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:

Communication Traps for Virtual Teams: II

Communication can be problematic for any team, especially under pressure. But virtual teams face challenges that are less common in face-to-face teams. Here's Part II of a little catalog with some recommendations.

Before You Blow the Whistle: I

When organizations know that they've done something they shouldn't have, or they haven't done something they should have, they often try to conceal the bad news. When dealing with whistleblowers, they can be especially ruthless.

How to Deal with Holding Back

When group members voluntarily restrict their contributions to group efforts, group success is threatened and high performance becomes impossible. How can we reduce the incidence of holding back?

Fractures in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams — teams not co-located — do sometimes encounter difficulties maintaining unity of direction, or even unity of purpose. When they fracture, they do so in particular ways. Bone fractures provide a metaphor useful for guiding interventions.

Exhibitionism and Conversational Narcissism at Work: II

Exhibitionism is one of four themes of conversational narcissism. Here are six patterns of behavior that are exhibitionistic in the sense that they're intended not to advance the conversation, but rather to call the attention of others to the abuser.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

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