managerial situation

[franksolich]

I suspect she wanted you to infer her meaning. That way she's out of the loop, and it's your responsibility...

Thinking back at it, you are probably correct, sir.

The worst thing a boss can do to someone is leave him hanging.

I've been in supervisory or managerial positions four times; as far as I can remember, when I've said something is the wrong way to handle something, I've also included, as appropriate, (a) the way it's supposed to be done or (b) the way I want it done or (c) various suggestions on how it could be done, the decision left up to the person to select the one he thinks best.

Again, if I had known this other thing was going on with this female supervisor being harrassed, I probably would've reacted differently.  But I did not know, and so reacted the way I did.  I used to get threatening letters in the mail (this was the late 1990s, just before the internet got widely used) from the guy, which I tossed into the garbage, because he was just being stupid.

And stupid he was; he got caught, and was sent away.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sorry Frank, I agree with the Euphmeister and Rich.  It wasn't just about your interpersonal relationship, it was a leadership issue involving the whole workforce, and should have been dealt with in an affirmative way.  Pretending a cancer doesn't exist does not make it stop growing.

It's not really something your supervisor should have had to spoon-feed you, it is a Management 101 sort of thing.  If she had taken action when you wouldn't, it would have diminished your own role and credibility with the rest of your crew in the future, no matter how much they might have supported the idea for its own sake at the time.  She was caught between a situation that needed fixing, a need to support and defend you as a subordinate manager, and your insistence in handling it as an interpersonal issue vice the discipline of an insubordinate employee (Which is how everyone else appatently saw it, and rightly so).   

[franksolich]

Sorry Frank, I agree with the Euphmeister and Rich.  It wasn't just about your interpersonal relationship, it was a leadership issue involving the whole workforce, and should have been dealt with in an affirmative way.

But in my perception of the situation at the time, I was dealing with it in a pro-active way; in some sorts of personalities, including mine, cold silence could hardly be described as a "passive" thing.  In my own experience, I've found cold silence to be an excellent "behavioral modifier," especially since some of us have the gift of being able to make that cold silence lower the temperature in a room several degrees.

This happened early in my tenure there; my "leadership" did not seem to suffer subsequently.

I suppose the problem was that I (a) did not know the guy was nuts and (b) did not know he was stalking another supervisor, a woman.  This apparently was common knowledge all over the place, even on the other shift, but just because "everybody knows" doesn't mean franksolich knows too.  I am not in a position to hear office gossip, rumors, and useful facts.

I had inherited the guy, who had been there longer than me, and knew nothing of him, other than that he did better-than-expected work.  My own boss, once she determined I had no idea about him, should have illuminated me about his past troubled history of mental illness, after which I would have developed a different technique for dealing with him. 

As it was, I assumed he was sane; he had an old CLINTON/GORE bumper-sticker on his vehicle, and my experiences with his rudeness were hardly unique involving Democrats, liberals, and primitives, who have no respect for cultural or linguistic diversity.

Also, someone--I don't care who, but someone--should have enlightened me that he was stalking the other supervisor too, in which case I would have developed a different technique of handling him.  "Everybody knew" he was doing this, but that doesn't mean franksolich, not being privy to information that flies around in the air, also knew.

[DumbAss Tanker]

But in my perception of the situation at the time, I was dealing with it in a pro-active way; in some sorts of personalities, including mine, cold silence could hardly be described as a "passive" thing.  In my own experience, I've found cold silence to be an excellent "behavioral modifier," especially since some of us have the gift of being able to make that cold silence lower the temperature in a room several degrees.

While I understand that you thought that way, it obviously didn't work in fact.  A truly bad actor is more likely to perceive your response as submission or license, rather than censure.  People with whom such approaches DO work are generally simply errant and will adapt and reform their behavior, and are not true disciplinary problem cases.  There are no one-size-fits-all approaches, the particular individual here was one who needed true disciplinary action to either see the light or be shown the door for further offenses, not just social reproof. 

[bcsco]

Thinking back at it, you are probably correct, sir.

The worst thing a boss can do to someone is leave him hanging.

Again, if I had known this other thing was going on with this female supervisor being harrassed, I probably would've reacted differently.

Bosses leave employees "hanging" all the time. "Am I the one for the promotion?" "Why didn't he not reply to this one part of my email?" Sometimes a boss's response may infer something not obvious because the boss wants to gauge the employee's understanding. Or, as I posted on FR, sometimes they want the employee to "take ownership" instead of themselves. In this case, the boss being stalked by the individual in question, I'd say this was the reason. That's not wrong. It just doesn't fit with your temperament.

Had you known about the issues of harassment,  you may well have acted differently. But that's up to your boss to make known, and she obviously didn't want to. That's understandable. It affects how she's "seen" by her employees as well as how the person responsible is seen. Good judgment on her part, I believe.

I've been in management most of my adult life, beginning with the Army (even before in some ways...). One must adapt a different way of looking at things opposed to normal life. With normal life, your approach of "hands off" works at times. In a management situation, it doesn't work well, mostly. Managers, by definition, must manage. Thus they have to take the "bull-by-the-horns" when called on, and handle what's given to them. In family or personal life, it's not that cut-and-dried.

[franksolich]

Had you known about the issues of harassment,  you may well have acted differently. But that's up to your boss to make known, and she obviously didn't want to. That's understandable. It affects how she's "seen" by her employees as well as how the person responsible is seen. Good judgment on her part, I believe.

This got a little mangled over at freerepublic, bcsco, sir.

The woman supervisor also being stalked was not the woman who was my own boss.

Two different women; my boss, and one of my peers.

[bcsco]

This got a little mangled over at freerepublic, bcsco, sir.

The woman supervisor also being stalked was not the woman who was my own boss.

Two different women; my boss, and one of my peers.

OK. That's a difference in facts which can affect our response on how your supervisor responded. That's for sure. But I'm not sure how that impacts your duties. Let me note a couple things that I see being in perspective.

Have you seen episodes of NCIS? It's on CBS on Tuesdays, and on USA Network virtually every other evening in reruns. Beyond being a hell of a good show, it epitomizes the relationship of the husband/boss with virtually every other person he comes in contact with. The way LeRoy Jethro Gibbs handles his team is completely different from the way he'd handle his family or his boss (as I perceive it). Not to say that being an autocratic boss (to his team) is the way to go, but the example is valid when one considers the relationships between a boss and his "team" and others. Yet Gibbs comes across as someone who loved his family so much that to picture him differently from the pliant, loving, giving father would be hard to accept. And his relationship with his boss (depending on who that is) runs from skepticism to personal devotion. Can you picture Gibbs slapping his wife up-side the head, demanding compliance, and providing caffeine 'gifts' to her, as a method of handling his spousal duties? Example 1.

Whether here or on FreeRepublic, we have a give-and-take on any given day. There are many times where discretion is (and should be) the rule. Other times when outright confrontation reigns.  OK. The response should be appropriate to the circumstances. The same is true in management. But in management, one must always be aware of the "relationship" between the two individuals. One (or the other)  is either subservient, domineering, or (far less frequently) equal. And that governs response and reaction. It's not the same in our personal world where we tend (rightly) to treat others as equals.  A different mindset and different approach has to apply to each situation. Example 2.

Sorry If I appear to be preaching here. That's certainly not my intent. I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts.

Frank, we're friends who come from two different perspectives. That's not bad, and each has something to learn. I like that...

[franksolich]

Sorry If I appear to be preaching here. That's certainly not my intent. I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts.

Frank, we're friends who come from two different perspectives. That's not bad, and each has something to learn. I like that...

Quite to the contrary, sir; I don't see it as preaching.  I see it as you trying to clarify the picture, and it works.