opportunities. In exchange, the employee would be taken care of, assured of job security, granted reasonable pay and advancement opportunities, and could expect a good retirement. Paternalistic? Yes and it worked.

How times have changed. With today’s businesses and companies constantly concerned about their product or service competitiveness and staying power, few guarantees remain; especially the promise of lifetime employment. More importantly, in the face of mergers, layoffs, and the latest salary and benefits crunch, employees can no longer afford passivity. The global, socio-economic evolution that is changing the world of work, demands that all of us think for — and take care of — ourselves.

So as a contemporary point of departure on this subject, I believe it is wise for today’s managers to remind themselves whenever necessary, that managing is not synonymous with parenting.  One’s subordinates and direct reports are adults, not children; although you may think they act that way sometimes, as undoubtedly you do as well.  As adults, those you manage have a right to expect that you will respect their right to think for themselves, when it comes to matters of “what is best” for them.  Moreover, they are likely to rebel when their boss presumes to assume that role on their behalf.

Similarly, those you manage do not require you to protect them, like children, from the harsh realities that befall many of today’s workplaces.  Many of your subordinates have had to cope with far worse in their personal lives — death of loved ones, cancer, dysfunctional relationships, substance-abuse issues, child-rearing challenges, for example — than what work dishes out.  Most have learned to bear difficult burdens with maturity, adaptability, and to move on.  As I wrote in an earlier article in this “Little Things Matter” series, they deserve the straight truth.

Certainly as a manager gains experience, she or he has an important role to play as a mentor, councilor, and advisor from time to time.  Subordinates look to good managers to share their perspective and work-related experiences as one of the factors they need to ponder when facing an important decision.  But almost certainly most adults will resent and resist the notion that someone else alone presume to know what is best for them.

Still the instinct is strong in many of us –confident in our point of view — to lean heavily on someone else to follow our desired path.  The best managers work hard to resist this instinct, reminding themselves frequently of the paradox, that most of we humans are far more likely to accept advice, when we have the option of rejecting it.

The scene was the US Army’s 5th General Hospital in Stuttgart — what was then — West Germany.  I was a First Lieutenant in the Army Medical Service Corps and was serving as Officer of the Day, occupying, as usual, a small corner of a very crowded Emergency Room.  It was a Saturday and we were way too busy with a rash of accidents and the usual variety of illnesses.

When I heard the sound of an unannounced helicopter descending toward our landing pad about 200 yards south of the hospital, I quickly glanced around for a spare medical corpsmen or two to dispatch to assist with whomever the chopper was about to deliver.  Finding nobody not otherwise occupied, I took off on the run myself.

At the chopper, I found only the pilot and one semi-conscious soldier strapped firmly to a litter, with undetermined back and neck injuries from a parachuting accident. Lacking any obvious alternatives, the pilot and I grabbed the handles of the litter and carried the soldier back to the emergency room for examination.  Shortly thereafter, one of our corpsmen — let’s call him James –informed me that he had just taken a phone call from a very angry Hospital Executive Officer (XO) demanding to see me in his office at once.

Arriving at the XO’s office, I was immediately subjected to a stern lecture on “how officers are never to carry litters”, accompanied by an admonition not to repeat the offense.  My attempts to explain the lack of alternatives and the serious nature of the patient’s injuries proved fruitless, so I returned to my emergency room duties.  Seeing my return and apparently having some notion of the message I had received from my superior, James approached me, smiled, and simply said “thanks for helping out sir”.

Funny how all these years later, those events remain so clear in my memory.  All I had actually done was to pitch in at a time of need.  And in the grand scheme of the events at the time, this small thing mattered.  Perhaps it was the absurdity of the admonition that keeps the memory alive.

There are plenty of things that separate a manager from her or his subordinates, starting with the disparity in power.  It is foolish for a manager to add to that separation by adopting an attitude that certain things are beneath their status or dignity.  The reality is that managers and subordinates are essentially all in it together; they simply have different jobs to do.  No manager succeeds without outstanding subordinate performance and bad managers are capable of undermining even the most dedicated and talented subordinate’s performance.

Moreover, in every workplace there exists a large quantity of what you might call basic, non-glamorous, maintenance work — drudge work for the cynical minded — that must be accomplished to keep the overall organization working smoothly.  The new folks are often assigned these tasks whenever possible but over time, almost everybody ends up pitching in.  The question is, how about the managers when necessity requires?

We have all experienced those managers who would not think of getting their hands dirty with the non-glamorous chores, and can recall how most of us feel about that.  Conversely, there is simply something special about those managers who when necessary, willingly roll up their sleeves and lend a hand.

I am not talking about a manager’s doing it daily, nor am I suggesting that a manager routinely do the work of her or his subordinates.  Rather, I am referring to those managers who, when sensing a need, pitch in no matter how menial the task.  Believe me, it makes a big impression, demonstrates that the manager considers her or himself a member of the team, and role models the spirit of collective cooperation.

The act of pitching in usually speaks louder about teamwork and unity of purpose, than all the lofty speeches a manager may deliver.  A little thing, yes, but it really matters and the best managers do it.

In a previous blog I entitled “Being Smart”,  I referred to Stanford Professor Carol Dweck’s remarkable study of over 400 New York City fifth graders in which she demonstrated that simply by creating the mind-set and expectation that one group of the study’s participants were hard workers, she was able to encourage them to rise to new challenges, take more risks, and improve their performance on a series of puzzle tests.

The power of positive expectations was also the focus of a 1968 research  effort conducted by Professors Rosenthal and Jacobson, the results of which are often referred to as the “Pygmalion Effect”*.  After pre-testing a group of elementary school students on an intelligence test, Rosenthal and Jacobson selected a randomly chosen cross-section (20%) of them and told their teachers that all of them had “unusual potential for intellectual growth”.  Re-tested eight months later, all of the randomly selected students the teachers were told would bloom, scored significantly higher on their intelligence tests.  The teacher’s pre-biased expectations and subsequent efforts, had helped make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Applied to adults, especially in the workplace, there is equally ample evidence that the performance expectations established by managers are a key factor in how well subordinates perform; see, for example, Susan Heathfield’s article @ About.com.  Moreover, considering the Pygmalion Effect, managers often treat their subordinates in ways that are unconsciously shaped by what they expect of them.  Thus, it is not just what a manager says but also the many subtle ways a manager’s actions may communicate expectation messages that comes into play here.

Little wonder, given all the evidence, that I consider establishing and communicating clear, positive expectations  for subordinates, something that really matters for success as a manager.

From personal experience, most of us recognize that we tend to perform better when we have clear, unambiguous performance targets to shoot at.  When we understand how our efforts will be measured and evaluated, it allows us to focus our talents in specific and appropriate ways.  This is why I warn managers and non-managers alike, that uncertainty concerning performance expectations is a bit like walking around in a strange hotel room, in the dark, at 3:00  AM in the morning.  Sooner or later we are likely to get hurt.

Consequently, the best managers are those who are able to transfer their personal appreciation for clear positive expectations, into a consistent practice for all those entrusted to their management skills.  These are the managers who are skilled in gaining insight into the individual talents and potential of all those they supervise, and of devising a tailored set of positive performance expectations designed to stretch, develop, and motivate each individual.  These are also the managers who understand that subordinates are just as likely to fulfill negative expectations and thus they strive to avoid communicating them whenever possible.

Most importantly, the best managers understand that realism is essential, if the establishment of clear expectations is to work their magic power.  To establish a set of unrealistic expectations — no matter how personally desirable — that lie beyond the capabilities of even the most determined subordinates, ends up being counterproductive, demotivating, and degrading of overall performance.

Of all the little things I have discussed in this current series of blogs, the communicating of clear, positive expectations for those one manages has perhaps the greatest long-term potential to produce deeply satisfying results.  There are few greater pleasures for a manager, than having the opportunity to sit back and observe  a group of talented, motivated, and dedicated subordinates strive for and fulfill their performance potential.

So give talented individuals clear, realistic expectations TO LIVE INTO — not just standards to live up to — and most of them will not disappoint.

*Pygmalion , a sculptor of Greek Mythology fame, created a female statue of great beauty.  Absent a wife and enamored by the beauty of his own making, he prayed to the goddess Venus for a wife in the statue’s likeness.  Granting his wish, Venus brought his statue to life.

Freud considered humor one of the most sophisticated forms of psychological defense mechanisms. I have long considered it an indispensable asset for succeeding as a manager.  To understand why, let’s look at the nature of work.

Some time ago, I took an evening walk with a colleague of mine after a long day of workshop facilitation.  Our conversation wandered to the question of why work was often so stressful.  Among the things we considered, three characteristics of work stand out.

First, work is timed.  There is always a deadline or two we must meet and in some jobs, quite a few of them on any given day.  On certain days, the pace is often hectic, some deadlines — many self-imposed — get missed, and we leave work with a palpable sense of under achievement.  Result: the stress associated with falling behind.

Second, work is competitive.  No matter how much our work processes involve inter-dependent teamwork, some employees perform better than others.  Those who perform at a higher level, advance more rapidly and end up making more money.  Even in a team-based work environment, there is no way to totally eliminate competition.  Result: the stress associated with being and remaining competitive.

Third, work is ego involved.  How we perform at work absolutely effects how we feel about ourselves. Whether our work involves hard manual labor or exhausting intellectual expenditure, we all love that feeling of a job well done.  None of us like that feeling of under achievement and thus we strive to avoid it.  Result: the stress associated with living up to our own expectations and those of others.

The best managers are keenly aware of stress as an inevitable constant in their workplace and develop a keen sensitivity to its various levels, symptoms, and manifestations from day-to-day.  While there are many ways for a manager to cope with work-related stress — including her or his own — I have found that humor is often one of the most effective.

To be clear, I am not talking about joke telling, wise cracks, or a constant stream of clever, witty patter. Few of us are particularly any good at that sort of thing.  Rather, I am referring to the ability of a manager to see the humorous, sometimes ridiculous elements in many work situations and to use them as a means to bring some tension reducing perspective to bear on the matter at hand. There are few things like genuine laughter when it comes to easing the tension of a stressful situation.

But the truly effective use of humor must occur naturally and it must obviously flow from the realities of a specific situation.  If it is contrived or force-fit, it will appear so and it will lose its effect. To be truly effective, the use of humor must also “do no harm”.  Attempts at humor at the expense of others — personal, sarcastic put-downs or poking at the weaknesses of others, for example — are hurtful and generally do more harm than good.  They may produce laughter but it is often of the uncomfortable variety.

The best managers also understand that occasionally poking fun at themselves and their own foibles and mistakes, is liberating for their subordinates.  When a manager can laugh at her or his own personal expense, it frees others to laugh at themselves and role models the important notion that while work is serious business, there is much about work — and our ways of going about it — that is humorous as well

When I think about this topic, I frequently recall an incident from my Army days where I, in my Captain’s uniform, tripped and harmlessly fell flat on my back in a busy airport and in front of a large number of enlisted men and women.  As I looked up from the floor, I could see the uncertainty in their eyes — laugh at what certainly must have seemed a funny pratfall, or stifle such a response to an officer’s plight.  Embarrassed though I felt, I could not resist breaking into laughter myself, as I lay there, and the rest of them followed suit before they helped me up.  It was an important lesson as an authority figure I never forgot.

So managers, find ways to generate genuine laughter in your workplace as often as you can.

Ask any subordinate if he or she wants to work for a manager who really doesn’t want their job and the answer will usually be a resounding NO!

From a subordinate’s point of view, their immediate manager serves several vital functions they must depend upon for their own success.  Subordinates look to their manager to provide direction, assign them to tasks, provide them with a sense of where they fit in, stand up for them and protect their interests when necessary, look after their career progression, and be there to resolve conflicts when needed.  Thus, when it is obvious that their manager would rather have some other assignment, subordinates have considerable reason for displeasure and concern.

Subordinates want a manager who is, what I call, IN THE PRESENT.  This is a manager who communicates in everything she or he does that they want their job and are dedicated to being the best boss possible.   These are the managers that can best motivate their subordinates, focus them daily on the critical job tasks they must undertake, and assure their subordinates that they will always have their — not their personal — best interests at heart.

Sounds fairly straight forward, right?  Yet as most managers will tell you, they do — or did — not always get the job they want.

Perhaps looking for one management assignment, they were given another.  Perhaps they lost out in a competition and their new assignment seems like a consolation prize in their eyes. Perhaps, as often happens, the assignment a manager is given ends up being significantly different from what they anticipated and escape seems like an attractive option.  Or, as many subordinates have experienced, their manager is the stereotypical fast track ladder-climber whose only goals appear to be self-promotion and avoiding the difficult decisions that might tarnish their image.

So, life being what it is, being in the present for a manager may occasionally require some psychological effort and attitude adjustment on her or his part.  There is certainly nothing wrong with aspiring to climb —  as rapidly as possible — the managerial ladder in one’s organization but not at the expense of subordinates and others encountered along the way.  Moreover, the best managers understand that being patient and in the present at each stop along the way, is the best way to ensure that  the next rung on the ladder remains attainable.

Thus, for those times when — for whatever reason — being in the present requires some adaptation, my advice to managers is to start by coming to grips with why you are feeling as you do.  Whether it is not the assignment you coveted, a challenge you believe beneath your experience level and competence, or a challenge that scares you because you believe it may exceed your competence, any of these reasons will make it more difficult to fully focus on the realities of your job.  And your subordinates will quickly recognize your feelings, aura of uncertainty or doubt, and any negative attitude on your part.

No manager has an inalienable right to whatever assignment they desire.  But as long as they are collecting that paycheck, they do have the responsibility to do their present job as best they can.  Acknowledging our underlying feelings, brings understanding, allows us to accept that we are only human after all, and initiate the process of transferring attention and focus from our feelings, to the people and tasks at hand.

In my experience, upper management is generally aware of how their subordinate manager’s feel about a particular assignment and pay especially close attention to how they perform when a subordinate manager must overcome disappointment, or make an attitude adjustment of some kind.  As the best managers know, it generally helps to make that adjustment if they keep in mind just how important their being in the present is to those entrusted to their management skills.  It is another little thing that really matters.

One of the hardest things I needed to do when I first became a manager, was to learn how to listen.  Yes, I realize we all learned the basics soon after birth but I mean “learn how to really listen”.

My problem was, in part, the way my brain works.  I hear a few basic things — enough for my brain to figure it knows where this conversation is going — and I immediately want to jump to some conclusion and begin to prepare my response.  This must sound familiar to many of you whose brains work the same way.  The trouble is that while we are preparing a response to an unproven conclusion, we are also paying little attention to the stream of additional facts and information that may prove vital in the end. Thus, I needed to learn how to discipline myself to listen fully, pay close attention to everything I was hearing, withhold judgment, avoid jumping to a conclusion, and do my best to grasp the importance of the message I was receiving from the perspective of its deliverer.

A great many managers have similarly had to work hard at becoming good listeners and the best of them have done so because they understand just how important the “art of listening” is from the perspective of  their colleagues, especially their subordinates.  It is another of those little things that really matters.

When a manager has something important to say, you can bet he or she wants their audience — one individual or a group of some size — to hear and understand their communication.  Since two core parts of a manager’s job involves the clear communication of personal and corporate messages, and efforts to ensure the understanding of those messages, the best managers work hard to determine whether folks are listening, comprehending, and understanding the reasoning behind their utterances.  It is down right irritating to a manager when folks simply do not listen or pay sufficient attention.

So, turn the table.  Someone, or a group, that has something important — from their perspective — to say approaches a manager.  How do we suspect they feel if they conclude the manager is disinterested, or has simply tuned out their message or thoughts?  And believe me, they know when that has happened, because this sort of behavior is habitual and frequently on display.

Perhaps the manager’s eyes seldom move from the computer screen, paper, or object of their attention when the conversation begins. Or perhaps it is the dismissive tone we hear in the yea’s, uh-ughs, point taken’s, or the wandering eyes that constantly survey the surroundings for something or some person of greater immediate interest.

Really listening requires mental attention, eye contact, and body language — especially a facial expression — that demonstrates and communicates real interest.  These things are almost impossible to fake; co-workers are not stupid.  If a particular moment is not right for a conversation, good managers say so, explain why, and hold the discussion later when they can fully listen.

I once worked for a boss who delighted in asking me questions in the hallway and then only half-heartedly listened to my answer.  Moreover, if someone he deemed more important to him passed us by, he would walk away, often with me in half sentence.  I learned to laugh at the absurdity of his behavior but never came to feel much in the way of respect.

Really listening may seem like a little thing but it is — above all — a true sign of respect.  That is why the best managers understand that it absolutely MATTERS.

In the first two articles in this series on the little things that matter — and which can make a big difference for a manager — I addressed the importance of acknowledging accomplishments big and small, and of leveling with folks about the way things really are.  In this third article, I turn my attention to providing people with A Simple Yes of No.

I can not recall a single book on good management and leadership that did not extol the virtue of being decisive.  The best of breed managers generally have the courage of their own convictions and a willingness to make the BIG calls and decisions regardless of the consequences that may occur.  But on any given day, few managers make the sort of big, weighty decisions that will make or break a company, change their organizational structure or working processes, or allow them to grasp or reject a big opportunity.

On the other hand, most managers are called upon to make a great many SMALL decisions on most days that do have significant importance to those who ask that they be made.  So let’s look at this issue from the vantage point of the requester.

Whether the request for a decision comes from a subordinate, colleague, or superior, it usually takes one of several simple forms.  Can I do this or not?  Is this what you want?  Is this OK with you?  Do I have your permission?  Would you like?  Moreover, if they have asked you for an answer, it is safe to assume that your answer is important to them.  Because this is about work, what they are usually seeking is a timely and simple YES or No.  Is that what you give them?

This may seem like a small matter but many of us unconsciously have difficulty being that precise.  Answers like possibly, perhaps, let me think about it, I’m not sure, or I’ll get back to you, tend to leave the questioner in the dark.  Moreover, if your yes or no is critical to some action they must or desire to take, indecisiveness can have a negative impact on individual performance or how effectively an organization functions.

An individual’s difficulty responding with a simple yes or no, often is a product of personal temperament and may have roots in an individual’s underlying psychological dynamics.  Nevertheless, in a chronic form, it is often extremely frustrating in a manager.

Recalling my own frustrating experiences with requests that died a slow death in some boss’s proverbial inbox, I have often counseled employees confronted with a “yes-or-no-adverse” boss to find ways to force their hand.  My favorite approach was to make it clear that I intended to do something on a date — or at a time — specific, if I did not receive a no.  But the best managers are loath to force others to design strategies for working around them.

While a simple yes or no response is more difficult for some managers than others, the best managers understand the importance of prompt responses to the questions and requests put to them, and they endeavor to provide them.  If an issue requires further discussion, they engage in it as soon as possible.  If an issue requires some further thought, they explain the reason why, make a point to get their thinking done quickly, and they respond sooner rather than later.

Above all, the best managers are aware that a simple and timely yes or no from a manager does matter to the individual seeking it, and that it has a direct impact on how well the manager’s organization operates.  Procrastination, on the other hand, has a stifling impact on individuals and organizations alike.