Enquiring from workers about sources of friction with their superiors usually elicits concerns about overbearing management practices. Maintaining a keen oversight on employee activity without suffocating them is a delicate balance, which a multitude of individuals found problematic during lockdown, when they were constantly being monitored while working remotely.
Employees understandably resent autocratic management, but intriguingly, they also express dissatisfaction with overly lax oversight. This discontent typically manifests in a hesitance to approve of critiques received when the supervisor eventually comments on their work.
Bruce Tulgan, a renowned author and founder of Rainmaker Thinking, a firm specialising in management research and workplace consulting, points out the confusion among many managers who adopt a relaxed approach when employees object to their infrequently offered criticism.
Tulgan notes that such objections, particularly among younger workers, are often mistaken as hypersensitivity. However, it’s usually the timing of the critique, rather than its content, that irks employees most. For instance, when the supervisor, after allowing a worker freewheeling discretion in devising their own strategy, intercedes with their opinions and advice at an advanced stage, it undermines the worker’s progress. Such supervisory tactics are at best regarded as negligent and at worst as duplicitous.
Tulgan also cautions managers who hold the notion that all their employees should be self-reliant. Such expectations are largely unrealistic. A handful of employees might be adept at self-management, but they constitute the minority. All workers, at one point or another, will need insight from someone higher up the chain of command who comprehends the broader objectives of the business.
Tulgan stresses that it is impractical for employees to make all decisions independently when broader business strategies need to be made. He says that workers need the wisdom of experienced individuals to guide them and keep them aware of the aims, timelines, and codes of conduct specific to the company.
“Tulgan adds, “Employees who take charge of their work might think they are self-accomplished. However, if they operate in a bubble of self-responsibility, they will find it hard to feel involved. Today’s workers aspire to know whether their contribution yields a worthwhile end-product that benefits the right constituents, not merely themselves.
A common misconception is that employees who work in close proximity and keep similar hours automatically share the same objectives and priorities. Such an oversimplified notion is far too complacent an approach.
Certain members of staff have mastered the art of steering clear from their superiors, with apprehensions concerning increased workload or jeopardising completed tasks. However, escaping corporate authority is not feasible, as a manager’s influence is extensive and constant, capable of significantly impacting a staff member’s standings. Therefore, confronting issues head-on and having clarity-filled conversations with your superiors is a more efficient method, ensuring everyone is on the same page about priorities and expected actions. The perils of unresolved miscommunications can indeed lead to immense frustration down the line, potentially tarnishing harmony in the workplace.
It is the responsibility of a manager to assess and provide necessary assistance, infrastructure, and guidance, thus helping to circumvent unwarranted complications, according to Tulgan. With remote and in-person work being a heated topic, Tulgan dispels the misconception of unified purpose effortlessly flowing from a shared work environment. Merely coexisting in the same space with similar working hours doesn’t automatically translate into a collective vision or shared priorities.
From Tulgan’s perspective, effective management requires active interest in employees’ activities and constructive help for improvement. He cautions against the self-deception of managers who take a hands-off approach, arguing that navigating the complexity of today’s faster, more intricate work environment necessitates guidance. Consistent communication – daily, biweekly, or weekly – is pivotal in ensuring aligned visions, else management morphs into a crisis-solving mission, tackling problems that could have been prevented in the first place. Based on his interactions with over half a million workplace individuals and association with over 400 firms in his 30-year-long career, this is his takeaway.
Tulgan asserts that micro-managing someone as they work does not indicate effective management. He explains that if a manager insists on detailing exactly how a task should be done, that’s practically like having two people do the same job. The real strength of a manager, according to Tulgan, lies in their ability to gauge when and how to intervene optimally.
The concept of management flexibility is important as everyone doesn’t need the same level of supervision. Some staff may need more guidance than others, and certain tasks might require increased oversight. The need for guidance can also vary depending on a person’s familiarity with a job – newcomers usually need more supervision compared to when they’re comfortably settled in their roles.
In Tulgan’s eyes, the responsibility of the manager lies in determining the level of direction and feedback an employee needs at a given moment, given how versatile these needs can be. He suggests that these managerial decisions should be made based on individual employee needs. But to comprehend these needs, Tulgan says managers must communicate with their subordinates, asking. “If you’re not engaging with your personnel, how can you discern their needs?”