Postmodernist Dilemma? Or Lack of Self-Confidence?
April 22, 2008 8:37 PM Subscribe
If you look up my user history, you see a fair amount of stuff around trying to come to grips in a new job that has me sacrificing some technical skills for management skills. It's a struggle, especially with my personal demons, but I am making progress. I ran into a situation that finally clarified some things for me and allows me to ask this question.
It seems to me that Truth, as it is defined, does not exist. For me, the proof that Truth was dead appeared during the 2000 elections. Regardless of the outcome, no "final count" could be accepted as the truth. One group would come out with a number and another group would offer legitimate concerns that it wasn't accurate. And here we were counting holes in paper. What couldn't be more tangible than that? And yet, there were real opinions, back-and-forth, that called into question each "final tally."
As I become a manager, or a person of authority in this company, I find myself concerned with Truth. Obviously, I have an opinion. But does my status necessarily guarantee weight? Why would it? Why should it? If I ask someone to do something ... no, if I tell them to do something and they disagree and have an opinion, why is my opinion necessarily better? And if it isn't, then shouldn't I have a real, indisputable reason for asking someone to do something? Why? Why not?
Is this all just a bunch of self-esteem hullaballoo? Or should I care less about Truth with a Capital-T, smile, and offer a "'cause I told you to?"
It seems to me that Truth, as it is defined, does not exist. For me, the proof that Truth was dead appeared during the 2000 elections. Regardless of the outcome, no "final count" could be accepted as the truth. One group would come out with a number and another group would offer legitimate concerns that it wasn't accurate. And here we were counting holes in paper. What couldn't be more tangible than that? And yet, there were real opinions, back-and-forth, that called into question each "final tally."
As I become a manager, or a person of authority in this company, I find myself concerned with Truth. Obviously, I have an opinion. But does my status necessarily guarantee weight? Why would it? Why should it? If I ask someone to do something ... no, if I tell them to do something and they disagree and have an opinion, why is my opinion necessarily better? And if it isn't, then shouldn't I have a real, indisputable reason for asking someone to do something? Why? Why not?
Is this all just a bunch of self-esteem hullaballoo? Or should I care less about Truth with a Capital-T, smile, and offer a "'cause I told you to?"
Management is about responsibility more than truth. Your opinions & orders carry more weight because the buck stops with you.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:48 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:48 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
If you don't let your truthy opinion carry the day, how will anything get done? It's on you. That's how being the boss works.
Perhaps it would help if you had a judgement instead of an opinion.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:55 PM on April 22, 2008
Perhaps it would help if you had a judgement instead of an opinion.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:55 PM on April 22, 2008
There is no Truth. There is only Perception. Perception is Reality.
Status lends authority, sure. But authority does not equal leadership. As I manager I only rarely ever told somebody to do something... and then only because the immediate circumstances warranted it (think crisis-mode.) Instead, I always asked my subordinates (I hate that word, but it's technically correct) to do this or do that.
On those occasions where somebody balked when I delegated a task, or questioned my point of view, I listened, and considered that alternate point of view. Why wouldn't I? Since I made a point of hiring smart and capable people, I'd be stupid not to listen.
And, "cause I told you to?" That's an approach of last resort. If you find yourself there frequently, you just may be doin' it wrong... or maybe you have an employee who needs some serious redirection.
posted by deCadmus at 9:08 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
Status lends authority, sure. But authority does not equal leadership. As I manager I only rarely ever told somebody to do something... and then only because the immediate circumstances warranted it (think crisis-mode.) Instead, I always asked my subordinates (I hate that word, but it's technically correct) to do this or do that.
On those occasions where somebody balked when I delegated a task, or questioned my point of view, I listened, and considered that alternate point of view. Why wouldn't I? Since I made a point of hiring smart and capable people, I'd be stupid not to listen.
And, "cause I told you to?" That's an approach of last resort. If you find yourself there frequently, you just may be doin' it wrong... or maybe you have an employee who needs some serious redirection.
posted by deCadmus at 9:08 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
People have to do what you say (ie your status does guarantee weight) because you are the boss. In an ideal world, you would have become boss because you were able to demonstrate the leadership abilities combined with sufficient technical knowledge to permit you to guide a team of people in that area. In an ideal world, your staff will respect that and willingly do your bidding when that is what is called for.
As a team leader, I expect (and explicitly state) that members of my team are prepared to challenge anything that they don't agree with. If I'm not prepared to defend a decision, I'm not prepared to make it and I wouldn't expect anyone to do something I wouldn't be prepared to do myself. I make a point of giving myself some of the shitty jobs because it's not fair that people avoid them just because they're the boss. As far as I can tell, these strategies have worked pretty well and, with the exception of those rare times where I am required to get a task done that I absolutely disagree with, I have found that my team are happier to do something knowing how it contributes to the overall goals. When I have to get something done that I think is just plain stupid I will, as often as not, do it myself rather than force someone else to do it "just because I told you to".
Try not to think about why your words should hold more weight than people you may have worked beside last week - accept that it is so and be the best leader you can be, without forgetting how it feels to be treated like a mushroom. People will happily do almost anything you ask if they know why they are doing it.
posted by dg at 9:12 PM on April 22, 2008
As a team leader, I expect (and explicitly state) that members of my team are prepared to challenge anything that they don't agree with. If I'm not prepared to defend a decision, I'm not prepared to make it and I wouldn't expect anyone to do something I wouldn't be prepared to do myself. I make a point of giving myself some of the shitty jobs because it's not fair that people avoid them just because they're the boss. As far as I can tell, these strategies have worked pretty well and, with the exception of those rare times where I am required to get a task done that I absolutely disagree with, I have found that my team are happier to do something knowing how it contributes to the overall goals. When I have to get something done that I think is just plain stupid I will, as often as not, do it myself rather than force someone else to do it "just because I told you to".
Try not to think about why your words should hold more weight than people you may have worked beside last week - accept that it is so and be the best leader you can be, without forgetting how it feels to be treated like a mushroom. People will happily do almost anything you ask if they know why they are doing it.
posted by dg at 9:12 PM on April 22, 2008
I could carry this in about 47 different directions, but I'll choose two:
1. Managing people can be ultimately unrewarding if you think of it in the context of non-management positions you've held, because unlike technical solutions with computers, equipment, manufacturing processes, etc. you will never, ever, ever, get it 100% right. When it comes to dealing with people, there is always room for improvement, something you could have done better(kind of like a FPP). Understand and accept that or get out.
2. As an old boss of mine once told me when I first assumed the ranks of management (you have to imagine this with his native Irish lilt of a delivery):
"You have to decide if you're one of the lads or one of the bads".
I'm still not sure which is which.
posted by Rafaelloello at 9:21 PM on April 22, 2008
1. Managing people can be ultimately unrewarding if you think of it in the context of non-management positions you've held, because unlike technical solutions with computers, equipment, manufacturing processes, etc. you will never, ever, ever, get it 100% right. When it comes to dealing with people, there is always room for improvement, something you could have done better(kind of like a FPP). Understand and accept that or get out.
2. As an old boss of mine once told me when I first assumed the ranks of management (you have to imagine this with his native Irish lilt of a delivery):
"You have to decide if you're one of the lads or one of the bads".
I'm still not sure which is which.
posted by Rafaelloello at 9:21 PM on April 22, 2008
THis is about training and decision making skills. Not about truth or outcomes. If you have the skills to reason out a decision weighing all the possible outcomes and coming up with a strategy to reach your goal, then whether your decision is right or wrong is irrelevant. YOur way is correct because you are in a position to make it so. Just like in the military. Listen to your commanding officer and set the rules for those below you.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:27 PM on April 22, 2008
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:27 PM on April 22, 2008
Response by poster: At the risk of derailing this with a specific example...
I had situation that played out this way:
1. Tech worked an issue for awhile and decided to escalate it to the IT company that services the user's company.
2. The IT Company responded with information to help the user.
3. The tech became very irritated about this. (When an IT company pushes an escalation back to the helpdesk, we call it a pushback. It can occur for a variety of reasons, some of them reasonable, some not. Ultimately they frustrate our techs because they've moved on and have passed the responsibility. But this is not a fine-line I can draw. Sometimes we need to get involved more, sometimes we don't do a good enough job and, sometimes, it's a real escalation that the IT company needs to take.)
4. The tech attempted to pull me into a conversation about how the company is not offering consistency on escalation -- when to do it, when not to -- and what we're supposed to do when they pushback.
5. My feeling: Our duty is to the user calling us. We have new information and we should call them.
6. She continued to try to talk to me about process. I told her that I would take the ticket, which is an acceptable answer under our pushback policies.
7. She continued to press me. I found myself conflicted. She had a point about the policy not being perfect, but I didn't think it was a good time to describe it. She didn't agree. I couldn't, in the moment, decide who was right.
8. It escalated to the point where I simply told her that I was losing my patience with her and that she needed to stop, let me take the ticket, or otherwise expect me to get very angry.
She shut up, didn't say anything the rest of her shift (about 20 minutes), logged off and didn't say a word. I felt like crap the rest of the day and spent the entire night questioning my career. Ugh. ;-)
posted by tcv at 10:07 PM on April 22, 2008
I had situation that played out this way:
1. Tech worked an issue for awhile and decided to escalate it to the IT company that services the user's company.
2. The IT Company responded with information to help the user.
3. The tech became very irritated about this. (When an IT company pushes an escalation back to the helpdesk, we call it a pushback. It can occur for a variety of reasons, some of them reasonable, some not. Ultimately they frustrate our techs because they've moved on and have passed the responsibility. But this is not a fine-line I can draw. Sometimes we need to get involved more, sometimes we don't do a good enough job and, sometimes, it's a real escalation that the IT company needs to take.)
4. The tech attempted to pull me into a conversation about how the company is not offering consistency on escalation -- when to do it, when not to -- and what we're supposed to do when they pushback.
5. My feeling: Our duty is to the user calling us. We have new information and we should call them.
6. She continued to try to talk to me about process. I told her that I would take the ticket, which is an acceptable answer under our pushback policies.
7. She continued to press me. I found myself conflicted. She had a point about the policy not being perfect, but I didn't think it was a good time to describe it. She didn't agree. I couldn't, in the moment, decide who was right.
8. It escalated to the point where I simply told her that I was losing my patience with her and that she needed to stop, let me take the ticket, or otherwise expect me to get very angry.
She shut up, didn't say anything the rest of her shift (about 20 minutes), logged off and didn't say a word. I felt like crap the rest of the day and spent the entire night questioning my career. Ugh. ;-)
posted by tcv at 10:07 PM on April 22, 2008
Basically, you're just learning to be a manager. It's OK. (It's not easy, but it's definitely OK.)
What you need to get used to is the fact that it's now your job to assert yourself in situations like that. When you dither, and then second-guess yourself, you're not only making your own life way too hard, you're not living up to one of your central responsibilities.
In many ways, the whole point of a management structure is to funnel the fuzzy, hard-to-make decisions in to someone with the authority to just. make. a. call. In the end, the fact that a team member has a reservation can't stop the process--it's your job to stop that kind of endless debate, and not let the practical imperfections of reality gum up the machine. Have you heard the expression/cliche "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? That's exactly your job...to not let that happen.
The amazing thing is that when you act more decisively, your team will generally be more satisfied, not less. You may or may not have a couple of bad eggs who just resent you for having the right to make the call. If they do, though, then--by definition--they represent a real problem, and you shouldn't cater to them. Most mature employees will accept and appreciate the fact that they've got a manager with a spine.
posted by LairBob at 10:56 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
What you need to get used to is the fact that it's now your job to assert yourself in situations like that. When you dither, and then second-guess yourself, you're not only making your own life way too hard, you're not living up to one of your central responsibilities.
In many ways, the whole point of a management structure is to funnel the fuzzy, hard-to-make decisions in to someone with the authority to just. make. a. call. In the end, the fact that a team member has a reservation can't stop the process--it's your job to stop that kind of endless debate, and not let the practical imperfections of reality gum up the machine. Have you heard the expression/cliche "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"? That's exactly your job...to not let that happen.
The amazing thing is that when you act more decisively, your team will generally be more satisfied, not less. You may or may not have a couple of bad eggs who just resent you for having the right to make the call. If they do, though, then--by definition--they represent a real problem, and you shouldn't cater to them. Most mature employees will accept and appreciate the fact that they've got a manager with a spine.
posted by LairBob at 10:56 PM on April 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think you did the right thing in that situation because, when it comes down to it, the customer needs to be serviced now and policy revisions can wait until later. Next, you need to follow through with some action on the policy by either reviewing it (perhaps gathering some data on how often this happens to start with?) or making a judgement that this was enough of an edge case that it is not worth tampering with the policy and then let the tech know that you have done something, even if it is to decide to do nothing.
As LairBob says, you will get more respect and, therefore, more co-operation by making decisions than by dithering. Once the team gets used to your decision-making style, they will start to gain an understanding of what decision you are likely to make and the problems will start to be replaced with proposed solutions. Hopefully, anyway.
One of the keys to being a manager, I have found, is that you can't truly be friends with people you manage. You can be friendly with them, you can have a few drinks after work or whatever, but you have to maintain a certain distance so that, when hard decisions have to be made, your mind is free to make them.
posted by dg at 12:20 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
As LairBob says, you will get more respect and, therefore, more co-operation by making decisions than by dithering. Once the team gets used to your decision-making style, they will start to gain an understanding of what decision you are likely to make and the problems will start to be replaced with proposed solutions. Hopefully, anyway.
One of the keys to being a manager, I have found, is that you can't truly be friends with people you manage. You can be friendly with them, you can have a few drinks after work or whatever, but you have to maintain a certain distance so that, when hard decisions have to be made, your mind is free to make them.
posted by dg at 12:20 AM on April 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
quick one: "well, our mission statement is that we put our customers first, so just this time, i'll take the ticket. but i think you probably have a point that the escalation process isn't quite working with [IT Company] & we'll need to take this up with them later. would you be interested in being part of the process improvement project? think about it; you might like that role. or at least, can you note down your concerns & we'll include them in the review?"
(techos hate writing 99% of the time. suggest they write something down & it usually shuts them up. and nobody wants to write up procedures, ever, about anything)
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:45 AM on April 23, 2008
(techos hate writing 99% of the time. suggest they write something down & it usually shuts them up. and nobody wants to write up procedures, ever, about anything)
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:45 AM on April 23, 2008
You messed up.
Truth is more important because it doesn't change. Perception changes all the time.
1. You should apologize for getting frustrated.
2. You should NEVER bring "getting angry" into any business situation.
3. What matters in your situation is results: a) Did the customer get support? b) How fast was it?
Your conversation with her should have focused on these two things. Clearly, the debate is hurting your performance because it's delaying the response to the customer. If she wants the policy to change, she has to provide the data on how much time the policy change will save... and she can't ruin performance trying to prove it could be better.
posted by ewkpates at 4:27 AM on April 23, 2008
Truth is more important because it doesn't change. Perception changes all the time.
1. You should apologize for getting frustrated.
2. You should NEVER bring "getting angry" into any business situation.
3. What matters in your situation is results: a) Did the customer get support? b) How fast was it?
Your conversation with her should have focused on these two things. Clearly, the debate is hurting your performance because it's delaying the response to the customer. If she wants the policy to change, she has to provide the data on how much time the policy change will save... and she can't ruin performance trying to prove it could be better.
posted by ewkpates at 4:27 AM on April 23, 2008
7. She continued to press me. I found myself conflicted. She had a point about the policy not being perfect, but I didn't think it was a good time to describe it. She didn't agree. I couldn't, in the moment, decide who was right.
8. It escalated to the point where I simply told her that I was losing my patience with her and that she needed to stop, let me take the ticket, or otherwise expect me to get very angry.
I think in this specific example, the real issue here was to stop the cycle before it got to step eight. Your tech had a point. However, that point was a meta-point not germane to dealing with the customer, the immediate issue.
Your own anger should not enter in to this, managing/ruling through fear is an ungood way of running a good team.
You can validate her feelings of being frustrated while not necessarily responding with an instant policy change and at the same time handling the immediate problem which it sounds like was the best course of action. UbuRoivas' script is really the way to go here.
At some level, one of the things that makes management different from non-management is that you have a few Truths (to use your wording, which is not how I would put it) that you have to be the arbitrator of. You have the immediate small-picture issues (helping user, solving problems, minute-to-minute workflow) and the larger big-picture issues (staff morale, policy guidance, reporting your work upstream, achieving whatever metrics you're supposed to). Deciding how to effectively balance these is what your main role is. Your opinion is not "better" per se but theoretically you have been elevated to a management position because you have the judgment to make decisions that are not obvious and/or simple. Dealing with an irritated co-worker is part of this, where your job is not just to help the user but it's to help the co-worker move forward at her job in whatever way she needs to so that she can help the user.
I'm with ewkpates and I'd really suggest apologizing to the tech and possibly working in some sort of "here is my plan for making sure that this frustrating situation doesn't happen again" (or whatever realistically you think you can do about what frustrated her in the first place). The biggest thing that I think is a change about being management versus not is that you set a tone and youhave more of a responsibility to moderate your own tone. Figuring out how to deal with sticky situations and other people's frustrations without getting frustrated yourself is going to be a challenge for you going forward.
posted by jessamyn at 5:10 AM on April 23, 2008
8. It escalated to the point where I simply told her that I was losing my patience with her and that she needed to stop, let me take the ticket, or otherwise expect me to get very angry.
I think in this specific example, the real issue here was to stop the cycle before it got to step eight. Your tech had a point. However, that point was a meta-point not germane to dealing with the customer, the immediate issue.
Your own anger should not enter in to this, managing/ruling through fear is an ungood way of running a good team.
You can validate her feelings of being frustrated while not necessarily responding with an instant policy change and at the same time handling the immediate problem which it sounds like was the best course of action. UbuRoivas' script is really the way to go here.
At some level, one of the things that makes management different from non-management is that you have a few Truths (to use your wording, which is not how I would put it) that you have to be the arbitrator of. You have the immediate small-picture issues (helping user, solving problems, minute-to-minute workflow) and the larger big-picture issues (staff morale, policy guidance, reporting your work upstream, achieving whatever metrics you're supposed to). Deciding how to effectively balance these is what your main role is. Your opinion is not "better" per se but theoretically you have been elevated to a management position because you have the judgment to make decisions that are not obvious and/or simple. Dealing with an irritated co-worker is part of this, where your job is not just to help the user but it's to help the co-worker move forward at her job in whatever way she needs to so that she can help the user.
I'm with ewkpates and I'd really suggest apologizing to the tech and possibly working in some sort of "here is my plan for making sure that this frustrating situation doesn't happen again" (or whatever realistically you think you can do about what frustrated her in the first place). The biggest thing that I think is a change about being management versus not is that you set a tone and youhave more of a responsibility to moderate your own tone. Figuring out how to deal with sticky situations and other people's frustrations without getting frustrated yourself is going to be a challenge for you going forward.
posted by jessamyn at 5:10 AM on April 23, 2008
No good will come from confusing appearances and reality. When you and the person you're in charge of have a difference of opinion about what should be done, you should do your best to figure out who has the best reasons for his or her opinion and take that option. It won't always be you. It won't always be the person you're in charge of. And sometimes time constraints will not allow you to fully investigate the worth of everybody's input. In that case, you just have to make a decision and hope for the best. If at all possible, leave options open.
In my business ethics class, I teach a selection from a book called Management and Moral Mazes by Robert Jackall. You might enjoy reading it. It clearly lays out the problems in managing based on appearances versus managing based on real knowledge and skill.
posted by ontic at 6:34 AM on April 23, 2008
In my business ethics class, I teach a selection from a book called Management and Moral Mazes by Robert Jackall. You might enjoy reading it. It clearly lays out the problems in managing based on appearances versus managing based on real knowledge and skill.
posted by ontic at 6:34 AM on April 23, 2008
Response by poster: Guys, all of the these answers were amazing and thoughtful. I can't express my thanks enough... except with cash, which I never have enough of!
posted by tcv at 10:21 AM on April 23, 2008
posted by tcv at 10:21 AM on April 23, 2008
« Older Bed, bath and lingerie shower giftHelp me find a... | What's the difference between a banjo and a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's hard, sometimes, I know. But the fact is, if you have been appointed as the manager or supervisor, well...by golly, you HAVE BEEN APPOINTED. You have been given the authority by people who have the authority to grant you said authority.
Your job is to use it for Good (see above justifications).
posted by davidmsc at 8:44 PM on April 22, 2008