More on Boss-Subordinate Forum

There are actually two cases to consider in this forum. One is look at the forum from the perspective of the boss (see below). The second is to look at the forum from the perspective of the subordinate.

Unfortunately many subordinates assume their role is merely to follow. In decision-making, however, they have an important role to play, even if they do not have the authority they might want.

Although it is more awkward to do so, the first role of the subordinate is to push for clarify on the meta-decisions. Why are we addressing this decision now? What would happen if we took no action? What are the constraints we have to respect in the final choice? How are we thinking about this choice situation? Are there some other perspectives we should explore? Are we advising? Or deciding? Obviously you want to pose these questions not as a challenge, but as a sincere desire to better understand the circumstances.

One of the most common complaints among staff is that their boss makes decisions without realizing the implications, or fails to understand the subtleties of the work situation. The boss seldom has the intimate knowledge of the workflow that is possessed by the frontline staff. His or her decision may sometimes create more problems than it solves.

While the boss may not "understand the work", they often have a better view of the larger picture. That is, they may understand (better than staff) the bigger political picture, or the likely response of their boss to a particular decision.

The Boss-Subordinate forum may seem like the simplest. After all, there's a clearly designated decision maker, and they have the option to share that authority in whatever way they see fit. But we'd like to suggest taking a different view.

The Boss has the opportunity to lead through framing and process design. That is, they can attend mostly to how people are thinking about the situation and to providing a robust process for making the choice. That empower their staff (with broader experience and greater diversity) to sort through the options with the greatest chance for a positive outcome.

For example, suppose your staff starts to focus in on training as a solution for increasingly poor project delivery. You might challenge and direct the group by saying something like the following:

"I notice that we're assuming the problem stems from a skills deficit, and that training will address the issue. What else could be contributing to the problem besides poor skills among project leaders? Pair up with one other person and think of at least 2 other things that could create what we're observing other than a skills deficit? Let's generate some other perspectives before we set up a 3-day training course."

Such a statement challenges the group to find new frames for the problem. And the simple process option of working separately in pairs guarantees more air time for each individual as well as a greater diversity of input.