What Has Been Your Experience of People in Supervisory Control in The Workplace?

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,892
In Ireland without much evidence, we pride ourselves on being able to get on with people and one of the greatest insults you can ever say to or about an Irish Person is to tell them or others that he/she cannot relate to anyone!
I was wondering what has been your experience of people in supervisory control in the workplace.
From my experience in factories and offices, I would say about 70% of them have very real issues in dealing with people and don't have great emotional intelligence or understanding of social nuances.
There were a number who were excellent in dealing with people for sure!
They were the sort of people who would win a big brother contest if that was the context of the group they were in!
I think that if you brought somebody in off the street between the ages of 26 and retirement age and asked them to supervise a group of people working for you, most of them would be more able than those in the positions already, such was the appalling level of the 70%.
However , if you then told them they would be primarily be a shield for you to deflect workers concerns away from you and that you would earn 2 1/2 times more than them as is typical on the next level, they would probably run!
This comes from observing those supervising me and others and indeed seeing them supervising groups in which I'm not directly involved.
I also have supervisory management experience and it was the second toughest job that I've done!
My recommendation to anybody taking up such a role would be to make sure you have hiring and firing powers and that you are very well paid!
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
Now there's a subject. Truth is, most people called 'managers' are just firefighting most of the time. I once ended up accidentally via another manager's absence having to be responsible for about 70 people.

No manager can manage 70 people across multiple locations every day. The HR paperwork alone around 70 people is impossible to stay on top of when you have an operational role that takes 12 hours a day to bash into shape. That was my very first role in trying to manage people. Basically my training was 'here you go, here's a company phone and company car, off you trot' :) You learn very quickly or you drown and most people in that position would be permanently on the back foot and would have very little chance to manage anyone in reality.

You do have to get used to being sh*t on from below AND above when you are a middle level manager. That's pretty much the job description and it is pretty much the same everywhere, no matter how artfully the websites are arranged.

I had some great mentors, not at managing people but at specialised knowledge so for the last twenty years I've resisted managing any more than 5/6 people. Once you go above that level you aren't managing but 'coping' which is not 'managing'.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
What makes someone a good junior manager to senior management can be quite different to what makes someone a good manager to work for. If more senior people don't really value staff morale and general welfare, and are judging junior management by a different set of metrics alone, then you have an environment where there is a large potential for trouble.

Having worked in finance, this is usually the case. Everyone is under pressure and fairly routine matters of staff welfare get minimal attention. There is often a yes-man culture so it isn't really talked about. Imo this makes life harder for management because on top of other pressures they have now to deal with higher turnover, increased absences and the ever present issue of training new people. I assume this while clusterf uck of a scenario is actually desired because senior people think it helps keep costs down and everyone on their toes. But the constant loss of experienced staff can at times cause problems.

Also, on a fundamental level, willingness to pit in long hours and ability to suck up to seniors are usually amung the main reasons a person is promoted. Ability would matter, but it is less important than the other things. Senior management kid themselves into thinking it is a culture fit but honestly it's sucking up pure and simple.

I would think that genuinely a slim majority do truely care about the grunts, but a good 40% do not, and are callous, workaholic and utterly devoted to agreeing with everything senior management say.

I worked in Australia for years. Overall I found managers more agreeable and better than in the same company's Dublin office. Irish people are not as personable as we would like to think. Incidentally I left finance in the end. I was in a supervisory told but hardly even middle management, so I am open to accusations that I am embittered. Which is possible and probably true to a point. But these are my experiences.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
I always think it is a bad sign in an organisation when no senior managers are actively training their deputies. A lot of offices just buy in some bottled HR smoke presented by a consultant and slap a note across it called 'Staff Development and Training' which has no useful function other than the HR people being able to tick a box on their metrics for the year.

Sick Building Syndrome doesn't just refer to the furniture, building, fixtures and fittings. Some offices over time become toxic because of the sheer weight of a build up of issues no one wants to deal with so it all becomes an endurance test. I've also seen loads of attempts by senior managers, directors etc to buy in a solution from outside purely in order to avoid a conversation they know they need to have.

There's also a certain amount of stasis or proceeding toward entropy involved in offices where difficult conversations are being avoided at a high level. It's just human stuff.

If you think about it and what we know now you'd never go back and invent such a thing as the 'office' in the first place. Up to the crisis it was almost a religious belief being expressed that open plan offices were great for cross collaboration and communication- which was a bunch of crap because the disadvantages in terms of distraction and a squashed environment far outweigh any casual communication opportunities presented by that environment.

For far too many people management these days is about successfully pushing dishonesty of one kind or another uphill for a few years and getting away with it.

That should have become obvious the moment offices started having 'values' conversations. Essentially this is a management technique. What happens is that either a consultant is brought in or a middle level victim appointed to run a staff survey about what the organisation's values should be. This ignores the obvious fact that most adults arriving to work in an office in the morning have a somewhat developed set of values of their own. Never comes up, that last point :)

Then the list of values and explanations are sent up to the senior leaders who draw a line through the ones they won't want and select or add or in most cases overwrite what the staff have suggested and usually send around some gurgling internal PR announcement saying what your new personal values will be.

An entirely fraudulent process which has all the appearance of consultation, assumes employers need to teach their staff what values and ethics are, when it is invariably the case that the staff have way more values than the senior leadership team. The posters go up and it becomes apparent very quickly that no one at senior leadership level takes anything about the exercise in any way remotely seriously so gradually no one else does either because people pick up behaviours both consciously and sub-consciously from their bosses. All of the above is a giant waste of money, time and effort and is always a papering over some serious issues which are simply being left unattended- because it is far easier to control a 'values' conversation than it is to deal with a long term organisational issue which might upset someone.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
What makes someone a good junior manager to senior management can be quite different to what makes someone a good manager to work for. If more senior people don't really value staff morale and general welfare, and are judging junior management by a different set of metrics alone, then you have an environment where there is a large potential for trouble.

Having worked in finance, this is usually the case. Everyone is under pressure and fairly routine matters of staff welfare get minimal attention. There is often a yes-man culture so it isn't really talked about. Imo this makes life harder for management because on top of other pressures they have now to deal with higher turnover, increased absences and the ever present issue of training new people. I assume this while clusterf uck of a scenario is actually desired because senior people think it helps keep costs down and everyone on their toes. But the constant loss of experienced staff can at times cause problems.

Also, on a fundamental level, willingness to pit in long hours and ability to suck up to seniors are usually amung the main reasons a person is promoted. Ability would matter, but it is less important than the other things. Senior management kid themselves into thinking it is a culture fit but honestly it's sucking up pure and simple.

I would think that genuinely a slim majority do truely care about the grunts, but a good 40% do not, and are callous, workaholic and utterly devoted to agreeing with everything senior management say.

I worked in Australia for years. Overall I found managers more agreeable and better than in the same company's Dublin office. Irish people are not as personable as we would like to think. Incidentally I left finance in the end. I was in a supervisory told but hardly even middle management, so I am open to accusations that I am embittered. Which is possible and probably true to a point. But these are my experiences.
Some days I think if you aren't embittered by experiences as a manager trying to manage people then you probably weren't trying hard enough:) Seriously though the majority of problems I've had to deal with are far more likely to come from some blatant assumption being made over my head than any problem in training or managing a team.

I probably spend 80% of my time trying not to adopt a pained expression at the latest genius idea from someone on over £100k who doesn't know what they are talking about and is blatantly a 'fake it 'till you make it' merchant.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
31,577
A lot of companies still struggle with who to promote. The best sales person in a team isn't necessarily the best manager of sales people. Too often decisions are made around "Well they're REALLY good at their day to day, so surely they'll be able to manage other people's day", and it's a completely different skillset that's required. And if you get it wrong A) You remove your top performer from doing what they're best at B) put someone in a position where they damage the overall team.

On the flip side of that, often you'll see people complaining that someone who's sales aren't as good gets promoted, and they "suck up" and spend time doing non sales stuff. Like scheduling, reporting etc. But THAT'S actually management. That's a requirement of the next level.

You hire on promise. That's a risk. You promote when there's concrete evidence the person can do the elements of the new role. Not that that they're just really good in their current role. And one of the most damaging things in a company is that people's bosses don't TELL them these things in annual reviews.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
The cure. I don't think you should be able to lead a team until you've demonstrated you can do everyone in that team's job. That would draw a very sharp intake of breath in HR quarters but then I'm a little embittered myself at times from my career when I've come into work one day and found what appeared to be a 19 year old at my desk with no CV experience at all who has dreams of being a manager from day one. That one was one of the more amusing attempts at bluffing. I think the opening salvo was 'Hi, I'm - and you'll be reporting to me for the next few weeks on a project'.

My answer of course was 'No I won't. And who are you, by the way?'

The amount of times I've had chancers looking to find someone they can dominate and basically make me do their job for them is nothing short of fabulous. If you ignore them long enough I find the financial dynamics take over and they disappear in the end to go off and try the space cadet approach somewhere else.

Oh the stories from the corporate world. I like talking to veteran bods. I have a few old hands nearby who are always great fun in this area. They know rules such as 'In any hierarchical operation praise floats and sh*t sinks'. And such timeless classics as 'In any complex hierarchical organisation sometimes it is better to beg forgiveness than permission'.

All very true and very wise.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
Some days I think if you aren't embittered by experiences as a manager trying to manage people then you probably weren't trying hard enough:) Seriously though the majority of problems I've had to deal with are far more likely to come from some blatant assumption being made over my head than any problem in training or managing a team.

I probably spend 80% of my time trying not to adopt a pained expression at the latest genius idea from someone on over £100k who doesn't know what they are talking about and is blatantly a 'fake it 'till you make it' merchant.
That was my point. Senior management facilitate junior managers who do most of the actual poor people management. Because senior managers are under their own pressures and probably amoral workaholics.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
A lot of companies still struggle with who to promote. The best sales person in a team isn't necessarily the best manager of sales people. Too often decisions are made around "Well they're REALLY good at their day to day, so surely they'll be able to manage other people's day", and it's a completely different skillset that's required. And if you get it wrong A) You remove your top performer from doing what they're best at B) put someone in a position where they damage the overall team.

On the flip side of that, often you'll see people complaining that someone who's sales aren't as good gets promoted, and they "suck up" and spend time doing non sales stuff. Like scheduling, reporting etc. But THAT'S actually management. That's a requirement of the next level.

You hire on promise. That's a risk. You promote when there's concrete evidence the person can do the elements of the new role. Not that that they're just really good in their current role. And one of the most damaging things in a company is that people's bosses don't TELL them these things in annual reviews.
Couldn't agree more. You do also have to allow time for a new manager to find their own way of operating, otherwise all you'll get is someone running to HR with every small issue.

There are people who are good at managing others. I still wouldn't call them a proper manager unless they can jump in the chair where someone is missing or ill and get stuck alongside the rest of the team.

There are far too many 'managers' in meetings who don't know what they are talking about, and vanishingly few natural leaders who don't need to know how their team work and why.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
That was my point. Senior management facilitate junior managers who do most of the actual poor people management. Because senior managers are under their own pressures and probably amoral workaholics.
I have seen what I call 'self-harmers'. The managers who are constantly in back-to-back meetings and always complaining they never get any work done because of it.

One I know was in back to back meetings permanently and the first thing I heard from her in a zoom meeting was a sigh and 'been in back to back zoom meetings all day'.... a sort of martyrdom by a thousand appointments in the dairy.

She has absolutely no need to be in all those meetings. She 's just convinced herself she's critical to every meeting and to be honest she isn't. She's just in the way most of the time. If you dropped her in the Sahara her first thought would be that there needs to be a meeting :) Lots of organisational self-harmers around who spend half their lives arranging to be put upon and the other half complaining about it.

I just don't go to meetings where it isn't explicit why I'm required. I keep telling her that but she doesn't really want to be confronted by a diary with only one meeting in it. She doesn't realise at all any of this by the way. I just humour her as most do.

Had to write some feedback for her and it was terribly tempting to write 'Please stop self-harming via endless meetings' but it would have caused an explosion even though everyone knows she is just a meeting addict- and avoiding real work. Lack of confidence and wanting to pretend that meetings solve everything is just her style. I wouldn't interview her for any role though I can't say that !
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
I have seen what I call 'self-harmers'. The managers who are constantly in back-to-back meetings and always complaining they never get any work done because of it.

One I know was in back to back meetings permanently and the first thing I heard from her in a zoom meeting was a sigh and 'been in back to back zoom meetings all day'.... a sort of martyrdom by a thousand appointments in the dairy.

She has absolutely no need to be in all those meetings. She 's just convinced herself she's critical to every meeting and to be honest she isn't. She's just in the way most of the time. If you dropped her in the Sahara her first thought would be that there needs to be a meeting :) Lots of organisational self-harmers around who spend half their lives arranging to be put upon and the other half complaining about it.

I just don't go to meetings where it isn't explicit why I'm required. I keep telling her that but she doesn't really want to be confronted by a diary with only one meeting in it. She doesn't realise at all any of this by the way. I just humour her as most do.

Had to write some feedback for her and it was terribly tempting to write 'Please stop self-harming via endless meetings' but it would have caused an explosion even though everyone knows she is just a meeting addict- and avoiding real work. Lack of confidence and wanting to pretend that meetings solve everything is just her style. I wouldn't interview her for any role though I can't say that !
Yes, know the type. No sympathy, probably a nasty person to work for. Corporate culture is the pits in Ireland.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
There are some rare pleasures though. I've mentored a few younger people and some very good ones too. Enjoy that and always try to steer 'em toward getting individual attention from skilled veterans rather than bottled pop psychology phoned in by some HR consultant.

Had some blisteringly good people which is always a joy and lovely to see them gather what they need, use it, know it and move on at warp speed. Very enjoyable but it is difficult trying to tell them not to take too much notice of the bottled crap. Just smile, nod and say something positive on the feedback and forget it because it'll be general stuff and lowest common denominator as well calibrated for the dumbest gadger in the room.

Training or mentoring someone can be hugely rewarding but being assigned some distintested NEET would only annoy me and I'd throw any timewasters away quickly. That'll never change :)
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
Yes, know the type. No sympathy, probably a nasty person to work for. Corporate culture is the pits in Ireland.
It is just a pale imitation of US corporate stuff. Nine yards of bullsh*t and not much of it honest. Long as you know that in that environment you'll generally be alright.

If you notice now it is all about 'wellness and wellbeing' from HR in offices. And being intrusive and personal off the back of it. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned but I don't want lifestyle advice from an employer who may well be some overweight buck heading for his second divorce and a bottle on the quiet for all I know.

Offices had just started in on the American thing of crossing the line in the employer/employee contractual relationship by asking too many questions of a private non-work related nature (to which they have no right to answers or even be asking in some cases). In the states they have corporates who send memos around 'endorsing' the political candidates preferred by the boss, as a way of gently hinting that the employee should vote the way the boss does. That's seriously across all sort of boundaries.

It is quite good fun though when you get some HR bunny bouncing around trying to be 'energised' about some nonsense or other just saying something like 'I prefer to keep a distance between my employer and myself. We've only got a contract saying we'll cooperate towards certain results. This should not be construed as a welcome to lifestyle advice or any other advice beyond the contract'.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
34,428
Twitter
No
Actually SUL, you've sparked a thought. I notice in recent years an awful lot of young people who seem to run their whole lives and identity via the office. This is a really bad idea.

If something goes wrong in the job then they've lost a social circle as well, largely. What with the narrowing of focus because of information overload there's a sort of bunker mentality around the office environment. It seems to me people are much less interested in stuff happening to the left or right of them and only focus on what's right in front of them.

Handier when recruiting because you can spot the people fairly fast who don't read a newspaper or are short of contextual information and aren't in the habit of going and getting it unless someone emails it to them.

In a way it is easier now to spot 'actives' versus 'reactives' and I always prefer 'actives' if that makes sense..
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
16,100
What makes someone a good junior manager to senior management can be quite different to what makes someone a good manager to work for. If more senior people don't really value staff morale and general welfare, and are judging junior management by a different set of metrics alone, then you have an environment where there is a large potential for trouble.

Having worked in finance, this is usually the case. Everyone is under pressure and fairly routine matters of staff welfare get minimal attention. There is often a yes-man culture so it isn't really talked about. Imo this makes life harder for management because on top of other pressures they have now to deal with higher turnover, increased absences and the ever present issue of training new people. I assume this while clusterf uck of a scenario is actually desired because senior people think it helps keep costs down and everyone on their toes. But the constant loss of experienced staff can at times cause problems.

Also, on a fundamental level, willingness to pit in long hours and ability to suck up to seniors are usually amung the main reasons a person is promoted. Ability would matter, but it is less important than the other things. Senior management kid themselves into thinking it is a culture fit but honestly it's sucking up pure and simple.

I would think that genuinely a slim majority do truely care about the grunts, but a good 40% do not, and are callous, workaholic and utterly devoted to agreeing with everything senior management say.

I worked in Australia for years. Overall I found managers more agreeable and better than in the same company's Dublin office. Irish people are not as personable as we would like to think. Incidentally I left finance in the end. I was in a supervisory told but hardly even middle management, so I am open to accusations that I am embittered. Which is possible and probably true to a point. But these are my experiences.

Are you a team member?
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
16,100
Around 12 years ago I was asked to participate in a group setting (15 persons maybe) where we did the Myers Brigg 'test'' (time waster) - told it was targeted at wannabe management. The facilitator walked around the room. After we had completed the test, she explained each individual's result in highly positive and even glowing terms. I was nearly the last one to be heard (someone was seated on my right waiting). The test must have had a result chart, as I recall thinking my chart / diagram doesn't appear to look like anyone else's in the room. When it was my turn, I pointed this out to the facilitator. She replied that's because you're the 'perfect' manager. I cringed inside, as I absolutely hate being in TOXIC environments. I suspect Myers Brigg was skewed for empathy / intuition and objectivity skills. I know, in reality, these skills aren't appreciated in the workplace, as Machiavellian and narcissistic types flourish - they get promoted to senior management. Not for me!

I would probably get a different result on the test today.


Why I'm totally unsuitable - sexual harassment:

An example came up on p.ie. A user said he got an electrician (Sparky) sacked for talking about something vile he was involved in as a youth (gang bashing people) in UK. Sparky regaling people with his gang exploits in his misspent youth might fall under a company's discrimination policy (I'm assuming there was one in place). Obviously, UK has the Equality Act (you look to intent / motivation). The p.ie user did go and talk to someone else - within the company - who he knew would be appalled at Sparky's comments, and thus the user set in train the sacking of Sparky. Under Equality Act, once you have a complaint of sexual harassment, you would have to address it … but I don't think you necessarily have to sack the person.

I didn't reply to this post because if there is a company discrimination policy - then fair enough. BUT I would have handled the situation differently.

I would have had a word in Sparky's earhole and told him we have a zero tolerance company discrimination policy in place and there are employees, like myself, who would find your remarks offensive (and why this would be so). I might have asked Sparky (1) if he still held those views? And, (2) was this just an obnoxious anecdote from his distant youthful past? Perhaps he needed to be accepted by the other gang members. BUT he has now matured and has two kids to feed. and clothe. I think Sparky would get my point. Putting myself in the p.ie user's shoes, I might even contact Sparky's union rep for advice on how to approach the matter with Sparky - perhaps he signs a form agreeing with zero tolerance company policy... A former user Roisin3 - an engineer - and Union rep would have something to say on this.

Recently, I was talking to a consultant project manager who told me about a male in a government department who isn't well liked by other staff - they would like to be rid of Mr Toxic. Toxic - in my words: "sabotages" planned government projects. - he's counter productive. Toxic won't turn up for meetings to inform himself or read the material sent to him, but then he comes in at the final meeting stage and is quite negative / hostile. There are people who won't go against Mr Toxic because they might have to work under him in the future. I said that Toxic must serve a purpose for upper management (CFO...) who think they need him. The consultant has to use his communication skills to convince people to stay the course - taking phone calls at all times - advising people - and be prepared at meetings for an ambush [my words]. Be calm … centred … not reacting. This is how the consultant has prevailed and been given new projects.

As shutuplaura said, "…. If more senior people don't really value staff morale and general welfare."
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
Are you a team member?
Senior but not management for the last while. Promoted shortly before I decided on a career change. Hardly a steller career but I have had responsibility for people. Occasionally people complaining have a good reason, occasionally not. I certainly hope I was sympathetic. Certainly have been on the receiving end of unrealistic expectations from more senior people a lot and have had managers who don't care that they are piling work on people that cannot be done in any reasonable time limit. Just get it done being the order of the day. It's fine for a while. And I accept occasionally something just needs done. But it can be the norm in many jobs. Management then becomes basically bullying people, and that's not me.

In the public sector now. Possibly too much the other way, but it's early days and the whole Covid 19 crisis has not given me a typical start it view of what it's normally like.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,556
No doubt the railway tracks are more numerous than in the 1970s-80s, and a lot of senior managers aren't fully aware of them. But it all boils down to being polite and considerate if you want to get the best results.
 

shutuplaura

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,281
It is just a pale imitation of US corporate stuff. Nine yards of bullsh*t and not much of it honest. Long as you know that in that environment you'll generally be alright.

If you notice now it is all about 'wellness and wellbeing' from HR in offices. And being intrusive and personal off the back of it. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned but I don't want lifestyle advice from an employer who may well be some overweight buck heading for his second divorce and a bottle on the quiet for all I know.

Offices had just started in on the American thing of crossing the line in the employer/employee contractual relationship by asking too many questions of a private non-work related nature (to which they have no right to answers or even be asking in some cases). In the states they have corporates who send memos around 'endorsing' the political candidates preferred by the boss, as a way of gently hinting that the employee should vote the way the boss does. That's seriously across all sort of boundaries.

It is quite good fun though when you get some HR bunny bouncing around trying to be 'energised' about some nonsense or other just saying something like 'I prefer to keep a distance between my employer and myself. We've only got a contract saying we'll cooperate towards certain results. This should not be construed as a welcome to lifestyle advice or any other advice beyond the contract'.
I assume the wellness stuff is related to covering their own arses, and possibly helping in negotiating more favourable premiums for their health insurance packages.

I hate the really phoney attempt to make offices more campus like. Different clubs, various special days, and a crappy social and environment policy. In fairness people participate because they might care about the environment but let's be honest, large corporations are not in the business of helping anyone for free. It's green washing and hypocritical. Plus, like everything, once it's linked to performance it becomes a numbers game. I was a LGBT champion despite being totally hetrosexual and having three kids. But it looks good to have a large number in a site so I was encouraged to sign up. Not that I have any problem making a more tolerent work environment...it just seems pointless when there is already a culture of not caring about sexuality and a set of HR procedures to back it up. Ditto disability and gender rights.
 

EU Insider

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
416
In Ireland without much evidence, we pride ourselves on being able to get on with people and one of the greatest insults you can ever say to or about an Irish Person is to tell them or others that he/she cannot relate to anyone!
I was wondering what has been your experience of people in supervisory control in the workplace.
From my experience in factories and offices, I would say about 70% of them have very real issues in dealing with people and don't have great emotional intelligence or understanding of social nuances.
There were a number who were excellent in dealing with people for sure!
They were the sort of people who would win a big brother contest if that was the context of the group they were in!
I think that if you brought somebody in off the street between the ages of 26 and retirement age and asked them to supervise a group of people working for you, most of them would be more able than those in the positions already, such was the appalling level of the 70%.
However , if you then told them they would be primarily be a shield for you to deflect workers concerns away from you and that you would earn 2 1/2 times more than them as is typical on the next level, they would probably run!
This comes from observing those supervising me and others and indeed seeing them supervising groups in which I'm not directly involved.
I also have supervisory management experience and it was the second toughest job that I've done!
My recommendation to anybody taking up such a role would be to make sure you have hiring and firing powers and that you are very well paid!
Managing people is really tough. I have managed teams of two to 35 and done so at various levels.

One of the highlights of my working life is being described as "the best manager" a colleague I managed ever had. What made it a highlight was that it was from someone with whom I had countless confrontations with throughout the time I was supervising them.

I have had my fair share of managers from truly two truly excellent ones to two astoundingly terrible ones. Three of them in the same organisation.

From my own perspective, I have tried not to be a visibly a supervisor/manager to my team, but more of a leader. It does sound wanky, I don't put it that way to them (at least not until after I leave), but I don't see my tole as being there to tell people what to do, rather empower them to do it. There is a conflict between one's team and organisational priorities and I think that's where thing really show a good manager from a bad.

In a recent example a former team member of mine was promoted in the same (toxic) department in which I had managed them. They asked me meet for coffee for some advice and revealed that while they'd always seen me as a good manager, they did think I was slacking from work, as I'd often delegate. They realise now how much time I had to use to protect the team from the truly awful management above me and the really bad decisions they were making. I spent so much time arguing my piece with them that I didn't have the time to deal with the hard cases, which was what the team's expectation of my role was. I left (complete career change - recommend it for anyone) and those changes were made, as they installed a far more compliant manager in my place, and since then two third of my old team have left and the remainder are trying to leave.

Bad management is hard on the team, good management is hard on the manager.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom