One of the strange realities of leadership is that the more responsibility an executive has, the easier it can become to lose sight of what is actually happening below. Employees may fear the boss's reaction, may not want to deliver bad news, or may simply believe that handling the problem themselves is exactly what they were hired to do. Executive coach and former senior media executive Joel Berman has seen that tension from both sides of the desk.
Berman, who spent years at Paramount Pictures including as President of Worldwide Television Distribution, understands the instinct. "They're thinking, 'This is my responsibility. I'm supposed to fix it,'" he said. "They want to be viewed as somebody who has a good handle on the business and gets things done."
To a point, that is exactly what a leader should want. No organization benefits when every problem is immediately pushed up the ladder. Berman expects people responsible for an area of the business to think through the issue and come prepared with a plan. The problem arises when "I'll handle it" becomes "I'll wait to tell anyone until I've handled it." Sometimes it doesn't get handled. By the time the leader finds out, the choices available may be very different.
Berman draws a distinction between keeping a leader informed and handing the leader responsibility for solving the problem. The ideal conversation is not "Here's what's wrong. What do you want me to do?" It is closer to "Here's the issue. Here's what we're doing about it. Here's what I think we should do next." That allows the leader to ask questions, challenge assumptions, provide resources or offer experience without taking ownership away from the person responsible for executing the plan. "You want someone to solve problems, you want them to come in with a plan, but you also want to know far enough ahead," Berman said. That last part matters.
Consider something as basic, and consequential, as revenue. If a business is likely to miss its revenue expectations and senior leadership learns about it early enough, there may still be choices. Expenses can potentially be adjusted. Resources can be moved. Leadership may be able to intervene in the underlying business issue, manage expectations or prepare the CEO or board for what may be coming. None of that guarantees the problem gets fixed, but knowing earlier provides an opportunity to act. Finding out after the fact does not. "You would have had an opportunity to fix it, and you would have had an opportunity to communicate it," Berman said. "If you know in advance, you can ask: What can we do? What's the issue? Why is this not happening? But if you find out after the fact, there's nothing you can do." In practical terms, bad news becomes more expensive as the time available to respond to it disappears.
This is where Berman's view becomes less comfortable for the person at the top. Yes, the employee who withheld important information may have made a mistake. But that doesn't let the executive off the hook. "It's your fault because you didn't know about it," Berman said. "Yes, it's their fault too, but it's on you." Imagine sitting in front of a CEO or board after a significant revenue miss and explaining that you didn't warn them because your people didn't tell you. That answer creates another question: What is it about your leadership that may be discouraging open communication from your direct reports?
Berman doesn't approach leadership as someone claiming to have executed it perfectly. "I think I've made every mistake there is to make," he said. That experience informs the way he coaches executives today. He acknowledges that during his own years as an executive, he wasn't always as consistent as he would have liked when people brought him problems. "I'd like to think I was the kind of leader that people could bring problems to, but I don't think I always reacted in a consistent manner," Berman said. That admission matters because employees pay attention to what happens when someone delivers bad news. A leader may genuinely believe the door is always open, but leaders are human. Pressure builds. Difficult days happen. And a reaction in a stressful moment can send a message the executive never intended to send. People remember. If someone gets reproached for delivering bad news, others can quickly learn that bringing problems upward carries a price. That's how an executive can have an open door and still end up surrounded by people reluctant to walk through it.
Berman believes leaders need regular communication with the people reporting directly to them. That can mean meaningful dialogue in staff meetings, weekly or biweekly one-on-one conversations, or another rhythm that makes sense for the organization. "You want to create a structure and a culture that encourages open communication," Berman said. That communication shouldn't revolve exclusively around problems. Leaders should want their people bringing them good news as well. When employees are excited about something that is working, sharing those successes with leadership should feel just as natural as raising a concern when something isn't. The objective is not to create an organization where every development gets pushed upward. It is to create one where the people closest to the work understand what leadership needs to know and feel comfortable communicating it before circumstances make the conversation unavoidable.
No executive can prevent every problem. No leader will receive every piece of information at exactly the right moment. But by the time someone reaches the upper levels of an organization, Berman believes knowing what is happening is itself part of the job. Because eventually, "They didn't tell me" raises a more uncomfortable question: Why didn't you know? More information about Berman's work is available at JoelPBerman.com.
