Forums

Truth be told, this is already in the past. I'm looking for opinions now to help get a closed-loop process so I can feel certain I learned the right lessons from this experience.

At the end of Q2 my boss asked me to prepare a detailed expense report for my area, and then supplement the data with a request for how we want to expand in 2H, and next year. The goal was to take this report to another area of our business and request supplemental funding to accomplish our expanding mission. Everything is above-board so far, and follows exactly what my boss and I had been discussing from 1H of the year.

I prepared the draft report and presented it to him which he quickly approved. Then at the end of our meeting he asked for me to "reevaluate" the report, and add in room for new headcount. I gently commented that I believe the current staff is prepared to handle the mission, and considering the economy I'm confident that we can satisfy the mission for several quarters without adding more heads.

I was thanked for my input, then instructed exactly how many heads to request. After the report was revised I was to go ahead and begin championing the request throughout the organization. My concerns at the time were:
[list]
- My boss isn't involved in my team's daily operations. I'm confident we did not need additional headcount to satisfy our expanded mission, and I'm also confident that my boss could not have "had more info" justifying the adds
- This boss has a reputation as an empire-builder
- I would be the sole face championing the request. At the end of the day it is me, not my boss, justifying each line item
- The additional headcount ballooned the bottom-line by over 50% which added risk the entire request will be rejected
* Obviously my boss is my boss. If I do not follow a direct instruction it could have a serious detriment to my career
* I may find that I pick up a reputation as a loose-cannon who undermines my superiors, also something not very beneficial to my career
* I'm a boss too. I know when I give a directive to one of my reports I expect it to be followed. If we need to discuss it so they understand my motivation then that's OK. But at the end of the day I expect my directs to follow my directions. It's reasonable to expect my boss to feel the same way
[/list:u]
I know how I handled this situation. But I'd very much like to collect a consensus from the folks on this forum. How would you handle this situation?

thaGUma's picture

Slippery slope. It is easy to follow orders and get sucked into a mass of professional pain. Easy also to look for another job (fewer around at present – looking is easy).

If your manager cannot justify the numbers, then politely state you are uncomfortable making changes you cannot justify. Give him the MS Word file to amend as he ‘may have information that you are not party to and perhaps it is not appropriate you should see the amended content’ - always leave your boss an escape route. Keep a close watch on him as his actions may taint you.

Given a direct order to make the specific changes then you are able to make them and include a direct disclaimer that the data is not supported fully and take your name off. Covering note on the email stating that you have amended the report specifically to incorporate the changes as instructed. Highlight that the effect of unnecessary head count pushes the bottom line out and may kill the request. Your boss can delete your disclaimer. He also needs to do the championing. This may be an aberration on your boss’s part but you should be looking for a job elsewhere.

If instructed beyond this. i.e. to produce a final report with your name on it, then completely forget any prospects under that manager and look for a job elsewhere. However I do not think most bosses would push that far.

He may be padding his area in the anticipation of future cuts. Whatever his reasoning, do not buy into it unless you are convinced it is correct. Your integrity is at stake and you could do yourself immeasurable damage in the medium to long term.

CYA. Send yourself a note with the original report in case things blow up. Only for use if your boss states that you did the report.

Chris

ssladam's picture

I appreciate the input, thaGUma. Several points I think are easy to incorporate quickly. But my concern is that anything too overt would be seen as being insubordinate: a real killer around here. I do still like the company, and I'm on a fantastic career path, something I wouldn't want to surrender too casually.

A couple specific comments...
It does need to be me championing this mission. It's my baby, and I will own it entirely. There's no way I could pass the buck to him. There's also no way to "take my name off", at least not entirely. Since the request is specifically for my mission, in my area, it will be attributed to me no matter who's name is on the report, and no matter who makes the pitch.

Also, just so I don't cast an overly ominous light on my boss I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. It's possible to spin this entire thing that [i]since[/i] I am on a solid career path we are already planning that I will only be in this position for another ~year. He may be trying to add fluff in order to have lee-way to manage the transition.

That said, I still don't feel it's justified. If forced to pick up additional heads I'll be have to make a tough decision: either have staff with no mission, or generate unnecessary process and mission just to give people work to do. I don't like either. One is pure waste. And the other risk that once you invent a wasteful process it has a tendency to stay around forever, costing the company $$ for years to come.

But I don't want to sound entirely like a negative-nancy. I think your points are all valid, and all good recommendations. I'll definitely incorporate as many of the ideas as possible.

jhack's picture

Why not have a direct conversation with your boss? Ask him what the people are for, in the context of helping him achieve his goals. You can be more effective if you understand his reasons. Either he trusts you to campaign on his behalf with all the information you need, or he doesn't.

And if he doesn't trust you, then you know you're being set up. It might work out. It might not. You have to decide if this is an environment in which you want to build your career.

John

ssladam's picture

[quote="jhack"]Why not have a direct conversation with your boss?[/quote]
Already done. The answer: "It's always useful to have extra people to help accomplish the mission".

That's the reason it became a problem. Through my draft proposal it was clear that I do not consider we need more staff. His justification was only that one simple sentence. When I oh-so-gently commented that with my view of the project I didn't see the need for more heads, but he may have a more informed position....

I was cut-off and told to, "just update the report, pad the numbers where you need to, and include the headcount request".

US41's picture

[quote="ssladam"]I prepared the draft report and presented it to him which he quickly approved. Then at the end of our meeting he asked for me to "reevaluate" the report, and add in room for new headcount. I gently commented that I believe the current staff is prepared to handle the mission, and considering the economy I'm confident that we can satisfy the mission for several quarters without adding more heads.[/quote]

When you think you are right and your boss is wrong because you disagree, that does not make your boss unethical. Sometimes we get so caught up in our desire to be "right", that we lose perspective on just how "right" we actually are.

You are 100% sure that your boss doesn't have some experience or insider knowledge at the management level that makes his call the better one? Don't lose sight of the purpose of the task you are working on: to help make decisions and manage risk.

You think your lack of willingness to assume risk of having the proposal rejected should hold your boss, who probably is the boss because he is willing to assume more risk, should be the one that your boss goes with?

I have to say in this situation I side with your boss. It sounds like you are trying to spin the scenario into a "this is unethical" just because your boss thinks he knows more than you and didn't follow all of your recommendations.

I don't see anything in your description that is unethical or that you have any justification for refusing to cooperate with. Just do it.

I wouldn't say that if your boss doesn't trust you that you are being set up. I would say that if your boss doesn't trust you, you do not have a good relationship with your boss, and your boss is going to be less likely to consider your opinions as valid input. I think that is something for you to work on in yourself - not something to justify speculating about your boss's intentions.

HMac's picture

[quote="ssladam"]It's possible to spin this entire thing that [i]since[/i] I am on a solid career path we are already planning that I will only be in this position for another ~year. He may be trying to add fluff in order to have lee-way to manage the transition.

That said, I still don't feel it's justified. If forced to pick up additional heads I'll be have to make a tough decision: either have staff with no mission, or generate unnecessary process and mission just to give people work to do. I don't like either. One is pure waste. And the other risk that once you invent a wasteful process it has a tendency to stay around forever, costing the company $$ for years to come.[/quote]

I like these two paragraphs because they sum up the conflict you seem to be struggling with.

Keep thinking the way you express the possibilities of the first paragraph. On reflection it sounds like you have reasons to feel optomistic.

And don't think things too far ahead - that second paragraph describes a real "what if" situation - don't make assumptions about how the twisty budgeting process is going to turn out. Instead, I suggest you watch your boss and learn (he might be wrong. he might be right).

Finally, and to echo something I think 41 was getting at:

Be [b][u]VERY [/u][/b]careful using the terms "ethical" and "unethical" when describing others. You're assuming you know intent, or you're pasting intent on top of observed behaviors.

I might be wrong to feel this way, but as a director, if I ever heard one of one of my directs or their directs questioning my ethics based on disagreeing or misunderstanding my actions, I'd ensure they were on the fast track to leave the company. End of story. An environment where people speculate about the ethics of others is poisonous.

-Hugh

jhack's picture

[quote="US41"]I wouldn't say that if your boss doesn't trust you that you are being set up. I would say that if your boss doesn't trust you, you do not have a good relationship with your boss, and your boss is going to be less likely to consider your opinions as valid input. I think that is something for you to work on in yourself - not something to justify speculating about your boss's intentions.[/quote]

US 41 is right. It's about your relationship, not anyone's ethics.

John

thaGUma's picture

[quote]my boss asked me to prepare a detailed expense report for my area, and then supplement the data with a request for how we want to expand in 2H, and next year.[/quote]

I disagree with caving in. Based on the original report being properly researched and written, I see unsubstantiated changes as effectively falsifying the report. It is wrong to add additional headcount simply because you were told to. The entire report becomes corrupt. If you make the changes and champion the report as being proper, you are tainted.

Use of data of this kind would be a dismissible offence in the preparation of my business cases. Reports are there to be relied on and support the overall case. It follows that reports ‘amended’ to support the business case can fatally impact on the outcome. It is common to encourage a report author to come to the correct conclusion, but blatant changes of this type are a step too far.

Your boss is being unprofessional in asking for the changes without properly justifying the case. It is not insubordinate to ask for clarification or reasoning behind a change of this nature. If the reasoning is not there – then do not collude in producing false data. Let him make his request based on true information and not a lie. As I stated previously, I would not want my name associated with this.

Chris

US41's picture

I don't see falsification of data here. I see different interpretations of what the data are saying and how to react to the data.

Depending on the environment and what you are measuring, bending reports for the good of the company can range from helpful to illegal. I don't think it is a good idea to assume the latter, especially in this case since it is the conclusion drawn and not the data being edited.

thaGUma's picture

US41, From the info given you cannot draw that conclusion. There is no interpretation of data provided for ssladam’s boss, just an instruction to change the headcount.

I make no assumption that amending the report is for the good or for the detriment of the company. Ssladam indicates it may be to the detriment of the company. In all honesty I do not see the need to enquire on this. Falsification of conclusion renders the whole report invalid. We are talking about falsification nonetheless.

If it were a case of interpretation, even a mediocre boss would share with his subordinate the reasoning for his differing interpretation if it were valid. The proper place for the increase in this instance would be in the supplemental request rather than amending the report conclusion.

We may differ in this, but I cannot see any justification to accept an instruction of this type.

Chris

US41's picture

I see motivation. I'd want to avoid ending up fired because I gave my boss the impression I think they are unethical and I spread that message around to others and harmed their reputation.

If you think you can pick that fight with your boss and survive.... You might win the battle, but in the process of fighting it, you will be so radioactive that your career with that company will end too.

If you aren't willing to be fired over it, don't pick the fight.

I'd want to be very sure that the direction our friend is being given is definitely beyond the pale and totally unethical before I advised him to fall on his sword.

If he takes the stand you suggest, he will be falling on his sword. I've seen this before, and it doesn't end well.

So just be careful before you pick the fight. If you have data showing that a mass die-out will occur because uranium is being pumped into the water supply, yeah, pick the fight. If your boss disagrees about how many people to hire, uh, not so much. I'd take a pass on that and give him what he wants.

HMac's picture

[quote="thaGUma"]Based on the original report being properly researched and written, I see unsubstantiated changes as effectively falsifying the report. It is wrong to add additional headcount simply because you were told to. The entire report becomes corrupt. If you make the changes and champion the report as being proper, you are tainted.[/quote]

I have no way of knowing ssladam's boss' motivation here.

chris, you may well be right. But it's a leap to use terms like "falsifying", "corrupt", and "tainted" because they indicate value judgment. And they can be interpreted as accusations. Used carelessly, they're career-enders.

I know we're talking among ourselves here. I just want to raise the flag of caution to ssladam. Regardless of what you may think, be very careful about what you say. Words are important, and they have consequences (both positive AND negative).

-Hugh

thaGUma's picture

Fortunately I am in an ivory tower where a boss who changed a report’s conclusion would be in the firing line rather than the subordinate. I am also in the fortunate position where I can chose not to follow instructions I believe to be fundamentally wrong. My method of dealing with this has been to politely inform the manager that I am not comfortable without further clarification. I do not suggest that the boss makes the changes, simply give him the tools to do so themselves.

The reason I follow this tack is that I believe over time this behaviour can negatively affect the individual and the company. Authenticity (i.e., the consistency between a boss's true ethical intention and behaviour) moderates the relationship between the boss’s ethical behaviours and employee outcomes. Most companies have a policy directly relating to this. My employment contract specifically stated that I cannot act in a manner I believe to be to the detriment of the company even if requested to do so. On a selfish level it would gnaw at me until I removed my self from the situation or I would become cynical.

I would not suggest that a boss was being unethical. I am not in a position to read his mind. While I may believe his behaviour to be wrong or unethical, my approach is always to withdraw from the situation and allow the other an escape route to avoid escalation. You never call a bully a bully to his face without being prepared for a thump.

In that respect, I do not suggest starting a fight, properly handled this does not happen. True your prospects will be negatively affected under that one boss and you need to be prepared to live with that.

[b]Hmac[/b]
You are right Hmac the terminology is value based and has negative connotations. My assumption is that ssladam would have included his bosses reasoning if it existed and is mature enough to use appropriate language in any discussion with bosses or colleagues. I use this language to shorten something that could take several pages into a line.

Chris

The highest standard of behaviour one can expect from an employee roughly matches the lowest standard of behaviour exhibited by the management.

US41's picture

[quote="thaGUma"]True your prospects will be negatively affected under that one boss and you need to be prepared to live with that. [/quote]

In my company, in order to change departments, you must apply for a posted job. When you apply for it, your boss is notified, and the hiring manager is required to contact them for permission to talk to you. The current manager simply denies this access to the hiring manager, and your current manager simply continues to process you out while you frantically wave about like a drowning man.

If the manager does allow access, the hiring manager will ask for comments. All you have to say is "no comment," and the hiring manager will run in the other direction. No one wants to hire another manager's problem employee. That's why I write "radioactive."

This has been the case in several other companies I have worked for.

When you go to war with your boss, have your resume polished up, your CDM ready to go, and your network in a finely tuned state of readiness. You're going to need it, because employees almost never win wars with their company or their boss. They win small victories, and then they are no longer with the company effective immediately 60 days later.

ssladam's picture

Actually, when first drafting the original post I didn't want to use the word "unethical", but I opted for it finally simply for brevity. Maybe I could have added the word "potential" in the subject somewhere.

With that disclaimer out of the way...

I actually like the comments from both sides of the discussion. On one side is thaGUma taking a moral high road. And on the other side is US41 and HMac, arguing for chain-of-command and plausible deniability. One recommends building walls, and the other recommends "playing ball".

I have a feeling that the truth is really somewhere in the middle. First: No one should doubt this situation is not as pure as the driven snow. This is *my* project, my report, and my numbers. I was told to "massage" them as much as necessary to get the headcount that he directed. He could have given me direction to pick up heads for my regular department, or in some other area, but he gave the order to fudge the numbers in this new project I'm carving out. It [i]may[/i] not be unethical. But it's definitely not squeeky clean.

With that said... as I mentioned in the original post, this is already 90% behind me. I appreciate the comments from this post, but here is how I eventually handled the situation:

I agree there was no overt unethical directive. I feel that it is my mission to follow my bosses orders, therefore no matter how strongly I disagree with him I would not publicize it to the rest of the company. I will do as my boss instructs, even if I think it may be a risk to my project, or even my career. If some action DOES hurt my career I'd be job shopping immediately. And if I do get an unethical directive I would privately explain my concerns to my boss, without innuendo, to allow him to respond directly to my concerns.

The action I followed: I modified the report following his instruction, with a few of my own additions. Then instead of simply immediately launching activity after "massaging the numbers", I (signed) emailed him both the old version and the new version with a comment, "I have updated the report. This new version includes the changes you requested. Please review, and comment. Once you approve I'll begin launching the proposal".

He replied with, "Looks good, go ahead."

At which time I began championing the new request. But I did it in my way.

Aside from his changes, I now included more detail. I specifically added numbers showing the margins we had to work with, and I explained that each section was dependent, but not relegated by the other sections. (A change in one section is not catastrophic to another). My intent here was to give the reviewers a clear picture that this proposal does not require 100% approval in order to fly. Even with a reduction we can make it happen.

On the first page, in big bold letters, was a statement that this proposal covered ONLY the mission outlined in the report (the new work initiative): it did not cover my normal mission or any other work activity. This was already the understood purpose of the report, I simply put it into writing. I included this so that I could defend my position in the future if I was challenged if found that the headcount were truly "unnecessary expense". My hope is that this would provide a defensible position that it was not included in my original proposal, was added specifically by my boss, and that since he signed off with this statement in big bold letters, it was clear that it was his call. (Thin defense, I know, but better than nothing).

In this way, I considered:
[list]- If we get 100% approval my boss gets what he wants: more heads
- If there's only partial approval I still satisified my boss' directive to ask for heads
- If there is a mess in the future I have my CYA to defend my actions
- By choosing to not raise the alarm then if there is no mess in the future I didn't generate animosity between myself and my boss, or between my area and any other area
- If this modification does cause the whole project to get axed I can always lead a private campaign next year to ressurect the project.[/list:u]
I don't know if that was the best course of action, but it's the one that already rolling.

HMac's picture

[quote="ssladam"]I have a feeling that the truth is really somewhere in the middle.[/quote]

Amen. And can we get a "hallelujiah" from the congregation?

Thanks for taking the time to provide the details of your way forward. It looks like you did a terrific job of navigating through a gray area (not so black and white as we'd hope, right?).

And on top of everything else, ssladam, kudos on your thoughtful approach to your job, your organization, your boss and your role.

-Hugh