Copyright © 1999 E. A. Winning, All Rights Reserved
Being promoted into a position where you supervise your friends and past peers is not a new phenomenon, but it certainly is happening more frequently. Both high tech and medicine have complained for the past two or three years about the dearth of managers and supervisors or, more to the point, managers and supervisors with any experience.
The "solution" has been to promote from within and while that is not necessarily bad, there doesn't seem to be much attendant training to the promotion, not that a one-day or one-week training program could perform the miracles that are sometimes needed. There is no time (resources and/or perhaps inclination) to establish an in-house management trainee program, and there's insufficient longevity of managers in some companies to make it cost efficient.
While I do conduct in-house one- and two-day supervisory and management development programs, often the best I can do is to discuss basic management principles and give some advice. And sometimes the advice is a bit late.
Such is certainly the case where a new manager ends up supervising past peers and friends. At best it's an uncomfortable situation and, at worst, it leads to dissension, jealousy, and individual sabotage. The new manager shouldn't blame himself or herself. If anything, the guilt belongs to the friends.
When I first entered the workforce, I would have enjoyed socializing with my manager, but that kind of "fraternization" like commissioned and noncommissioned officers in the military, was frowned upon. I didn't understand the principles involved until I started my own business and was consulting with others now in the "how friendly should I be with employees" situation.
There are schools of psychology which hold that every individual has three "selves:" paraphrasing, these are the private self, the secret self, and the social self. The private self represents information that one shares with family and very close friends. The secret self is the one that is known only to oneself, information that isn't even shared with family. The social self is the one that we present to the "public," to acquaintances, fellow employees, etc. The problem is that, for whatever reasons, there is more sharing of intimate information with these acquaintances and fellow employees (and everyone within earshot of cell phones). They know too much about us. This certainly can come back to haunt the new manager since such information can be used by any rumor mongeror or others who would like to see the manager topple from his or her perceived newfound pedestal.
It's lonely at the top. It's lonely in the middle, too. Just as we root for the McGwire's and Sosa's of the world, once they become "stars," we bring up steroids. Whoever wins the Academy Award, we know how they did it, and it had nothing to do with skill. While our own successes are based on skill (and the brilliant senior associates who recognized our brilliance), others' successes are based on politics, luck, sex, or "it was their turn."
There's a rather odd dichotomy in our lives. On the one hand, we wouldn't think of giving out passwords, pin numbers, social security numbers, even phone numbers. On the other, we're often very free with intimate details of relationships, physical impairments, and pot shots that we've taken at others. If you're reading this and are not now a supervisor or manager, cool it. If you've just become a supervisor or manager, you've got to nip some of this in the bud.
In order to depersonalize the situation, you've got the choice of speaking with your subordinates individually or as a group, but that is the only choice that you have. In order to stave off interpersonal conflicts brought about by your promotion, you must confront those who were once friends and now may be rivals or adversaries in other ways. So, what do you say to these people?
First, you've got to explain the responsibilities or your new position ... and make no apologies for them. You're now a supervisor, and Barbara, or Joe, or Patti are now your subordinates -- not colleagues, workmates, fellow employees, but people that you are charged with disciplining as well as rewarding. You might want to stress the rewards and the fact that your word now carries weight when it comes to evaluation of performance, salary or wage increases, and even promotions.
Second, while you may hate to give up the after-work socializing, there will have to be some distances between you and your old friends. It is not that you're now "superior" even though you are now in a superior position. It is that, in order to be fair and evenhanded and follow policy and procedures, you can show no favoritism nor can there be a perception that you are playing favorites. Now your decisions will have to be based on performance rather than on personality.
Third, make certain that the individual knows that you take your management responsibilities seriously. If you can help any subordinate to do a better job, you will. In fact, you might want to base the rest of your meeting with individuals on goal setting and establishing mutual expectations. You may find that your "true friends" will help you by making it easier for you to succeed. You also have to make it clear that you will follow procedures when it comes to disciplinary actions.
Last, rid yourself of any guilt that you may feel. A true friend will not play games or test you. Hopefully, you can be instrumental in guiding old friends to become peers again.
Face this one reality: your other choice would be to turn down the promotion. Some of you will consider this to be truly between the proverbial rock and hard place. Others will see this as an opportunity for personal growth. And I suppose still others will see this as true "empowerment." Don't let the power go to your head. Initially, your authority will be limited, and you don't want to be perceived as being on a power trip. Of the people who I've recently counseled in this area, none fell into the last category. If anything, they were uncomfortable with this new circumstance. Some were a little scared. Change does that.
From my (distant) psychology background, I recall that there were three reactions to every set of circumstances:
- Approach-Approach = a conflict which arises when an individual is drawn toward two goals, both satisfying but somewhat incompatible.
- Approach-Avoidance = where one goal potentially has both positive an negative consequences.
- Avoidance-Avoidance = the no-brainer where the choice is simple. Run like hell! Actually, it is a situation where as an individual moves away from one undesirable situation, s/he moves toward another.
Perhaps the best form of self-analysis -- and let's not get carried away here -- is to determine just what it is that you are avoiding. The approach-avoidance conflict can possible be resolved as I've stated above. To a great extent, consciously or not, this was the basis for the movie, "Good Will Hunting."
The avoidance-avoidance situation can only be resolved, and maybe not satisfactorily so, by turning down the position.
Life's just full of forks in the road. Here's another one. Whatever you decide, there will be a road not taken, but you can't dwell on that. Onward and upward ... or sideways...