ManagementAsFeedbackImpediment

Is management an impediment to getting feedback from you and your colleagues?

I host a biweekly training conference call and web cast for 20 colleagues. I have a radical -- at least for the company that employees me -- goal, agenda and set of objectives for the meeting. See TwoWayInformationSharingMeetingDesign.

Several managers have asked me whether they can participate. I say, "No."

Perhaps I'm over protective. I feel strongly that safety is an issue. The company's management historically did not seek employee feedback. I'm working to make things safer and DEMONSTRATE that my colleagues' feedback does make a difference, at least in areas where I have control.

Every training I host is optional, rather than the traditional mandatory. I advertise participation as follows: "Participation is optional. If you don't want to participate, don't. We desire people who want to be on the call."

Minutes are published to everyone, including managers, but the participants are never identified by name. By eliminating names, I feel that participation is truly optional and the resulting AnonymityEnablesPeopleToSpeakTheirTruth.

Despite personally liking the managers, I think their participation will adversely change the meeting dynamics, especially until adequate safety is created. My biggest concern -- I wonder whether they can be peers rather than THE LEADER(S).

If you truly had a choice, would you advocate the participation or removal of YOUR manager from training or review sessions that YOU participate in? Why?

SteveSmith 2003.06.15

from training or review sessions that YOU participate in?

(Question: Participate as leader or attendee?)

I'm pretty neutral. I have trouble imagining my manager being interested in 80-90% of the training I'm participating in. When exploring new technology or methods, I often find my manager wanting to participate to "get a flavor" of what's coming. This participation is usually best on overview level materials. The intersecion of my manager's goals and most participants' learning goals is otherwise quite small.

If I worked for a micro-manager who believed in perfection, I would definitely want him/her NOT present during training. Inhibiting experimentation reduces learning. People need to make mistakes. That will either happen economically in training with feedback, or it will happen on the job with more consequences. Getting the expensive mistakes to happen in a safe learning setting can be cheaper than elsewhere. Discovery is certainly easier.

Steve, how has the composition of your sessions been over time? Do you confer with the same people repeatedly or do you get lots of turnover? If the same people recur, I'd expect the trust to build to where anonymity became less necessary. On the other hand, if there's a steady turnover with new people, protecting anonymity probably retains value affording more open discussions.

--BobLee 2003. 06.15

We often get questions about management participation in technical reviews. Over the decades, I've learned one solid principle:

The one group of managers who should never be present are those who insist they must be present. - JerryWeinberg 2003.06.15

These comments on management in meetings struck me as dead-on in line with my experience, and just wrong in principle. That observation, I am realizing, is worth something itself.

When planning what to do, like who to have in meetings, work with the statistics.
When the statistics aren't the way you think they ought to be, change something about what you are doing.

-- JimBullock, 2003.06.16

Updated: Monday, June 16, 2003