It was still summer, but for some reason
the department secretary asked our city editor whether he was planning to
attend the boss’s annual staff cocktail party, generally held in the early
fall.
“No. I’m busy that day,” the guy said.
“But you don’t even know when it will be,”
the secretary protested.
“I know,” he answered. “I’m still busy
that day.”
The
boss – specifically, the top editor of our medium-sized daily – was not a
bad person. Kind of distant, though, and committed to a somewhat alien set of
standards. I bumped into him once at a big university while I was there on a
recruiting trip for reporters and interns.
As we were chatting with a dean, I mentioned that I preferred to meet students in classroom and one-on-one discussions of newspapering. I wanted to avoid the career-day cattle show in the gym. I also said I didn’t think academic grades were of much value in judging potential talent.
“Oh, I disagree,” my boss said, “grades
are important when you’re looking to hire someone.”
The exchange was unemotional and actually
somewhat academic, probably a good thing since the journalism dean was standing
right there witnessing it.
Interesting, though: Neither the editor
nor I pursued the subject, at that time or later back at the office. It was one
of a number of well-mannered, superficial fragmentary conversations that came
and went without a ripple.
I continued to recruit up and down the
East Coast and Midwest, my personnel philosophy unchanged. The boss continued
to “lead” an organization without the slightest interest in establishing and conducting
a coherent fundamental way of doing business.
Now
that I think of it, the city editor at the time, who did not outrank me but
also was not under my direction, rarely hired anyone I recommended. While the
top man disagreed with me by valuing academics more highly, the city editor was
more a cops-and-robbers guy than I.
We all co-existed pleasantly, ignoring the
loss of quality, money and opportunity that resulted from our disconnected way
of going about the newspaper business. It didn’t seem all that out of the
ordinary to us – because it wasn’t. Such thoughtless failure of collaboration
is quite common, and by no means confined to journalism management.
As working people, our relationships with those
in authority rarely get the kind of attention they deserve from us, no matter
where we are or what we do.
Worker bees generally do not see it as
their place to choose how they will manage this crucial success factor. More often
than not, they remain at arm’s length from “The Man (or The Woman)” even after
years. Similarly, higher-level managers have no idea what is going on in the jobs
of their staff people, to say nothing of what’s going on in their heads.
There is little sense of a shared
experience – and neither party has any interest in the other beyond the nuts
and bolts of day-to-day work. There is a tendency for one-way directive
behavior from above, with walking-on-eggs inhibition below.
People don’t get to know each other,
because they don’t want to. There is no sense of the potential payoff from
shared knowledge and the resultant enrichment of collaboration. It never comes.
Truly helpful information never passes between them.
What a shame. The shallow relationship
wastes a lot of possibility, and it cannot sustain stress or facilitate
understanding. It limits the potential that could be unlocked by interchanging
actively, learning from new ideas, collaborating productively across functions
and up and down hierarchies.
Occasionally, there is accidental or
externally generated disturbance to the placid surface. Something happens that
abruptly exposes the gulfs in understanding and expectation. Explosive
disagreement can erupt. Sometimes people get so mad they say and do things that
inflict severe damage on their standing and their ability to influence what
happens to them.
With or without that, the gap is covered
without being closed, and the organization resumes its customary undistinguished
performance.
It is not fated to be this way.
How about you? Take
a moment to review your history with the boss. Not just your current boss, all the bosses of
your life – full-time, part-time, formal and informal.
How has it gone? From the perspective of
shared experience, what has been productive? What was impossible? How much
useful exchange of information and ideas has there been?
Do you feel
that some people who were above you or below you or parallel on the organizational
chart had partnership potential that no one bothered – or dared – to develop?
How about it if you are or have been a
boss?
Consider what greater openness, more
outreach to build trust, might have contributed to your own achievements and
job satisfaction. Could your self-confidence and management smarts have handled
it? There undeniably is a perceived threat to one’s status in opening up to
lower-ranked staff members.
The challenge is significantly greater
when a junior party decides to seek a more productive relationship with the
boss, particularly one who is not forthcoming, perhaps to the point of apparent
disrespect or implied hostility.
This manager is not a shared
decision-maker, or even much of a consulter. Ideas and suggestions go nowhere,
and on occasion earn something that looks like contemptuous dismissal.
Your
idea may actually turn out to have been right, and you watch in disgust as
subsequent events prove it. Sometimes you have to undergo the feelings that
come with seeing your idea stolen and implemented as someone else gets the credit.
A reasonable response to this kind of
treatment is to withdraw to “your place,” nursing your wounded pride, turning
inward and maybe becoming a bit sour, maybe digging out the resume. Or you might shrug
and chalk it up to business as usual, lowering your expectations to match the
current reality.
But if you want to be somebody, you command
your personal situation. No matter what is happening, you can do something. When
things aren’t going anywhere, what is that something you can do?
Commit yourself to career management, that's what.
First, a critical assessment of status, trends and events. You don’t just sit
there and take it if your plan (or your unspecified yearning) is to advance in
position, reputation, personal capacity and/or job satisfaction.
You always have options, and one we think
of too infrequently is to influence the boss.
What? Try to influence that woman? (That
guy?) Are you kidding? That
forbidding (or cruel, or insensitive, or paranoid, or. . . .) dictator (or
choose your negative label)?
Yes, that one.
Career
management is a business, actually, and we undermine our prospects when we
allow personal feelings to control strategy. The way you’re treated is relevant
but not determinative.
Sometimes it just never occurred to us to
accept leadership from our manager, so we cruise along at minimum, just getting
through the days. Stop that.
Now we’re going to look at this relationship as an essential function of our career management process, and we’re going to pay a lot of attention to it.
Now we’re going to look at this relationship as an essential function of our career management process, and we’re going to pay a lot of attention to it.
The example we’re working with is to cooperate with the manager. Do we
have the information we need to act effectively? No. We rarely know the boss
well enough to know what drives the person, what values could trump others,
what makes the person feel good. Instead, we just see a flat cardboard cutout.
If the boss is basically a good manager,
but not very helpful or communicative, it isn’t necessarily easy to get to know
the person’s preferences, goals and values. Dictatorial and/or egotistical
bosses can be easier to read but harder to deal with.
So the first task is to respond to the
most obvious signals about what is important to the boss. If being on time for
meaningless meetings seems to be a big deal, show up a little early. If pompous
rhetoric is an occupational hazard here, listen attentively. If silly actions
are required, get them done unfailingly, but quickly enough so you can get on
to meaningful work.
With
more challenging bosses, this requires patience, tolerance – a lot of both –
and a massive effort to control the natural tendency to let one’s disapproval
show. Those, among the softest of “soft skills,” are absolutely essential.
Other conscious skill investments are in
listening actively, speaking assertively but respectfully, focusing careful attention on mood signals/body
language and implementing detailed strategy management. You plan ahead and employ careful, flexible communication tactics. Every day all day.
Inevitably, if you keep at it, you’re
going to earn some attitude change, a little more room to maneuver and, over
time, greater ability to affect decisions.
Many of us feisty types might might consider
this whole approach to be a disgusting display of sycophancy, an
unacceptable cop-out. That attitude certainly controlled the early decades of
my own career.
With greater maturity, though, comes clearer recognition of one’s highest values. You might take a new look at key
relationships, including the one with the boss. Reflection might reveal what you could derive from more work on productive channels of communication.
While you're there, it's a career investment. If it's not worth the investment, why are you still there? You don't really know unless you put some work into that most important relationship. Talk to the boss. Then you'll know.
While you're there, it's a career investment. If it's not worth the investment, why are you still there? You don't really know unless you put some work into that most important relationship. Talk to the boss. Then you'll know.
No comments:
Post a Comment