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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, what a good post. The `being liked' issue is a massive one and I think would make a good article. Like you, I have always seen parallels between the kind of personal buy-in required to get the best from people and liking. The two kind of go together. And I have never relished the thought of working for someone I didn't like! What makes the post exceptional, in my view, is that you explore the interesting situation that arises when you have to do things to people you like which means that those people will no longer like you (in either of the senses, personal or professional). The real test of us as CEOs is to do what we need to do as long-term custodians of the mission, while simultaniously inspiring the kind of reaction from people that ensures that they give of their best. This is particularly true in smaller orgs where you see people every day. Great post, thanks Helen.
ReplyDelete