Managing being a Manager!

Week 12: Managing being a manager!

Continuing the exploration of how managers can sometimes set employees to fail, will deep dive into the deconstruction of this behaviour. Managers typically compare weaker performers with stronger performers using the following descriptors:

• less motivated, less energetic, and less likely to go beyond the call of duty;
• more passive when it comes to taking charge of problems or projects;
• less aggressive about anticipating problems;
• less innovative and less likely to suggest ideas;
• Narrow vision and strategic perspective;
• more prone to hoard information and assert their authority, making them poor bosses to their own subordinates.

Basis these assumptions bosses put their subordinates into two groups : The in-group and the out-group.

The in-group consists of dependable, likeable people who the boss connects with. People of the in-group get more autonomy, feel safe to take risks and receive constructive feedback and support from the boss and are managed basis informal relationships. The out-group is of alleged non-performers and they get micromanaged. They are watched, tracked, questioned, reviewed incessantly more in a formal manner using frameworks and policies.

This grouping helps managers understand who to entrust with high profile, highly critical projects and who to keep away from these. But ends up being very detrimental to all those who fall in the out-group. Managers can take the following steps or interventions to ensure they are not biased or quick to judge subordinates.

Step 1: Accept – Recovery can begin only after accepting that the problem exists. The boss needs to create an environment for a safe conversation to begin with the alleged weak performer. Have the conversation not in boss’s cabin but in a neutral place like a café outside office. Begin by acknowledging that there is tension in the relation and admit that the boss might have a role to play in creating that tension and lack of performance.

Step 2: Assess – Next step is to assess on what needs to improve. Boss and subordinate can have widely different views on the employee’s performance. It is important to discuss clear goals or KPIs and where all does the boss think, the subordinate needs to improve. It is vital that the boss present the evidence in the form of numbers and data on why a particular area is a weakness and needs to be improved. Boss’s opinion doesn’t make a fact.

Step 3: Arrive – The two need to discuss the areas of improvement and arrive at the underlying reasons for the same. Does the subordinate have limited skills in organizing work, managing his time, or working with others? Is he lacking knowledge or capabilities? Do the boss and the subordinate agree on their priorities??Boss should also bring out his own behavior and its effect on the subordinate by asking, is my behaviour making things worse for you? And how?

Step 4: Agree – Both should now focus on what exact steps to change and agree on a clear path ahead for a fixed time period. The path can be improvement on skills, behaviour, knowledge, experience or even personal relations. A clear agreement on the level of involvement, review cadence and feedback mechanism of the boss also needs to be arrived at.

Step 5: Ask – It is vital to keep the communication channel open. Both should agree to ask and clarify whenever future misunderstandings occur. The boss could say, “Next time I do something that communicates low expectations, can you let me know immediately?” And the subordinate might say, or be encouraged to say, “Next time I do something that aggravates you or that you do not understand, can you also let me know right away?” Those simple requests can open the door to a more honest relationship almost instantly.

Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter said that Good lies in everyone and that second chances reveal the best in people. A simple yet profound advise. Let’s try and follow and experience the magic!