Dear Bob ... IT here (as in any sizable organization) is divided up into various groups, whose managers report directly to the IT Director. Over the last several months we've had morale and retention issues in a couple of areas - a string of departures and employee complaints that went well beyond the normal grumbling - so much so that HR got involved. In a conversation with the Director he wondered why, with sm Dear Bob …IT here (as in any sizable organization) is divided up into various groups, whose managers report directly to the IT Director. Over the last several months we’ve had morale and retention issues in a couple of areas – a string of departures and employee complaints that went well beyond the normal grumbling – so much so that HR got involved.In a conversation with the Director he wondered why, with smart, capable, well-intentioned managers in place, these issues came out of seeming nowhere to surprise him. His big issues: Why he didn’t see them coming, and what else might be going on that he doesn’t know about? His tentative reaction is to become “more involved” with the staff and day-to-day operations of each group. I countered that it’s more important to address the overall disconnect between staff and management. I said it made more sense for the IT management team to understand how we can do a better job than to have the director micromanage everybody to death. OK, I didn’t use that last phrase but I came up with more diplomatic wording that escapes me at the moment.Is he on the right track here?Or am I right to be concerned that he’s about to make a challenging situation worse? – In the middleDear In …In response to your Director’s plan to “become more involved,” I’d say that depends on what he means by “more involved.” If he means becoming more active in the day-to-day management of the organization, I’d advise against it. To the extent he does, he’ll reduce the effectiveness of his managers. It will take a questionable situation and make it worse. If, on the other hand, he means he wants to open more organizational listening channels so he gets unfiltered information about What’s Going On Out There, then more power to him. He’s absolutely right that his being caught by surprise is a symptom of an underlying problem. My opinion, based on what you’ve told me, is that this is a likely missing piece.What Fearless Leader ought to do is take stock of the listening channels he uses now, and ones he doesn’t use but could. Then he needs to develop a time budget for listening. It doesn’t happen automatically, takes time and effort, and is usually the first thing to go when someone is under time pressure. The only solution is to reserve time for it, and for that to happen you have to know how much time it will take.Oh … last thought: Most of the listening channels can easily turn into talking channels if he isn’t careful – “skip” meetings, such as employee roundtable lunches, are a great example. So in addition to reserving the time, he’ll need to reserve his attention and remember that while listening doesn’t require silence, it does mean most of his speech should consist of questions – open-ended questions – rather than answers. – Bob Technology Industry