The Filter Dilemma

Protecting the boss from the onslaught of information is bound to burst his bubble.

Shortly after arriving on the job at a troubled organization, a federal executive got a warning from a subordinate: His predecessor had been kept out of the loop.

"The staff routinely intercepted e-mails, voicemails and paper correspondence under the pretext of 'protecting' " the boss, the employee wrote. "I, as everyone else, do understand that the volume of incoming messages at your level is probably unmanageable; how-ever, the intentions or interpretations of the filterers in the front office may not serve your best interest."

This dilemma is one that many federal managers find all too familiar: Avoid drowning in the massive flow of information that comes with overseeing complex government programs while also making sure important details aren't kept from them. People block information out of fear, self-preservation, turf protection and many other reasons. "I am trying to avoid that, but I must admit that it does make it hard for me to keep up with the volumes," the new executive responded to the warning.

The organization had a standing practice in which subordinate managers served as filters for the big boss. Ostensibly, this setup ensured that the boss' time was not wasted on superfluous issues. There's no shortage of people trying to get the attention of top executives, from vendors to employees to interest groups, customers and other stakeholders. So, it should help to have lower-level people with knowledge of the organization ask whether this matter or that should rise to the level of the boss.

The old boss, however, had come to question his filterers' true intentions, the subordinate said. "As a consequence, he created a free-flowing bulletin board that allowed him to go directly to the employees in the organization, effectively end-running the insider/ buffer/filter," he explained to the new executive. But the electronic bulletin board-the modern-day version of the anonymous suggestion box-didn't work. The boss eventually got the boot.

The managers who served as filters were longtime employees who had developed institutional biases. Perhaps they should not have been expected to serve as objective filters for the executive, whose job was to turn around an organization with burgeoning problems.

Given the scenario, it shouldn't have been too surprising when about a year into the job, the new boss was blindsided by the discovery that the organization's central project had gone seriously over budget and off schedule. The filter had failed again.

There simply is no substitute for getting up from the desk, walking out of the office and talking to employees. A leader should do it routinely-to show that he seriously wants to hear from employees what's going on. It must be unannounced, to avoid dog-and-pony shows. A leader must ask real questions aimed at getting real information, not just stage the workplace equivalent of a political campaign: "Everything good? That's good. Keep up the good work."

Filters and anonymous message boards are passive management tools. If executives really want to know how their organizations are doing, they must actively seek out this information. Sitting at their desks waiting for information to come to them is a guaranteed way to find out too late-for their organizations and possibly for their careers.