Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: II

As we noted last time, skip-level interviews can enhance organizational performance. But whether supervisors initiate them, or subordinates do, there are risks. Next time, we'll explore some hazards of subordinate-initiated skip-level interviews. For now, we resume our discussion of the hazards of supervisor-initiated interviews, using the name Frodo for the subordinate, Bilbo for Frodo's supervisor, and Gandalf for Bilbo's supervisor.

Misinterpreting the event itself

When everyone understands that Gandalf conducts routine skip-level interviews, the mere fact that Gandalf has interviewed Frodo (or wants to do so) is unlikely to cause speculation about Gandalf's purpose. But when these interviews are rare, or when they're sudden or unexpected, or when Gandalf takes care to conceal the event, people begin to suspect that Bilbo might be in jeopardy, or might be in the running for a major promotion, or goodness knows what.

To limit this risk, supervisors should conduct skip-level interviews with predictable regularity, though not very often. Making clear that skip-level interviews do occur — and that they're routine — limits the risk of subordinates misinterpreting the event as a sign of anything in particular. Supervisors who conduct surprise skip-level interviews almost certainly generate speculation about their own direct subordinates' job performance.

If Bilbo knows that Gandalf is one who conducts surprise skip-level interviews, he can gain some protection from misinterpretation by advising his subordinates well in advance of any announcement that these things do happen. In effect, Bilbo would be making the interviews a part of the organizational routine, thereby removing the surprise and limiting — but not eliminating — the possibility that subordinates might try to manufacture meaning for the event.

Misrepresentations

In some situations, Frodo might use the skip-level interview to tell Gandalf something that Frodo knows to be incorrect or exaggerated, to disparage Bilbo's performance. If Gandalf has an agenda, and if Frodo can divine it, Frodo can tailor his misrepresentation to what he believes Gandalf wants to hear. If he does, his effort is more likely to be effective.

In any case, Gandalf When everyone understands that the
supervisor conducts routine skip-level
interviews, the mere fact that one occurs
is unlikely to cause speculation
about the supervisor's purposemust be neither too trusting nor too skeptical. He is wise not to accept at face value anything he learns from Frodo, but just as important, he cannot seem to Frodo to be skeptical or distrustful of Frodo. He must take Frodo seriously, but he must take action only after confirming Frodo's assertions with third parties (other than Bilbo).

If Gandalf does confront Bilbo with allegations obtained from Frodo — allegations that are unconfirmed, and which Bilbo knows to be false — then Bilbo must accept that he has a problem. Whether Gandalf is naively eager to find fault with Bilbo, or Gandalf is trying to assemble a case against him, Bilbo's remaining tenure as Gandalf's subordinate isn't likely to be a happy one.

We'll continue next time, exploring subordinate-initiated skip-level interviews. First in this series  Next in this series  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 welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Devious Political Tactics:

Devious Political Tactics: Divide and Conquer, Part I

While most leaders try to achieve organizational unity, some do use divisive tactics to maintain control, or to elevate performance by fostering competition. Understanding the risks of these tactics can motivate you to find another way.

Devious Political Tactics: A Field Manual

Some practitioners of workplace politics use an assortment of devious tactics to accomplish their ends. Since most of us operate in a fairly straightforward manner, the devious among us gain unfair advantage. Here are some of their techniques, and some suggestions for effective responses.

Failure Foreordained

Performance Improvement Plans help supervisors guide their subordinates toward improved performance. But they can also be used to develop documentation to support termination. How can subordinates tell whether a PIP is a real opportunity to improve?

How to Hijack Meetings

Recognizing the tactics meeting hijackers use is the first step to reducing the incidence of this abuse. Here are some of those tactics.

Time to Let Go of Plan A

We had a plan. It was a good one. Our plan seemed to work for a while. But then troubles began. And now things look very bleak. But people can't let go of the plan. For some teams in this situation, there isn't a Plan B. For others, Plan B is a secret.

See also Devious Political Tactics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 8: Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More

Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist? Available here and by RSS on February 8.

And on February 15: Four Razors for Organizational Behavior

Deviant organizational behavior can harm the people and the organization. In choosing responses, we consider what drives the perpetrators. Considering Malice, Incompetence, Ignorance, and Greed, we can devise four guidelines for making these choices. Available here and by RSS on February 15.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, 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, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info