BAW Ep 14: Why Managers Are Too Busy And Subordinates Are Not

Back in 1974, HBR published an article titled, 'Who's got the Monkey? '. For many years, that article has been one of the best-selling articles to date as it resonated with middle managers and the majority of the executives back then. But what is it about?

It's about passing responsibilities to others. Specifically, from subordinates to their respective manager. A responsibility in this context, is called a 'monkey', as it figuratively hangs on one's back, needy and annoying, and eventually hops to another person, pestering and exasperating them in exchange.

This was, and still is a cardinal sin of many executives. Knowingly or not, this is how they pass the work onto their already busy and fully occupied manager. And this is a huge part of the reasons why managers are finding themselves buried in a mountain of work and finding their subordinates void of any. All their subordinates' monkeys are now theirs.

Let's take a step back and reminisce our own career so far. Have we been guilty of this grave sin? Say, for example, you didn't know how to do something, and out of desperation and fear of not achieving a goal because of that, you say to your manager,

"Hey Mr. Khairul, I am still unclear about how to do this documentation for this project. Could you look into it and let me know how to go forward?"

And then, your manager, busy as he is, almost reflexively says,

"Sure, just put email that to me later and I'll take a look at it"

What just happened? Yes, you have just transferred your annoying, needy, and hungry monkey to your manager. And then, surely you're expecting him to do something about it, rears your head and checks in on him a few days later,

"Hey Mr. Khairul, just checking in on the documentation on the project. How's it going?"

What just happened? The role just flipped. Your manager is now your subordinate in this particular exchange. What a dream.

And if you're a manager reading this, and you unfortunately recognize the parallel to this situation, then one word should reflect your reaction,

DAMN.

Damned, indeed. As the manager, you just condemned yourself to commit to another's work. That is why your job is never ending. That's why your mountainous pile of work never fails to expand its territory. That is why you are constantly busy but have no contribution on your own to show.

You don't have any discretionary time.

A lot of your time has been taken by work that your boss has asked you to do, which is normal. You should have a lot of discretionary time; time where you decide what to do within your scope and strength, but no. The rest of it is also not yours. You don't have time for yourself. The rest is for your subordinates. That's the life of a middle manager.

Back to you as an executive.

When you do this, It might seem like an infinite loophole that you could exploit. But beware, this loophole will suck the light out of you. How?

Well, for one, you'd find yourself next to useless. If all the work can be done by your manager, then what value do you bring to the table? If hitchhiking is your goal to get by in life, you might find this totally fine. You realize that you're useless, but what happens when the boss realizes that too?

What happens when the management sees that you are highly dispensable, redundant, and non-value adding? You're smart enough to pass responsibilities, you'd be smart enough to guess what that means.

On the flip side, if you're one who search for meaning in your job, as one should, then passing up the work to your manager is just making you devoid of feeling meaningful and useful. Like I said, this might be done unintentionally. But the effects are the same regardless.

So, how do we solve this issue?

As a subordinate

I know why you would go to your manager. In a lot of cases, the manager does know how to do your job and do it better. This is the curse of a middle manager; being promoted from a high performer to a manager. As the subordinate, you see your manager as the one with the right knowledge to get the job done, so you instinctively go to them for aid.

As a subordinate, regardless of your goals in your career, you should not continue to do this. As much as you can, you should take action and initiatives on your own and present both the problems and possible solutions to be discussed. It doesn't have to be with the manager. If you know a colleague with more expertise in that particular task, engage them in a discussion.

Not only you'd feel more useful in your role, you would also be seen in a better light! And believe me when you did your due diligence before going to the manager, your knowledge and skills will only grow, like the trust the manager is building on you.

Moving forward, rather than:

1. Waiting for the next directive
2. Asking for work

you should:

1. recommend, and take actions, or;
2. act, but advise at once what what you're doing, or;
3. act on your own and update routinely.

Following these directives alone should make you at least 100% more useful.

As a manager

As a manager, it requires more active thinking and communication skills. You're a manager, that should be a skillset you possess. If you're not good at it, consider becoming better. Bu I digress. So, when your subordinate enters a conversation with you as the above example, what should you do? Instead of answering like that, you should answer like this,

"What specific issues are you having with it? I'd suggest you list down the hurdles you're facing and cross-checking them against the previous documentations we have done for other clients to get more information. If you still are facing a problem, let's discuss this together in a session where you present all your findings."

Boom! The monkey is still on their back!

Now, this is not tai-chi-ing (redirecting) back just because you don't want to do it. You are actually doing your responsibility by treating it like so. You don't deprive work and usefulness out of your subordinate. It's their job, it's their value. And if you continue to take on their work, you are taking away their values and meaning. Might as well fire them yourself.

Just a disclaimer, though. You should still help them with directions as reflected above. It is irresponsible of you not to do so.

That said, you will encounter this every day. And on difficult days, you might instinctively revert to your old habit. To avoid this, you really have to take some time, maybe at this time after you've read this article, to really reflect what you want to do and be as a manager.

Do you really want to be the dumspter for all 'difficult' jobs from your subordinates? I don't think so, even if you're a highly agreeable person who just can't seem to say no. But, you don't want to be a 'command-and-conquer' dictator either. So, what's the end-game here?

The manager's responsibility is to get better outcomes from a group of people working together through influencing purpose, people, and process.

Let that sink in for a moment. This is an excerpt I took from 'The Making of a Manager ' by Julie Zhuo.

Well, I think that is a topic for another day. Today, you learnt not to be bullied by your subordinates and let them feed their own monkeys. You have your own pesky ape to satisfy.

As always, good luck.