Please Like Me

That's what a manager is saying to their staff when they show a reluctance to distinguish between high performing employees and the "Joe Average" types when it comes to granting performance rewards.   These "leaders" make excuses to avoid tough pay increase decisions, instead manipulating the Pay-For-Performance system to ensure that, whenever possible everybody gets something.  If there isn't enough money in the budget, well, there's Human Resources to blame.

This is what happens when managers aren't able, or aren't willing to manage pay.

They want to be liked, and who can blame them?  We all want to have friends.  These managers have to control a team, have to consider the well-being of the entire staff, keep spirits high, and limit any grumbling in the ranks to a minimum.  They'd like to be appreciated by their employees for those efforts, while at the same time keeping their "people issues" to a minimum.  So in their view treating everyone the same, or as close to that as possible, would level the playing field - so they can boast, "we treat everyone the same."  In other words, there aren't any "special people" here - not even performance stars.  Such managers believe in a kind of broad-based reward redistribution; i.e., everyone deserves to get something. 

And they hope to get Christmas cards from the staff at year-end.

Ah, the angst!

At the same time this type of manager is fearful as well.  They're afraid of being criticized for making the wrong decisions - or for not making a decision at all.  Some become paralyzed by indecision into non-action.  Why is this?

• If any employee quits, that could be a mark against the manager; that they aren't an effective manager.  Why else would someone quit?

• Such criticism could be doubled down if it's a valued employee who has left.

• Some managers take to heart the adage, "people don't quit companies, they quit managers."  So they could take it personally when one of their employees decides to abandon the  team.

And then you have the angst over the replacement process.

The losing manager will have more work on their plate, having to cover for the missing employee, then having to take the time to recruit and ultimately provide training for the replacement.  How long will it take to get everything back to normal?  How long will their life be disrupted?

So it's worth it, the logic goes, to keep everyone as happy as possible.  Because to a manager a departing employee is bad news all around - unless of course that person is in the bottom 5% that we want to leave.  But how many managers actually point a finger at an employee and say - you're a 5%?

For such reluctant managers you'd need an employee's taped confession to a federal crime committed on company property in order for them to feel justified in taking a hard line.

On the other hand, effective managers strive to be respected.  Being liked is nice, but shouldn't be bartered or purchased at the expense of doing their jobs.  Which raises a question.

So what is a leader?

There are many answers to this question, but for our purposes let's focus on the ability to make timely and thoughtful decisions for the good of the organization.  That's why the employee with the "manager" title was promoted, wouldn't you say?

It's not a matter of making a decision in the purest sense, because bad decisions, even idiotic decisions would qualify.  One could also construe that a manager's non-action, non decision is in fact a form of "decision."  It's taking decisive action in the face of challenge that sets the effective manager apart from the rest of the pack.

Is there a difference between a manager and a leader?  Both can have the same title, but their outlook on roles and responsibilities could be quite different.

A manager can be someone who simply administers an ongoing operation, keeping it running, maintaining processes and completing assigned work.  An important role to be sure, because we need Indians as well as Chiefs.  We need someone to be the mortar that holds the bricks of the business together.  But perhaps that's more management than leadership.

For its part, leadership has coined the phrase, "follow me."  These are the individuals who set the course, stand up for themselves and make the tough decisions.

So, yes, there's a difference between someone acting as a manager vs. another who's driving forward as a leader. 

Which one are you?  Which one do you report to?

Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a clowder of cats.

Creative Commons image,"Portrait, Young Businessman," by chatswoodfp

Comments

[Paul Hebert]

Here's one perspective on why this happens.

Too often managers define their team as the people they manage. Therefore, being liked and accepted is critical to that social group. Everyone on a team wants to feel valuable and liked.

Unfortunately - the real team the manager is on is the team of other managers who are tasked with driving business results through a team of people they manage. That isn't "their" team - their team is their peers. That is really the team they should worry about being valuable to.

If managers redefined their team affiliation I think the pay issue fades. Now it is an issue of all the managers figuring out where to allocate the money.

[Sid Anderson]

They are on two teams. They are the leader of the team, comprised on their subordinates, and a member of the management team, comprised of their peers.

[Chuck Csizmar]

Excellent point, Paul. We have to look at the mindset of the manager to understand both the team identification problem and the potential pathway for correction. Well said.