The late Peter Drucker wrote about it in 1999, typically pushing the envelope in his time. Those who admire Drucker, including me, consider NOW to be his time – but that’s for another post.

Many good articles and books have been published on the topic since then.

As you might imagine, there are lots of similarities between managing a direct report and managing a boss. For example, setting expectations. Why do so many leaders fail to manage their boss’ expectations well? Surprises are usually not good. Avoiding conflict now often leads to unavoidable strife later.

My dad liked to say, “If you work for a man, work for him.” He was talking about loyalty. It’s never a good idea to be disloyal to your boss.

Finally, get to know your boss’s communication preferences. Drucker puts leaders into two categories in this regard: readers or listeners. Do you rush into your boss’ office with new information, expecting him to make a decision on the spot? It’s more likely that you’ll get the decision you want if you give him time to absorb the information in writing first. Obviously emergencies are emergencies, but readers strongly prefer a little time to ponder.

Or, do you send your boss volumes of information via e-mail (or paper), only to be disappointed when you learn that she didn’t even read it! Listeners prefer to evaluate facts on the spot, discuss options, and make the call. Volumes of data are not nearly as influential with this style of communication as an overview would be. Give ‘em the summaries.

Interacting with your boss in the most effective way will get you what you want more quickly. It’s really as simple as that. Why do so many people miss this? Send me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss.

It won’t surprise anyone that good communication is the foundation of a mutually rewarding and productive relationship at work. When we trust each other we can disagree without emotion, and be challenged without getting defensive. Getting all the best ideas out on the table assures the best decisions.

One of the bosses I particularly enjoyed working for at eBay, Mike Bringuel, once said, “Smart people should disagree”. He wouldn’t let his team sidestep disagreements to maintain harmony. After a brief adjustment period, we got used to it and became a much more productive group.

The trend toward more candor at work may sound counter-intuitive in today’s hyper-litigious workplace, but it’s not. The better we get at expressing ourselves in ways that don’t cause problems, the better off our companies will be.

Lots of people are afraid to disagree with their boss or other executives! I hear stories all the time from CEOs who have built teams of yes-people. They complain about not getting honest feedback. Hill and Lineback say that both sides have a responsibility to fix it.

I couldn’t agree more. In work relationships where the stakes are high, there’s a hierarchy and pressure to perform, people can become tentative. What they need to do is learn to speak up appropriately. Bosses need to prove that they can take it by not attacking subordinates who challenge them. It takes time but the payoff is huge.

Establish periodic goals that not only reward but point out the incompleteness of the program that may be put on hold. My theory is that unfinished business bugs people.
Don’t approve any new programs unless you feel confident that funding and other resources will be treated as “sacred”.
Get support and endorsement from the highest levels of the organization and make any progress updates supplied to the C-level as open and public as possible.
What other suggestions do you have? Discuss.

Did you learn lessons and examples that still inform your leadership style today? Or did you learn “what not to do”?

We can’t help but learn from every boss we have. Often times these lessons and examples last a lifetime. If your boss is successful, you’d be wise to figure out what makes her successful and do your best to prioritize accordingly.

My first boss was a great example for me in most ways. He was an entrepreneur who never took his eye off the bottom line. While he was a great businessman, I wouldn’t say he was inspiring. He was hands-off and tended to minimize, even trivialize, the challenges others faced.

While his door was always open, his mind was not.

Those who reported to him didn’t find him hard to work for per se, but we often talked about his unwillingness to roll up his sleeves. Interestingly, he assumed the role of “good cop” to his boss’ “bad cop”. I never thought this strategy was wise, but he used it all the time to his advantage. He’d have to “talk to John”, which gave him a convenient way of coming back with an answer that served his needs and essentially closed the subject.

Had he owned all of his decisions, I think people would have respected him even more. He would complain when people went around him to talk to John on their own. What they were really doing is skipping a step that they pretty much knew they’d face if they started with their boss. That was a shame because it didn’t have to be that way.

Getting one’s hands dirty often means digging into the details enough to be able to make a fully informed decision and settling the issue without the need for further review by superiors. When there’s always a parental figure who has the final say, even adults learn to work the system and diminish their boss’ effectiveness in the process. Owning the decision means owning the outcome, and leaders at every level would be wise to make that their priority.

Do you (or does your leader) have “tells”?

I used to work for a great boss who had one. When she asked me if we could “chat” I always knew that something was wrong. But when she asked me if I had a minute or if we could “talk”, I knew that the meeting would be positive. Worked like a charm and when I told her about it one day, she had no idea she was telegraphing the nature of her requests. She’d also drink a ton of coffee on the way to work and be so wired when she arrived that everyone would brace themselves for long lists of stuff to do. Empty travel mug in hand meant watch out! But LeAnne was an excellent leader.

For many, silence is a “tell”. So many people have told me that when their boss goes silent, they know something bad is brewing. Doors closed? Uh-oh.

Leaders have a responsibility to communicate. This is not optional. Nature certainly loves a vacuum, and in the absence of their leader’s voice, people will draw conclusions of their own. We’ve all seen this happen. Anyone who has had to dig his organization out of a hole created by secrecy at the top knows how difficult it can be. Morale is like an aircraft carrier; it takes time to turn it around. Don’t go any farther down a path if the truth will surely require a 180.

Communication is not just talking; it’s also listening. Want to engage key contributors? Discuss. Leaders should not strive to have the last word.

Abusing the authority that comes with a leadership position can take many forms, not the least of which is squelching healthy debate because it is uncomfortable. Have the courage to participate in conversations that challenge conventions. Stop a debate only when it becomes disrespectful or tangential.

Learn to be influential. There are millions of brilliant people who are not heard because of poor communication skills. If it is your responsibility to communicate, then work on it as you would any other critical job skill. Charm only goes so far – there are earnest techniques that can bring clarity to complex issues in the workplace and inspire others to higher levels of performance.

One such word that is troublesome for me is “again”.

Adding a question mark gives “again” a range of meanings, some of which express exasperation. Maybe this is why the word “again” without a question mark can also carry a tone that conveys impatience or even condescension.

Consider this: When someone doesn’t understand what you’re trying to say, or maybe wants to challenge you, starting your reply with “again”, as in the example below, can feel a bit aggressive.

1st person: “What did you mean when you said “soon”?

2nd person: “Again, I did not say anything that would imply immediacy. I simply tried to estimate a timeframe.”

Inserting “again” at the beginning gives the response a little edge, something like, “OK dummy, apparently you didn’t understand what I said the first time” or “How many times do I need to say this so that you will understand?” Not always, but often times this is what I hear.

I think the use of “again” to help with clarification isn’t necessary and can sometimes create a bit of defensiveness in the listener. Do you agree with this or am I too sensitive?

It’s true, where to seat a prince for dinner as a guest in my home never became relevant. Still, those professional etiquette workshops that “the man” made me take had value. Shake, even if someone is visibly sick? Yes! Lift your glass when being toasted? Nope. Arrive late for calls and meetings? Obvious.

Then what gives? Lateness, lack of follow up, and lack of formality are prolific today, even among enterprise consultants, salespeople, managers, and executives. The worst thing about perpetually more casual behavior in business is it’s a death spiral. Business culture is organic, not static, and our daily interactions either raise the bar or push it down.

Entrepreneurs, freelancers, and creative independents, this is an opportunity to differentiate ourselves. I’m calling myself out and asking you to join me. Let’s set the example by bringing back (a little) decorum.

Three basics to get us going:

Say what you’re going to do, and do it. A simple formula – learn it and live it. Your word matters; treat it like a contract. Think before making commitments. Once made, follow through.
Thank people. Walt Disney was known for writing handwritten thank you’s daily. Try it for your most important ones, it feels great and people remember. Always formally thank customers and people who refer business to you. Failure to appropriately thank others is lazy and tragic. (Self-disclosure: A little behind on thank you’s myself; I’m going to start catching up today.)
Learn names and use them. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard, “I’m not good with names;” I’d be a gazillionaire. Excuse, copout, laziness. Make it a point to learn people’s names and use them, it’s fundamental. The first rule to remembering names (and anything) is intent to remember. When we care enough to remember, it’s amazing how easy it usually is.
Perspectives on business etiquette vary widely, by person, culture, and organization. Whatever your perspective is, consider applying a little more protocol, formality, and decorum. Digging deep, I recall from those workshops, this final point: It’s always acceptable to use one’s culture as a reason to be more formal, but never as an excuse to be less so.

- Chris DiFonzo

But some of us handle feedback much better than others. I’ve noticed that Generations X and Y (a.k.a “Millennials”) are, in general, better at receiving feedback than Baby Boomers; and their future looks bright because of it. What can we learn from this?

They Start Young

We Baby Boomers take pride in our independence and self-sufficiency. Men in particular don’t tend to ask for help until it’s absolutely necessary. Add to that your mother’s advice: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

Politeness aside, the idea of giving constructive feedback is something many leaders struggle with regardless of their age or position in an organization.

But a large percentage of post-Baby Boomers grow up with experience on some kind of team. They are more accustomed to feedback and have always had convenient communication technology at their disposal. Virtually chatting with several friends simultaneously hasn’t been commonplace for all that long. Some would argue that the proliferation of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and even e-mail has led to social isolation, but I see it differently.

Requests for feedback and customer experience ratings have become ubiquitous. We are quickly learning about the power of perceptions and the value of viewpoints besides our own. Our always-on, Internet-connected society makes it incredibly easy to request, receive and provide feedback. Certainly there are issues as a result – such as the ‘false courage’ that plays out as nothing more than passive-aggressive disrespect, but thoughtful constructive feedback is a higher form of social interaction that ultimately serves the common good.

For Generations X and Y, giving feedback feels more like a social obligation. And receiving feedback is just the other side of the coin. We don’t have to like it but we should certainly aim to get used to it.

By embracing an open channel of regular two-way feedback, leaders will be more accountable, more informed and more involved with their peers, subordinates and customers. Fortunately for future generations it will seem like old hat.

Social networking has connected and re-connected countless millions of people by methods not available only a short time ago. Many a formal and informal support group has been created, opening the floodgates of feedback and constructive criticism. But I hope that society as a whole learns how to give and receive feedback more appropriately (and consistently) in cyberspace. Chances are good that the leaders of tomorrow will have mastered it, and if so their own careers as well as those of the people who report to them will be well-served.

College is not about what we study so much as it is about learning how to think. If it were simply a matter of memorization, just about anyone could absorb enough to graduate. But it’s so much more. Applying what we know in new and different ways is where real growth occurs.

In a leadership relationship, the best way to inspire creativity and strategic thinking is to be somewhat predictable. When a subordinate comes to his manager with an opportunity or a problem, he better well be prepared to discuss possible solutions as well. How does he learn to do that? He imagines the questions his leader will ask; learning to think like his boss.

The more ways in which others can visualize everything that goes into their leaders’ decision-making, the faster they will be ready to move up. Resist giving the answers and instead ask the important questions followed by “and why?”

Here’s an example. A busy executive is on the road 60% of the time, making her a moving target for her subordinates. As they try to find her to get answers and decisions, they’re wasting valuable time. In most cases, they already know what her questions will be. Eventually, when everyone knows what the important considerations will be, we all make faster, more informed decisions. Bottlenecks are broken open when a leader’s pushback is somewhat familiar and predictable.

We should teach our teams the questions. Make it a habit. Anticipating concerns, addressing big sticking points up front, and learning to get to the point are key skills for leaders who aspire to become C-level executives.

Several senior people and many who were purportedly trained for such a calamity didn’t follow documented and safe response procedures. And I’m talking about the 90 minutes after eleven people lost their lives. Strong and credible leadership was needed; but what we got was a sad and frustrating tragedy.

We will learn from this to be sure. One would hope that drilling for oil gets safer and more responsible as a result. But we can also learn a lot about the most obvious cornerstone of leadership that it almost goes without saying.

In my opinion, the “nobody was in charge” assessment is about the harshest thing one could say about another’s leadership. Being well-regarded, well-respected and somewhat successful at leadership is certainly easier in good times than in bad. To be sure, a crisis of this proportion is an epic test of leadership; BP and Transocean, Ltd. have failed miserably.

Lee Iacocca used to quote Thomas Paine in his Chrysler commercials, saying “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!” Amen.

No one is inspired by a wishy-washy, non-decisive leader. One can still collaborate, gather information, and use instinct while being a strong leader. Many people confuse powerful leadership with headstrong steamrolling. They’re different.

The most influential leaders pull all their resources together quickly, analyze the data, and act in a time-sensitive fashion. Waiting around for someone else or a crisis situation to make (or force) a decision is followership – and bad followership at that. It takes preparation, quick-thinking, and courage to be decisive when disaster strikes…but also when it doesn’t.

The first entry in a leader’s job description should be “make decisions.”

You can read the article I read here.