In 7 Tips for Better 360-Feedback Evaluations, I discussed a situation where a non-profit leader whom I coached was reluctant to use 360-feedback evaluations due to an experience with a prior leader of the organization.

It was a textbook example of not only an unwillingness to improve based on feedback, but an unwillingness to even get feedback in the first place. The leader only underwent the 360 because the board he reported to required it. Those in the organization providing feedback insisted on it being anonymous, as they were concerned about retaliation from the leader.

An executive coach (not me) was assigned to administer the 360 process, gather the feedback through interviews, help distill the feedback, then present the feedback to the leader. The leader refused to accept the feedback and would not participate in any corrective action discussions.

The experience was so bad that even long after the leader had left the organization, those who remembered the process didn’t want to do it again with any other execs. Everyone lost, and the organization suffered as a result.
As someone who develops content intended for mass consumption, I am no stranger to feedback. Some feedback is positive, some more constructive. Some is helpful for taking action, while some falls into a vague “this stinks” bucket.

I get feedback from anonymous sources, as well as those as close to me (like my editor/wife, Patty). While I’ve learned to be better at accepting constructive feedback, sometimes it still hurts—particularly if it’s something that I’ve tried to address previously.

Bert was an associate at a premier management consulting firm.
Over the years he specialized in providing advice to senior management in information technology organizations.  Generally he had some pretty insightful ideas that many of the rank and file in the client organization viewed as a bit theoretical.  His advice was typically accompanied by general implementation timelines which client organizations rarely took verbatim.  Bert's advice usually culminated in some type of a Powerpoint presentation to the senior client management; then it was off to the next assignment.

For years Bert had been trying to get a foot into the door of Laner Robotics. 

After a few weeks, Bert formulated his findings and prepared his Powerpoint deck for Kara.  At his presentation, Bert outlined some recommendations which Kara's managers didn't think would work.  Nonetheless, Bert proceeded forward with his recommendations.  Kara had previously talked with her managers and knew they didn't support Bert's findings.  Bert was persistent with Kara.  Kara was skeptical; "Bert, I'm just not sure that this is the right answer, but perhaps you could take some of your ideas and implement them in one of my PM organizations.  Would you be willing to work with Allison to implement your recommendations?"  Allison was one of Kara's top managers and knew that if Bert's ideas would work anywhere it would be in Allison's organization.  Bert had never been in a situation where he had to implement his recommendations but thought it would be easy to do.  "Sure, I'll implement them and report back to you in two weeks."  Kara was skeptical but agreed, "OK Bert, go for it."

The next two weeks were a nightmare for Allison.  Bert had no idea how to implement his own ideas and completely frustrated Allison and her team.  He was disorganized, lacked focus, and was unclear about assignments. Bert continued forging ahead with his original ideas even though it was clear he was failing.  After a while Allison and her team simply started ignoring Bert because he was wasting their time. 

At his follow-up meeting with Kara, Bert had to break that bad news that his recommendations were a flop.  "If I could only have a few more weeks I'm sure we can get these recommendations working", Bert pleaded to Kara.  Kara had already talked with Allison and knew that Bert simply couldn't deliver on his recommendations.  "I'm sorry, Bert, but I just don't think you're going to be able to deliver results.  Allison and her team don't see you as credible, and if Allison doesn't see you as credible I have difficulty accepting your recommendations.

Bert left Kara's office knowing full well that his hopeful future as an advisor to Kara and Laner Robotics had just been snuffed out. 

Bert's credibility with Kara was irreparably torched.  He committed to deliver results but failed miserably without having a good reason for non-delivery.  Bert ignored the warning signs and forged ahead with his failed implementation. 

Mastering credibility is not just about having great ideas, it's also about how you follow through on those ideas to deliver results.  A word of caution; mastering credibility doesn't mean that you always have to be right; if that were the case then no one would take risks out of fear of being wrong.  What it does mean, though, is that if you are wrong about something that you own up to it and figure out what you need to do to right the ship. 

My one nugget for you is thus:  mastering credibility means you have to leverage what you know and the relationships you build to deliver results.  Fail to complete the circle by delivering results and you'll establish a reputation for yourself as a "those who can't do teach" theoretician.

In my emotional intelligence (EI) article series, I identified four crucial building blocks that cooperate to provide a holistic lens into an EI-capable leader, as follows:

1. Know Thyself – Understanding your strengths and weaknesses
   
2. Control Thyself – Recognizing how your actions impact others
   
3. Understand Others – Observing the strengths, weaknesses, and emotions of others
   
4. Relate for Results – Synthesizing how to adapt, coach, mentor, influence, and advise to deliver results
   

I believe the first three building blocks are prerequisites for the fourth. It would be incredibly difficult to relate for results without having a realistic understanding of your own strengths and weaknesses, how you come off to others, and the strengths, weaknesses and emotions of others. The four blocks can be expressed as follows

Read more at ProjectManagement.com. 

Ever since childhood, Mark had been known as an in-your-face competitor...

Whether it be in sports, in the classroom, or in relationships, he wasn't happy unless he beat someone else at whatever he was doing.  Being in competition to Mark meant that he was going to do whatever he could to ensure he won and that his competitor lost.  Those on his team loved his competitive spirit and encouraged it; those not on his team feared him.  His behavior was validated through the number of trophies and medals he received while growing up.

As an adult his competitive spirit didn't wane.  He became a feared negotiator in his company's purchasing organization and became known as a pompous ass who would stop at nothing to ensure that his suppliers were giving up as much as possible so his company could get a better deal.  Suppliers hated to deal with him, but his company was too big to ignore so they put up with him.

Mark immediately went on the attack and questioned Jennifer's motives, insulted her intelligence, and publicly embarrassed her as being incompetent.Jennifer stood her ground, developed a relationship with Mark's boss, Alex, and ultimately sold her win-win proposal.  Mark was incensed with anger and vowed to make life as difficult for Jennifer as possible.

Several months later, Alex decided to take a job with another company.  Mark felt he was a shoe-in for Alex's job.  Mark interviewed for the job with his vice president, Christie, and came in second.  Someone else got the job.  Angered beyond belief, Mark stormed up to Christie's office to find out why he didn't get the job.  Just as Mark approached Christie's office, he saw Christie in the doorway.  "Mark, I'd like you to meet your new group manager".  Mark came in the office and saw Jennifer sitting there.  "Jennifer is our new group manager?" Mark asked incredulously.  "Yes, she has really impressed us with her ability to relate to people and to work with partners to help us meet our objectives.  We're thrilled she's on board.  I'm sure you'll learn a lot from her". 

Mark felt as if he had been hit in the gut with a battering ram.  The person that he publicly embarrassed as incompetent was the same person who had control over his career and was now the new favorite child of the organization.  Mark couldn't cope with the situation and ultimately took a lower-level job in another company since his toxic nature would not permit him to get a comparable job in his industry.

Mark's ultra-competitive nature ultimately caught up with him.  His incensed desire to equate success with him winning and someone else losing put him in the loser's corner.  He saw building relationships as something only the weak did.  He had a wonderful opportunity to build a business relationship with Jennifer and figure out how he and Jennifer could get something done that was good for both companies.  This story could have ended up very differently had Mark kept focus on the relationship with Jennifer and not viewed her as a chess pawn. 

For you, how important are the professional relationships you build?  I'm not talking about the surfacey "hi, how are you" cordialities; I'm talking about sincere relationships where you truly understand what matters to your colleagues, how you can help them, and how they can help you.  When you take time to understand what matters to your colleagues you go a long way towards building your own credibility.   I want to be very clear about what I am saying; I am not advocating that you simply do or align to whatever your colleagues want.  Take that stance and you'll be viewed as a sailboat adrift in the ocean without a sail.  What I am advocating is that you understand where you and your colleague have similar and differing goals, leverage the similarities, and work to win-win on the differences. 

My one nugget for you is thus:  Mastering credibility is also about who you know, how you build relationships with those you know, and how you and your colleagues learn to help each other be more successful.  Don't put relationships on a back burner.  Keep it in the forefront of whatever you do.

Jeff was the quintessential schmoozer.
He was one of those guys who was the life of the party.  He could walk into any room and instantly be the one that everyone else focused on.  His charm, wit, and charisma was the envy of his friends and colleagues.  Being in his senior year of college, Jeff saw huge dollar signs in his future as a salesperson. Though he was an average student with average grades, Jeff felt that his ability to wine and dine customers was going to be his ticket to being a big-money salesperson. With his wit and charm, how could customers resist?

After graduation Jeff immediately got a job with a small parts manufacturer.  He was excited beyond belief about the job and, though he didn't see long-term career potential with the company, thought it would be a great stepping stone.  He showed up for work the first day eager and willing to make his first sale.  After meeting with his HR representative and getting all of the job administrivia out of the way, Jeff met up with his boss, Rob.  Rob gave Jeff the usual "welcome aboard" speech then gave him a binder of technical specifications on each of the products Jeff would be representing.  Jeff was a bit taken aback at the tech specs sitting in front of him and felt as if he was back in college.  "Take two weeks to go through all the tech specs, shadow me on a few sales calls, then you go out on your first sales call," Rob told Jeff.  Jeff's confidence kicked into gear and just knew in his heart he was going to wow his boss's socks off.

Jeff showed up at Angelo's office and started into his pitch.  He was engaging, funny, and personable.  Jeff and Angelo had a great time chatting as if they had been friends for years.  Then Angelo got down to business.  "Jeff, what is the temperature tolerance on the watchamacallit?"  Jeff not only didn't know the answer, he didn't have his tech specs with him. 

"I'll have to get back to you on that Angelo"

"Also, on the whozewhatsit does it come in 8, 10 and 12 centimeter dimensions?"

"I'm not sure, Angelo, I'll need to look it up."

"And on the whatsamajigger, does it come in black with red stripes?"

"That's a great question Angelo, let me check it out and get you an email."

Jeff was feeling a bit uncomfortable, but was confident he could get Angelo everything he needed and lock down the sale.  Jeff left Angelo's office and came back to his office to look up the information and get it back to Angelo.  Rob was waiting there for him.  "Jeff, come into my office for a bit."  Jeff followed Rob into the office and sat down.  Rob closed the door, sat in his chair and looked at Jeff.  "How did the call go Jeff?"

"Pretty good, Angelo is a great guy and I think we'll be able to close a great sale."

Rob's took a more serious tone. "Angelo called me and said he doesn't want you back.  He said you were a great guy and a lot of fun but you just didn't know your product line. Didn't you study the tech specs I gave you?"  Jeff felt as if someone had just put a blowtorch to his derriere.  "He asked some tough questions and I told him I would get back to him on stuff!  I was just going to send him the information now.  He's not being fair!"  Rob took a more parental tone with Jeff. "Jeff, he's the customer and he's expecting you to know what you are selling.  You clearly didn't have subject matter expertise needed to secure his business.  Kim will take point on the sale and you'll need to shadow her on this sale and all other calls she makes for three months until you learn what you are selling."  Feeling defeated and embarrassed, Jeff left the office. 

While this is a fictional story, many of us know a Jeff.  The colleague who uses charm and charisma but is relatively content-free of subject matter.  Don't get me wrong; being able to relate to people is a very powerful attribute.  However, after the back slapping and joking is over and done command of the subject matter you are expected to know will carry the day. 

Here's my question to you (I may make you a bit uncomfortable, but that's what I do):  Does your command of the subject matter for your job meet, exceed, or fall short of what your boss, employees, or customers expect your expertise level to be?  At first blush it is easy to say "meets" or "exceeds" because that is the safe answer to give.  Don't be too quick to answer; really give this some thought, look at trends in performance evaluations (where you've heard the same thing over and over), look at your job description, and ask a few folks for their input.  It is vitally important that you understand expectations placed on you and assess your command of subject matter relative to those expectations.  In today's job environment it could unfortunately mean the difference between who stays....and who goes.  Don't wait; do it now.

I recently stumbled upon a leadership trend called “conscious unbossing.” It caught my attention, not because I knew what it was and wanted to learn more, but because it was such an odd phrase that I couldn’t unsee it and had to find out what in the dickens it was.

Claude and Copilot gave me very similar definitions:

Conscious unbossing is the deliberate choice by talented professionals to opt out of—or step back from—leadership roles in favor of career paths that better align with their personal wellbeing, values, and definition of success.

Okay, I can buy this; a professional makes a conscious choice to not climb the ladder and organizationally lead others. Some were meant to be a thought leader and are more sustainably content than in a people-leader role.

Chasing a promotion because a professional thinks that’s what they’re supposed to do as opposed to what fits into their life doesn’t make sense. I’ve seen many professionals who opted to move into individual contributor (IC) roles because they wanted to have thought leader impact without the stress of being a people leader. The Claude/Copilot definition holds water in my book.

Read more at ProjectManagement.com.

Me needing to meet with other managers or my staff.  Vendors wanting to meet with me.  Meeting with customers.  Meeting with other organizations.  Meetings to decide what meetings to have or not have.  It was meeting after meeting after meeting.  I had to actively control my calendar to say no to meetings that didn’t make sense, push back on meetings where I didn’t need to be there or where we could get work done through other means. 

• Delivering bad news where people will likely have questions – No one likes to find out bad news by reading a memo.  If you’ve got bad news that will affect people directly, get them in a room if logistically possible and deliver the message.  It gives people an opportunity to interact as well as it being a more humane and sensitive way of delivering bad news.
  

What are some effective alternatives to people getting in a room together to meet?   Try these on for size:

• E-mail – Great for dissemination of information and for some decision making that may not be contentious or controversial.  Just watch for when a topic does turn contentious or controversial; you’re best to take the discussion offline and get a meeting together for the relevant parties to discuss.
• Web sites – Also great for dissemination of information or for getting input
• Audio/video conferencing – Effective when logistics prevent people from physically meeting or when a person only wants to listen in on a meeting
• One-on-one discussions – Effective when a decision or direction can be made by just a couple of people and then others can be informed through e-mail or web sites

I recently stumbled across Gallup's State of the Global Workplace report. One statistic jumped out to me: Global manager engagement has been consistently dropping from 31 percent in 2022, 30 percent in 2023, 27 percent in 2024, to 22 percent in 2025.

In plain English, this means in 2025, only 22 percent of managers surveyed were genuinely enthusiastic and invested in their work. The other 73 percent were coasting or entirely checked out. Individual contributor (IC) engagement has been roughly flat—20 percent in 2022, 18 percent in 2023 and 2024, and 19 percent in 2025.

Think about this for a minute. Less than 25 percent of managers and ICs jump out of bed each day fired up about their job. It’s also interesting to note that the engagement gap between managers and ICs has narrowed from a 10-percentage point difference in 2022 to just a three-percentage point difference in 2025.

On the bright side, among U.S. organizations, the 2025 manager engagement number is 36 percent, and in best practice organizations the number jumps to 79 percent. While these numbers are encouraging, it doesn’t mean there’s not a problem. Managers (including project managers) are responsible for translating an exec’s why and what into how. If managers aren’t engaged, then driving the how becomes more risky.

Taking the position that a professional, whether a manager or IC, needs to do whatever is in their power to improve their engagement, I’d like to give you five things to consider to improve engagement for both you and your team:

Read more at ProjectManagement.com.