You're in a meeting. Your boss is talking about something you know a lot about. Your boss doesn't know it, but she's conveying misinformation. What would you do:
- Correct your boss before she does real damage
- Sit quietly and let her dig the hole deeper; or
- Let her go for a while. Then comment, "Actually, I think there might be an update on that," or some other gentle way to offer a correction.
If you answered (1), (2), or (3), you could be in trouble, because there's no right answer. The choice that works best — the least bad choice — depends on you, your boss, the other people in the conversation, and on your relationships. What works well in one situation doesn't necessarily work well in another.
There is no one best way.
We'd all like to believe that a straightforward, honest, open offer to amend what the boss is saying should be acceptable. In a perfect world, it might be. But since most of us don't work in a perfect world, how can you tell what to do?
Option (1) is an example of what works well in open systems. The straightforward, content-focused approaches work well when the relationships support them, when everyone is comfortable with that level of openness, and when everyone has agreed in advance to operate this way.
Option (2) is an example of what can happen in closed systems, where safety is available only by exercising the utmost care. Systems in these configurations exact a high price in vigilance on the people who work within them. People must be constantly aware of a long list of behaviors that others regard as injurious or hurtful. The system suffers as a result. Effort that could otherwise be allocated to furthering organizational goals must instead be spent on attending to interpersonal wariness. The problem can become so severe that the system can actually become dysfunctional.
Option (3) We'd all like to believe that a
straightforward, honest, open
offer to amend what the boss is
saying should be acceptable.
In a perfect world,
it might be.is an example from a middle category between the open and closed systems. This category is the one most likely to apply to the typical work group. In these systems, some openness is possible, but the messages that are delivered so directly in open systems must be carefully encased in almost ritualized exteriors that communicate high levels of respect and care. These exterior messages are designed to make the recipient realize that the interior content is not a threat to the status of the recipient. Beware, though, because even the most tactfully delivered correction messages can trigger the backfire effect.
To determine what kind of approach to take, decide first what kind of system you're in. Closed? Open? In between? If you're in an open system, it's usually obvious to all. If you can't even discuss the concept of openness, you're in a closed system. If you just aren't sure, you're probably in between. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmvqxlaQodNxxmBZAner@ChacssGhNdngBMOqZELLoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- The High Cost of Low Trust: II
- Truly paying attention to Trust at work is rare, in part, because we don't fully appreciate what distrust
really costs. Here's Part II of a little catalog of how we cope with distrust, and how we pay for it.
- The Perils of Political Praise
- Political Praise is any public statement, praising (most often) an individual, and including a characterization
of the individual or the individual's deeds, and which spins or distorts in such a way that it advances
the praiser's own political agenda, possibly at the expense of the one praised.
- Obstacles to Finding the Reasons Why
- When we investigate what went wrong, we sometimes encounter obstacles. Interviewing witnesses and participants
doesn't always uncover the reasons why. What are these obstacles?
- Managing Non-Content Risks: I
- When project teams and their sponsors manage risk, they usually focus on those risks most closely associated
with the tasks — content risks. Meanwhile, other risks — non-content risks — get less
attention. Among these are risks related to the processes and politics by which the organization gets
- Big Egos and Other Misconceptions
- We often describe someone who arrogantly breezes through life with swagger and evident disregard for
others as having a "big ego." Maybe so. And maybe not. Let's have a closer look.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 25: Workplace Memes
- Some patterns of workplace society reduce organizational effectiveness in ways that often escape our notice. Here are five examples. Available here and by RSS on October 25.
- And on November 1: Risk Creep: I
- Risk creep is a term that describes the insidious and unrecognized increase in risk that occurs despite our every effort to mitigate risk or avoid it altogether. What are the dominant sources of risk creep? Available here and by RSS on November 1.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenLAxLNPDSymnrCjDfner@ChacPFkCbhnfRqLrmbqtoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- Ten Project Management Fallacies: The Power of Avoiding Hazards
- Most of what we know about managing projects is useful and effective, but some of what we know "just ain't so." Identifying the fallacies of project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully. Even more important, avoiding these traps can demonstrate the value and power of the project management profession in general, and your personal capabilities in particular. In this program we describe ten of these beliefs. There are almost certainly many more, but these ten are a good start. We'll explore the situations where these fallacies are most likely to expose projects to risk, and suggest techniques for avoiding them. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.