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: Divide and Conquer: 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.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration

Much of what we call work is as futile and irrelevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors that extend task duration.

Projects as Proxy Targets: II

Most projects have both supporters and detractors. When a project has been approved and execution begins, some detractors don't give up. Here's Part II of a catalog of tactics detractors use to sow chaos.

Reframing Revision Resentment: I

From time to time, we're required to revise something previously produced — some copy, remarks, an announcement, code, the Mona Lisa, whatever… When we do, some of us experience frustration, and view the assignment as an onerous chore. Here are some alternative perspectives that might ease the burden.

Responses to Outrageous Demands

From time to time, we might encounter a powerful person making outrageous demands, possibly accompanied by threats if we don't comply. At first, the choice seems to be between acceding to their demands or flat out refusing. There are other possibilities.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

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