【正文】 s almost impossible for bosses to work effectively if they cannot rely on a fairly accurate reading from their subordinates. Because it undermines credibility, dishonesty is perhaps the most troubling trait a subordinate can have. Without a basic level of trust, a boss feels pelled to check all of a subordinate39。s difficult for a boss to rely on a subordinate who repeatedly slips deadlines. As one president (describing a subordinate) put it: I39。s style, the situation he or she is in, and the confidence the boss has in the subordinate. But it is not unmon for a boss to need more information than the subordinate would naturally supply or for the subordinate to think the boss knows more than he or she really does. Effective managers recognize that they probably underestimate what their bosses need to know and make sure they find ways to keep them informed through processes that fit their styles.Managing the flow of information upward is particularly difficult if the boss does not like to hear about problems. Although many people would deny it, bosses often give off signals that they want to hear only good news. They show great displeasure usually nonverbally when someone tells them about a problem. Ignoring individual achievement, they may even evaluate more favorably subordinates who do not bring problems to them.Nevertheless, for the good of the organization, the boss, and the subordinate, a superior needs to hear about failures as well as successes. Some subordinates deal with a goodnewsonly boss by finding indirect ways to get the necessary information to him or her, such as a management information system. Others see to it that potential problems, whether in the form of good surprises or bad news, are municated immediately.Dependability and Honesty. Few things are more disabling to a boss than a subordinate on whom he cannot depend, whose work he cannot trust. Almost no one is intentionally undependable, but many managers are inadvertently so because of oversight or uncertainty about the boss39。s expectations.Other effective managers will deal with an inexplicit boss by initiating an ongoing series of informal discussions about good management and our objectives. Still others find useful information more indirectly through those who used to work for the boss and through the formal planning systems in which the boss makes mitments to his or her own superior. Which approach you choose, of course, should depend on your understanding of your boss39。 problems, one manager we studied made a point of doing it himself. The stakes were high: The engineers and technicians were all union members, the pany worked on a customercontract basis, and the pany had recently experienced a serious strike.The manager worked closely with his boss, along with people in the scheduling department and the personnel office, to make sure that potential problems were avoided. He also developed an informal arrangement through which his boss would review with him any proposed changes in personnel or assignment policies before taking action. The boss valued his advice and credited his subordinate for improving both the performance of the division and the labormanagement climate.Mutual Expectations. The subordinate who passively assumes that he or she knows what the boss expects is in for trouble. Of course, some superiors will spell out their expectations very explicitly and in great detail. But most do not. And although many corporations have systems that provide a basis for municating expectations (such as formal planning processes, career planning reviews, and performance appraisal reviews), these systems never work perfectly. Also, between these formal reviews, expectations invariably change.Ultimately, the burden falls on the subordinate to find out what the boss39。s strengths and making up for each other39。s decisionmaking style. Some bosses prefer to be involved in decisions and problems as they arise. These are highinvolvement managers who like to keep their hands on the pulse of the operation. Usually their needs (and your own) are best satisfied if you touch base with them on an ad hoc basis. A boss who has a need to be involved will bee involved one way or another, so there are advantages to including him or her at your initiative. Other bosses prefer to delegate they don39。s own style tended to be discursive and exploratory. He would often digress from the topic at hand to deal with background factors, alternative approaches, and so forth. His boss preferred to discuss problems with a minimum of background detail and became impatient and distracted whenever his subordinate digressed from the immediate issue.Recognizing this difference in style, the manager became terser and more direct during meetings with his boss. To help himself do this, before meetings, he would develop brief agendas that he used as a guide. Whenever he felt that a digression was needed, he explained why. This small shift in his own style made these meetings more effective and far less frustrating for both of them.Subordinates can adjust their styles in response to their bosses39。 nor are they evil enemies. They have their own pressures and concerns that are sometimes at odds with the wishes of the subordinate and often for good reason.Altering predispositions toward authority, especially at the extremes, is almost impossible without intensive psychotherapy (psychoanalytic theory and research suggest that such predispositions are deeply rooted in a person39。s latent hostility, the boss will lose trust in the subordinate or his or her judgment and then behave even less openly.Paradoxically, a manager with this type of predisposition is often a good manager of his or her own people. He or she will many times go out of the way to get support for them and will not hesitate to go to bat for them.At the other extreme are managers who swallow their anger and behave in a very pliant fashion when the boss makes what th