Intentionally Misreporting Status: I

Many of us file status reports regularly. Writing them is no fun. When the work is going well, writing the reports can feel like a boring chore that seems to be taking time away from doing real work. And when the work isn't going well, writing a status report can be a dreaded, painful chore that many find difficult to perform with integrity.

Whatever your role, reporting status with integrity is part of being a professional. Management relies on truth in status reporting as the foundation of its decision-making process. Because making appropriate decisions on the basis of misleading or incomplete status information is essentially impossible, misleading status reports are a threat to the enterprise, and therefore they threaten everyone's jobs.

Here's an example:

Senior management has previously given everyone guidance: if status is unreported they want to know it. A missing status report could indicate communication system failures, accidents, ill health, concealment of major failure, insubordination — almost anything. Jenn also realizes that reporting status as "Unreported" could make trouble for her friend. She's tempted to report Marigold status as TBD.

I hope the problem is now a little clearer. Misleading status reports
are a threat to the
enterprise, and therefore
to everyone's jobsJenn is pondering the TBD choice, because Marigold's status is still being determined. Or she could report Marigold status as Yellow, because she had received an oral status report from Mike that indicated that the test was underway and the results would be available soon. Or she could report Marigold status as Green, because Mike was "very certain" that all is well, and Marigold would pass the test.

All of these choices are "technically" honest in the sense that there exist facts to support each choice. But these choices are also "technically" dishonest, because they would convey a misimpression of the true situation, namely, that Marigold's status is unreported.

The choice one makes in these situations depends on one's definition of "honesty" in status reporting. One test people use to determine honesty is the Evidence Test:

Do I have the facts and evidence I need to support the status I chose to report?

And another very different test is the Reality Test:

Upon receiving my report, will the recipient of my report have an impression of the situation that's actually in alignment with reality, as I know it?

Reports that pass the Evidence Test might not pass the Reality Test. But even though the reports Management needs are those that pass the Reality Test, many people write reports that pass the Evidence Test more closely than they do the Reality Test. Because Reality reports can trigger management actions that friends, colleagues, managers, and executives don't like, some people are reluctant to file Reality reports. Reporting Reality sometimes requires integrity, and it can be difficult at times. But avoiding reporting Reality can be the more difficult course. Why is reporting status with integrity so difficult? I'll examine that question in more detail next time.   Next issue 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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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 Workplace Politics:

Devious Political Tactics: Credit Appropriation

Managers and supervisors who take credit for the work of subordinates or others who feel powerless are using a tactic I call Credit Appropriation. It's the mark of the unsophisticated political operator.

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.

Grace Under Fire: III

When someone at work seems intent on making your work life a painful agony, you might experience fear, anxiety, or stress that can lead to a loss of emotional control. Retaining composure is in that case the key to survival.

Implicit Interrogation Tactics

When one person tries surreptitiously to extract information from another at work, an implicit interrogation is taking place. Here are seven tactics that people use to interrogate others without revealing what they're doing.

Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: II

Self-importance is one of four major themes of conversational narcissism. Knowing how to recognize the patterns of conversational narcissism is a fundamental skill needed for controlling it. Here are eight examples that emphasize self-importance.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 16: Responding to Unwelcome Events

Unwelcome events have two kinds of effects on decision-makers. One set of effects appears as we respond to events that have actually occurred. Another set manifests itself as we prepare for unwelcome events that haven't yet occurred, but which might occur. Making a wrong decision in either case can be costly. Available here and by RSS on July 16.

And on July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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