Handling a group of individuals is a tough job and it gets tougher when you are required to strike a balance between your subordinates and those above your strata. For a manager who has a team of professionals depending upon him for directions and working algorithm detailing and also a superior group of officiating body whose decisions are almost mandatory to be followed syllable by syllable, the condition is like a sliced bacon placed between two king size buns. These are the points when the actual managerial prowess of a professional is tested as he tries to walk as smoothly as possible on the narrow ridge between the two rifts.
Managerial tasks are tasks of responsibility and concern
When at the helm of a managerial task, one has to make sure that he is appropriately involved with the subordinates directly reporting to him. It has been seen generally that those spearheads who lead their teams and also take a certain degree of personal interest in the routine life of the co-workers and juniors are respected more. This allows the manager to evaluate the actual capabilities of the employees and reap the best out of them. Therefore, it becomes almost impossible that a manager may be able to avoid any concerns that his subordinates may have about the general practice followed by the higher level official body.
A person who has some authority but at the same time also some presiding bodies over him has to maintain a suitable rapport with those at the upper steps of the ladder. This is essential in the corporate culture where oneâ€™s official connections play a pretty important role in the overall profiling of the job. Having good relations with the superiors who take big decisions for the firmâ€™s working module is also important in this regard. This allows one to actually have a say in the overall decision making procedure. It proves instrumental at times when ensuring the best suited decisions are made on the part of the authority.
What must a manager do to prevent disruption in the system?
Conflict is a general trait at any workplace. It is obvious and many a times constructive as well because if two or more competent professionals gruel over some topic then it is most likely that they would come up with a better plan of action which has attributes of both the sides in question. But the situation becomes tricky when the conflict is between two different individuals or teams at varying levels of vertical corporate ladder. And the situation is even tighter for the mid level manager who has a team to keep motivated and on the other hand also has superiors who look for him to transmit their best image amongst the subordinates.
In these situations, one of the common mistakes the managers make is rallying bluntly on their teamâ€™s side. In the course of this, they even end up taking indirect stands against the higher authority. They try to cash on the human weakness of being prone to criticism to the opposite team. This may seem like a smooth ride in the beginning as the juniors on hearing that their boss himself is fed up with the higher management may rally behind his decisions at the start but after sometimes they too seem to find this behavior anomalous with the basic work ethics. This issue may widen in their minds with passing time and will end up doing more harm than good.
Sub-ordinates follow their leaders to the end
It is commonly accepted that in any field the individuals try to replicate the behavioral traits of their lead who they take as a bench mark for standard execution. With the team manager showing disregard to the authority and acting in contempt, the same may reflect on his overall credibility quotient amongst the other professionals in the team. This is not an ideal condition for professionals who have to work hand in hand to make sure the collective goals are reached. So if the subordinates feel that their leader is not credible enough on ethical grounds then it is most likely that the overall productivity of the unit will take a dip. It also is a dangerous way to take as any negative information seeping up can act in an extremely detrimental way.
Also Read:Â Insights on Workplace Happiness
The best suited way to deal with such a situation is to lay the facts in wake of which the conflict has arisen. After tabulating all the facts at hand it becomes easier to explain the actual scenario and expect grown up professionals to understand it. This would also strengthen the belief of the subordinates in a way that they realize their seniors are trying their level best to procure solutions to the issues of significance. Moreover, what is the point of getting into shallow waters when there are better ways of fishing i.e. there is no need of taking risky turns when there are better and easier methods of sorting the issues.