To apply or not to apply?
September 1, 2010 5:25 PM Subscribe
Should I apply for this job where I'd manage someone I find to be very difficult to work with? Could it somehow be easier to manage someone than to work with them?
I'm an academic librarian in the early-ish part of my career. I really enjoy my current (non-management) job. I hope to be at this institution for a while.
There's a job opening in my library, for a head of a small unit, and I've been encouraged to apply by higher up people in the library, as well as by two peers I've discussed this with. The job lines up very well with my interests and skills, and though I would miss some of my current job, this new one seems like a great opportunity: it'd be a great challenge; I'd learn stuff; it'd be a promotion and set up me for more such opportunities down the road; and it would come with a raise. No brainer, right?
Except for one thing: one of people in the unit. I would be managing the work of a couple of other librarians. These are very competent people. But one of them, Pat, has a very different approach to things than I do. No matter the situation or question, it seems that Pat sees white where I see black. Pat is a bit of a primadonna (a word used by a mutual colleague) and very assertive about Pat's way being the right way. Pat can be quite insightful and funny, but also really annoying as a coworker. Pat is also quite willing to criticize coworkers and supervisors in public, especially when those people are not around.
Pat wouldn't need much management, but as a department, we'd need to have a sense of working as a team toward shared goals. I'm wondering if Pat and I could ever agree on shared goals since our starting points seem so different. And I would hate to have someone on my supposed team who is undercutting me around every corner even after, for example, participating in goal setting.
One approach would be to think of this as a great management challenge. But I worry the job would come with lots of frustration in dealing with Pat, who could become obstructionist just for the sake of it. Currently I often find myself disagreeing (often just to myself) in meetings with Pat, and find his opinions somewhat irritating. And then I wonder if it's a bad idea to apply for this job at all. Especially because I do like my current job.
Of course, applying for the job doesn't mean I'll get it, and if offered, I don't have to accept. But, since it's internal, I'd rather not apply if I'm not going to take it if offered. Also relevant: Pat's job is secure.
So, should I apply? Should I talk to Pat in advance? (Pat doesn't know I might apply.) What else should I consider as I make this decision?
(Anonymous because libraries are a small small world.)
I'm an academic librarian in the early-ish part of my career. I really enjoy my current (non-management) job. I hope to be at this institution for a while.
There's a job opening in my library, for a head of a small unit, and I've been encouraged to apply by higher up people in the library, as well as by two peers I've discussed this with. The job lines up very well with my interests and skills, and though I would miss some of my current job, this new one seems like a great opportunity: it'd be a great challenge; I'd learn stuff; it'd be a promotion and set up me for more such opportunities down the road; and it would come with a raise. No brainer, right?
Except for one thing: one of people in the unit. I would be managing the work of a couple of other librarians. These are very competent people. But one of them, Pat, has a very different approach to things than I do. No matter the situation or question, it seems that Pat sees white where I see black. Pat is a bit of a primadonna (a word used by a mutual colleague) and very assertive about Pat's way being the right way. Pat can be quite insightful and funny, but also really annoying as a coworker. Pat is also quite willing to criticize coworkers and supervisors in public, especially when those people are not around.
Pat wouldn't need much management, but as a department, we'd need to have a sense of working as a team toward shared goals. I'm wondering if Pat and I could ever agree on shared goals since our starting points seem so different. And I would hate to have someone on my supposed team who is undercutting me around every corner even after, for example, participating in goal setting.
One approach would be to think of this as a great management challenge. But I worry the job would come with lots of frustration in dealing with Pat, who could become obstructionist just for the sake of it. Currently I often find myself disagreeing (often just to myself) in meetings with Pat, and find his opinions somewhat irritating. And then I wonder if it's a bad idea to apply for this job at all. Especially because I do like my current job.
Of course, applying for the job doesn't mean I'll get it, and if offered, I don't have to accept. But, since it's internal, I'd rather not apply if I'm not going to take it if offered. Also relevant: Pat's job is secure.
So, should I apply? Should I talk to Pat in advance? (Pat doesn't know I might apply.) What else should I consider as I make this decision?
(Anonymous because libraries are a small small world.)
You'd better apply for this, otherwise they may offer it to Pat.
posted by jamjam at 5:36 PM on September 1, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 5:36 PM on September 1, 2010 [5 favorites]
I can yell at/manage my siblings in ways I can't do to my roommates. If you're wondering if it'd be easier to manage someone than work alongside that person, ask yourself if that person is more like my sibling or my roommate.
Also, you could think of it as a great management challenge. But your career isn't a game. When it blows up on you, your bosses are going to fire the more expensive failed manager instead of the good cheap soldier.
In short: don't.
posted by oreofuchi at 5:37 PM on September 1, 2010
Also, you could think of it as a great management challenge. But your career isn't a game. When it blows up on you, your bosses are going to fire the more expensive failed manager instead of the good cheap soldier.
In short: don't.
posted by oreofuchi at 5:37 PM on September 1, 2010
I think it depends on whether you are able to shut that sort of thing off when you leave work at night, and still feel good about coming to work in the morning. I managed a Pat once and it ended up making me hate going to work every day and seethe about Pat's issues when I got home. If managing Pat will change your prevailing attitude about work and life outside of work, it's not worth it.
posted by dayintoday at 5:43 PM on September 1, 2010
posted by dayintoday at 5:43 PM on September 1, 2010
You say that Pat sees white where you see black. Could it be that there are really two ways to reach the objective? One of the most basic skills of management is the ability to use the resources you have in order to get the job done. What if you allow Pat to go the "white" way as long as it gets the job done? Will that automatically doom the objective? If so, you will need to find a way to get Pat to see why the only way is your way. If not, what is the harm in letting Pat do it his way?
Now, here is the real problem: You are not sure how to handle Pat and think he will undercut your authority. If you interview for the position, you need to bring this up as a challenge that you recognize. You may find that your boss(es) already know(s) about Pat and has some simple advice on how to handle both the position and Pat. If you ignore it at the interview stage, you are solely responsible for the outcome. If you bring it up, you may not get the job, or you may get the job and have an ally in dealing with Pat when and if he has to be disciplined.
I have managed as many as 125 direct reports. There were 125 different personalities, each of whom had to be dealt with in the manner that best suited the situation. They ranged from outright obstructionists to devoted followers. That is what management is all about.
posted by Old Geezer at 5:58 PM on September 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Now, here is the real problem: You are not sure how to handle Pat and think he will undercut your authority. If you interview for the position, you need to bring this up as a challenge that you recognize. You may find that your boss(es) already know(s) about Pat and has some simple advice on how to handle both the position and Pat. If you ignore it at the interview stage, you are solely responsible for the outcome. If you bring it up, you may not get the job, or you may get the job and have an ally in dealing with Pat when and if he has to be disciplined.
I have managed as many as 125 direct reports. There were 125 different personalities, each of whom had to be dealt with in the manner that best suited the situation. They ranged from outright obstructionists to devoted followers. That is what management is all about.
posted by Old Geezer at 5:58 PM on September 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
I agree that it sounds like a tough situation, but another way of looking at it is that you know what you're getting into. Not everyone wants to be a supervisor, but unless you want to stay at the same level/pay forever then chances are, at some point in your career, you will have to take on some managerial responsibilities. You could wait until there was a perfect arrangement of personalities that you can work with, but who knows how long that would last? Since all the typical interview questions are available on the internet, in books, and through talking to friends and colleagues, it can be harder to spot a potential problem employee or especially someone who is a perfectly decent employee, but perhaps not a great fit. My point being is that you could wait until there was an opportunity at your current employer or elsewhere that seemed less fraught, but what happens when someone new comes into the mix after you've been there for awhile and totally changes the dynamic? Would you quit or try to work through the problem? Better the devil you know...
Also if you pass up this opportunity, how likely would it be that you would be encouraged to apply the next time there is an opening for advancement?
posted by kaybdc at 6:03 PM on September 1, 2010
Also if you pass up this opportunity, how likely would it be that you would be encouraged to apply the next time there is an opening for advancement?
posted by kaybdc at 6:03 PM on September 1, 2010
Not that you'd necessarily want to do this, but if you got the job, would you have the power to hire and fire? That is, if Pat really stood in the way of things just to spite you, would you have a way out?
posted by decathecting at 6:03 PM on September 1, 2010
posted by decathecting at 6:03 PM on September 1, 2010
You can't let someone else be a barrier to your future.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on September 1, 2010
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:42 PM on September 1, 2010
You should definitely apply. You can always change your mind later when an offer is made. It can be a helpful career exercise to put yourself into the promotion market, even if you don't get an interview (sounds unlikely) or end up declining an offer.
Think of applying as a commitment device. People know you two don't get along, and that he's a prima donna. Applying puts the heat on you to find ways to fix or improve, because it may well come up in the interview. You don't want to look clueless or ineffective, right? So apply, and you'll have an instant motivator to think long and hard about it, beyond the duration of this AskMe.
posted by pwnguin at 6:44 PM on September 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Think of applying as a commitment device. People know you two don't get along, and that he's a prima donna. Applying puts the heat on you to find ways to fix or improve, because it may well come up in the interview. You don't want to look clueless or ineffective, right? So apply, and you'll have an instant motivator to think long and hard about it, beyond the duration of this AskMe.
posted by pwnguin at 6:44 PM on September 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Maybe you could think about it this way - what would you do if you accepted this same position, no Pat in the picture, but then six months later Pat joins your team. Would you quit?
I guess my point is that you shouldn't let your dislike of one person get in the way of your career goals - I mean, what, are you going to keep the same job for the rest of your life simply because it means you don't have to manage Pat? Or that you have a "devil you know" situation, where you have Pat in your sights and feel in control of the situation because it's familiar? Annoying people who are difficult to deal with come along all the time. You can't plan to avoid them forever.
posted by Sara C. at 6:48 PM on September 1, 2010
I guess my point is that you shouldn't let your dislike of one person get in the way of your career goals - I mean, what, are you going to keep the same job for the rest of your life simply because it means you don't have to manage Pat? Or that you have a "devil you know" situation, where you have Pat in your sights and feel in control of the situation because it's familiar? Annoying people who are difficult to deal with come along all the time. You can't plan to avoid them forever.
posted by Sara C. at 6:48 PM on September 1, 2010
I wouldn't let Pat get in the way of your applying for the job, but be warned that it won't be easier to manage Pat than work with them on your team.
Having recently been managing a team with one very difficult member, know that not only will you have to manage Pat, you'll have to manage the impacts Pat has on the other staff. Until I got rid of my challenging employee, I spent a whole lot of time managing him, and just as much time working the rest of the staff through their responses after he went on criticism rampage.
Having said that, now that it's over, its easy to say that it was an amazing learning experience. You say Pat's job is secure, but knowing that there is a potential for conflict, document everything negative that happens from the beginning (should it happen) so you have some ground to stand on should action be required at any point.
posted by scrute at 6:59 PM on September 1, 2010
Having recently been managing a team with one very difficult member, know that not only will you have to manage Pat, you'll have to manage the impacts Pat has on the other staff. Until I got rid of my challenging employee, I spent a whole lot of time managing him, and just as much time working the rest of the staff through their responses after he went on criticism rampage.
Having said that, now that it's over, its easy to say that it was an amazing learning experience. You say Pat's job is secure, but knowing that there is a potential for conflict, document everything negative that happens from the beginning (should it happen) so you have some ground to stand on should action be required at any point.
posted by scrute at 6:59 PM on September 1, 2010
One approach would be to think of this as a great management challenge.
Management is both stressful and fascinating.
posted by ovvl at 8:07 PM on September 1, 2010
Management is both stressful and fascinating.
posted by ovvl at 8:07 PM on September 1, 2010
I say take your shot. If you get and accept the position, in addition to the great thoughts above, there's always the crack-the-whip approach, telling Pat that public criticism of co-workers is unacceptable and will not be tolerated and, as people said, document, document, document.
(Difficult colleagues always frustrated me far more than difficult supervisees because I had no real leverage/control over the former.)
posted by ambient2 at 10:18 PM on September 1, 2010
(Difficult colleagues always frustrated me far more than difficult supervisees because I had no real leverage/control over the former.)
posted by ambient2 at 10:18 PM on September 1, 2010
Depends on your personality. I believe there are two effective management personalities and they are opposite ends of a spectrum - at one end is confrontation and the other is compromise.
Confrontationalists see the world in binary - good/bad, black/white. They are skilled and comfortable imposing their perspective on their opposition. Decision making is easy for a confrontationalist - they are skilled atgetting to the essence of issues because they are comfortable ignoring secondary level details.
Compromisers live in a gray world. No such thing as black or white. They are comfortable with detail and skilled at factoring in the implications of prmary and secondary factors. Compromisers find solutions that distribute the 'pain' appropriately. Decision making is more deliberate for compromisers because they take into account the ramifications of the choices they make.
Candidates are confrontationalists; campaign managers are compromisers. Every great confrontationalist leader has a skilled compromiser as a trusted advisor.
Which are you?
If you are solidly towards compromise, dealing with a problem personality will only get more frustrating to you as a manager. If you are a confrontationalist, life will get much easier.
posted by EthanFromesSled at 5:36 AM on September 2, 2010
Confrontationalists see the world in binary - good/bad, black/white. They are skilled and comfortable imposing their perspective on their opposition. Decision making is easy for a confrontationalist - they are skilled atgetting to the essence of issues because they are comfortable ignoring secondary level details.
Compromisers live in a gray world. No such thing as black or white. They are comfortable with detail and skilled at factoring in the implications of prmary and secondary factors. Compromisers find solutions that distribute the 'pain' appropriately. Decision making is more deliberate for compromisers because they take into account the ramifications of the choices they make.
Candidates are confrontationalists; campaign managers are compromisers. Every great confrontationalist leader has a skilled compromiser as a trusted advisor.
Which are you?
If you are solidly towards compromise, dealing with a problem personality will only get more frustrating to you as a manager. If you are a confrontationalist, life will get much easier.
posted by EthanFromesSled at 5:36 AM on September 2, 2010
If "higher ups" are encouraging you to apply, then you should. If you don't, you'll quickly be seen as someone uninterested in furthering their career, and they'll look at other people to be leaders.
Handling difficult people is part of being a manager. If you think being a leader is something you want out of your career, then no time like the present to start building the skills you'll need.
Oh, yeah...set clear goals for the team and document everything.
posted by kjs3 at 9:28 AM on September 2, 2010
Handling difficult people is part of being a manager. If you think being a leader is something you want out of your career, then no time like the present to start building the skills you'll need.
Oh, yeah...set clear goals for the team and document everything.
posted by kjs3 at 9:28 AM on September 2, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Note that the first part is a statement. They don't get to challenge the goal. But you whirlwind them straight into being an important participant in achieving the goal. They won't always go about it the way you would like, but as long as you make it a discussion they are less likely to lash out against the idea simply because it isn't theirs.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 5:35 PM on September 1, 2010 [1 favorite]