I just accepted a position heading up a 60 person government office. Some professionals, some bargaining unit. I’ve never been a direct supervisor before other than a couple of 3- month details.
More money, in a better location. But most importantly, it is a very logical progression from where I am at. At age 53, I’m interested in trying something different - a new challenge if you will. The office has recently had some issues - I’d like to see if I can help it improve. I’m sure there will be countless aspects of the job that will drive me crazy, but I also think there are things I’d be very good at.
So, what do you think? Why would you or wouldn’t you want to do this? What will be the first thing to make me blow my top? Any advice from supervisors or the supervised?
Try not to micromanage. Lead by example and have confidence that your workers really do want to do a good job (and if they don’t, get rid of them).
And remember, the things that make work happy and enjoyable for you may not be the same for everyone. So long as the work gets done and the environment is enjoyable, then you’re doing good.
I typically find it’s usually my management peers and higher ups who cause me to blow my top, not my staff (unless one of them is particularly idiotic).
Wait, you are walking into a situation in which you have managerial or supervisor responsibility for a group of 60 people with basically no prior experience? I don’t know exactly what it is you do, but this is slightly insane in the way that water is a little moist. How much did the hiring party tell you about the situation and exactly what do your duties entail?
I assume that there are a couple of layers of supervisory support in there as there is no way one person can directly supervise 60 people without a shotgun and a pair of mirrored sunglasses; the first order of business should be to review and evaluate those people (both resume and personality) to figure out which ones going to give you straight info, which are going to whitewash you, and which think they are in direct competition with you. Second is to get a handle on who your star players are at the working ranks and who the problem children are, and start assessing work assignments accordingly. After that, you can start ‘socializing’ the changes you think you need to make to whatever structure or organizational chart in order to get things in order well in advance of actually making changes or reassigning work so you can get feedback.
I do not envy your position one bit. But then, I don’t enjoy managing people (projects and contractors, fine, but actual people suck your time like leeches in a blood bank) and would never seek that kind of situation.
I would not want the job - I don’t boss (tried it, not a natural fit for me.)
Random thoughts -
That’s a lot of people for a first timer, hopefully there is a structure where you have a handful of supervisors/leads overseeing units. You can focus on managing through this middle layer. Otherwise you would have to be hands-on for all 60, yikes!
No matter what you do, there are going to be individuals who see you as “the man” and are incapable of interacting with you as a human being, or as a fellow worker. Either they are afraid of you, or engage in rebellious behavior.
Regarding the above: don’t try hard to be liked, don’t share your personal concerns with your staff, don’t make editorial comments about other people at your level, don’t make editorial comments about your leadership, don’t make editorial comments about any member of your staff to any other staff. Eventually you may develop personal relationships with some of your staff - but take it real slow - they are not your buddies.
You will have to be tough, but there is no need to be humiliating, or indiscriminately cause pain (some bosses think that it is their job to be humiliating and indiscriminately cause pain).
No, this isn’t good advice, and that is exactly the kind of approach that will destroy an organization and demoralize everyone. You don’t have to be an asshole but as a manager, especially one at the top tier of a local organization, you have to make hard choices and impose discipline. That may mean telling people things they don’t want to hear, criticizing “nice” people for not doing their job or being fundamentally incompetent, and handing down directives from above which are unpopular and unfair without destroying morale.
Be fair as you can be, encourage and promote people according to their strengths, seek opportunities to improve morale without forcing everyone to attend some outside activity that is your idea of a good time, and in general do your best to make sure the work gets done without criticism for the sake of criticism, but worrying about whether you are perceived as a ‘good guy’ is what makes for totally ineffectual managers.
On review, everything Icarus just said (and said better).
The first thing you do, within the first week, re-arrange the furniture and workspaces in some way. Think of it as marking your territory. Sends the message that this is your space, they only work in it.
Exactly. You can do something about your staff, you can’t do much about your management except protect your staff from them.
The best thing a boss can do is to make sure his or her staff has the time and resources and clear goals needed to perform, and to keep the time wasting directives from upper management away.
About being liked. You can’t be liked all the time, and shouldn’t try to be. People who need to get pushed often aren’t happy about it. But you can be respected, and that takes not perfect knowledge of everything that is going on but rather the confidence to ask questions, and the smarts to ask the right ones. The biggest way of losing respect, besides lying, is pretending you know about something you don’t.
One surprising thing I found - people know their performance better than you can imagine. You might think you are sending that poor performer a strong message by giving him a 0% raise - actually he is quite pleased he didn’t get fired.
And give constant feedback, good and bad. It is more powerful if done at the time. The truest thing about performance reviews is that if the manager is doing a good job, no employee should be surprised by his or her review.
It is a govt office - you can fire folk - just takes work. I’m not looking to be a hardass, but if someone isn’t going to give me at least a percentage of their fair share, I’ll do whatever it takes to get rid of them.
Structure is kinda weird. I’m the head of the office - but there is an administrative staff. I can be as hands-on or-off as I wish - but I’m responsible for whatever goes on, so I can’t be too hands off. I only do performance reviews on (I think) the administrative director, but I have final say on hiring, firing, organization, assignments, etc.
It is a weird position in that you have to be in my profession to get this position, and getting to where I am does not necessarily involve a lot of direct management. And there isn’t any professional “2d-in-charge.” I’ve done details during which I did time and attendance, performance reviews, assigned work… And I’ve been on hiring and bonus committees. But I haven’t been “the boss” before.
It is coming up fast. Basically the week after next I head out east for a week of training, then the next Monday I report to work. Exciting - and more than a bit daunting. One saving grace is that I am incredibly expert at the work the office does.
You are going to be hearing this a lot during your training, but the number one mistake bosses make is doing the detailed work. You are by definition better at it than any of your reports, which is why you got promoted. But you are not better than all of your reports together. Grit your teeth and never say “I’ll do that.”
And that is the exact reason I hate managing people. Assigning aomeone to adapt a Matlab script to read a different format–thirty minutes worth of work for a junior engineer, I would think–and getting complete gibberish two days later is horribly frustrating, but if I just take it away and do it they’ll never learn. Grrrrr.
