Liked or Loyal?

Yesterday one of the people I manage used that well warn phrase, "I'm not here to be liked, I'm here to be a manager" amid a heart felt criticism of the CEO for being too soft and wanting to be liked, and in their opinion, miss-managing as a consequence. Although I agreed to an extent with this diagnosis, I realised it's never quite that simple. Although wanting to be liked may be a management flaw, it is still far easier to manage people who respect you as a person, are engaged with what you are trying to achieve and are loyal to you. This combination isn't a million miles away from liking someone.
I think therefore that how I behave as a manager may well end up looking like I want people to like me, when actually I want to captivate and inspire them - it's surely a fine line between liking the person and liking what they are trying to do. I'm not sure I can think if I've been inspired by and admire anyone I don't really like as a person, although there's a whole set of assumptions about people who behave in ways that I admire who I have never actually met. For example, I'm convinced that Gandhi was a really good bloke and that I would have really liked him if I'd ever met him.
As it's a key part of my job to get the very best out of people, it's much easier to do if people respect me and feel loyalty to what and why I do what I do, if not to me as a person. The criticism must then be heard in terms of consequences perhaps rather than behaviour. I'm talking about managing well, they were talking about not managing well. The grey area I think is not in what is guiding my behaviour necessarily, but in what is guiding my decisions. Is that right? This is a first bash at airing these musings so bear with me. What I mean is, I will make decisions based on what is best for the organisation and what I believe will result in the best delivery - the best service. This means I do not always make decisions that suit the workforce, and rarely take individual people into account when designing new staffing structures. I have inherited a tradition of slotting people in, accommodating individual's needs and circumstances when designing a service. This then I think is where the difference lies. I've just served 5 people with redundancy notices, and created only 2 new jobs they can all apply for. It's a horrible, emotional process, but I firmly believe that what those two people deliver will be the best way of spending the money we have, and meets with current employment legislation. I am absolutely certain that were you to ask them today if they like me they would say no. But I hope that at some point they will be able to look back and see that I'm doing what I believe to be the best thing with a difficult situation.
So, no, I'm not here to be liked, but I hope that as time goes on those who stay will feel loyal to the mission and respect me - it'll certainly make the job easier as and when they do.

Fair to middle in

Ah, the joys of middle management! I am in a newly created position and everyone I line manage used to go straight to the CEO for their management, supervision and decisions. Theoretically they should now come to me, but behaviour change is not that simple. Each person tells me they are glad of the post, supported the appointment and are happy they are finally getting better management. However, they still go to the CEO - I still discover they have arranged meetings, had phone calls and made decisions without me being informed.
Although the temptation is to continue to tell them to stop, that they need to liaise with me now, that I am here to help and support them, the real change in behaviour must come from the CEO herself. She needs to lead that by stopping doing all the things she has always done. Although she had the wisdom to know there was too much here for her to do, she has not yet learned to stop trying to do at all anyway. This will take time, and learning how to 'manage your manager' is as unique a journey as learning how to manage your team. Currently I'm just working through different approaches that do not seem to work, but I'm not sure how else to figure out which one will work.
This got me thinking about the broader issue here, learning to stop doing things is surely as great a challenge to any of us as learning how to do things in the first place. The twitch in the hand repressing the urge to reach out and help as a disabled woman puts on her own sock, stacking chairs away so the room looks nice for the next group, unlocking, sweeping up, covering shifts...always seeing what isn't being done and being the one to do it, - it's a natural way to work when you work to support people. The challenge then is this: how do I encourage people to learn how to stop, if I don't learn it for myself? But only by not stepping in will I ever know if there really isn't anyone else, only by all of us stopping will we really learn the extent of the unmet need, and only by stepping back do we create enough space for others to step forward.
We are in the business of empowerment, and sometimes the most empowering thing of all is to create a space, to stand still...and wait.