lationship before it even begins to build momentum. From a day-to-day perspective, the EVP is effectively no longer in the equation. Bob and Sam both have choices as to how they develop their working relationship. They can individually and collectively choose to collaborate with one another based purely on guarded trust (giving each other the benefit of the doubt) until they have a chance to mesh their perspectives and styles (best case). Or, Sam could allow personal grievances to overshadow their interactions putting their budding relationship firmly in an adversarial mode right from the start (worst case).

In this situation, I

Do you and your manager find yourself at odds with one another on a regular basis, or as a result of circumstances seemingly beyond your control? One of my clients recently remarked during a coaching session, "My manager doesn't like me." Since I know this individual to be a very likable person and generally not a whiner, this statement came as a suprise and prompted me to ivestigate further.

In this particular case, my client (let's call him "Bob") was offered a desirable promotion, not by the person who would be his immediate supervisor (let's call him "Sam"), but rather by Sam's boss (an Executive VP). Although Bob (in the new position) was to report to Sam, the Executive VP had apparently not consulted Sam about Bob's appointment until after the offer had been made and accepted. Clearly, this set the stage for resentment and resistence on the part of Sam. In addition, Bob determined immediately that he and Sam have entirely different management styles which put further strain on their already tenuous relationship.

This scenario exemplifies the value of building and nurturing relationships up the chain of command in a number of ways. Firstly, the fact that the

EVP wanted Bob in the new position in the first place indicates management's confidence in Bob's abilities to handle the responsibilities and challenges of the position. Although there may have been other political reasons for Bob's appointment, this appears to have been the primary reason for the EVP's actions in this particular case. In short, Bob was seen as the best candidate for the job. Had Bob, his past work, and the work of his prior team not been visible to the EVP (either personally or by reputation), Bob would likely not have been considered for the new position.

Secondly, the actions of the EVP put Bob and Sam in very awkward positions at the start of their relationship. Whether or not Sam would have chosen Bob to fill the new position, given a range of candidates, became moot once the EVP had made the appointment. Sam was bound to feel resentful at the rather high-handed manner in which the appointment had been made. What is Sam to think? Is Bob some sort of spy for upper management? Has Sam lost face or influence in the eyes of the executives above him, and will Bob have more political clout than Sam does? Why was Bob's appointment handled outside normal channels?

Granted, this is a unique and somewhat rare case. However, it still demonstrates how easy it is (even with the best of intentions) to reach a crossroads in a relationship before it even begins to build momentum. From a day-to-day perspective, the EVP is effectively no longer in the equation. Bob and Sam both have choices as to how they develop their working relationship. They can individually and collectively choose to collaborate with one another based purely on guarded trust (giving each other the benefit of the doubt) until they have a chance to mesh their perspectives and styles (best case). Or, Sam could allow personal grievances to overshadow their interactions putting their budding relationship firmly in an adversarial mode right from the start (worst case).

In this situation, I

w position) was to report to Sam, the Executive VP had apparently not consulted Sam about Bob's appointment until after the offer had been made and accepted. Clearly, this set the stage for resentment and resistence on the part of Sam. In addition, Bob determined immediately that he and Sam have entirely different management styles which put further strain on their already tenuous relationship.

This scenario exemplifies the value of building and nurturing relationships up the chain of command in a number of ways. Firstly, the fact that the

EVP wanted Bob in the new position in the first place indicates management's confidence in Bob's abilities to handle the responsibilities and challenges of the position. Although there may have been other political reasons for Bob's appointment, this appears to have been the primary reason for the EVP's actions in this particular case. In short, Bob was seen as the best candidate for the job. Had Bob, his past work, and the work of his prior team not been visible to the EVP (either personally or by reputation), Bob would likely not have been considered for the new position.

Secondly, the actions of the EVP put Bob and Sam in very awkward positions at the start of their relationship. Whether or not Sam would have chosen Bob to fill the new position, given a range of candidates, became moot once the EVP had made the appointment. Sam was bound to feel resentful at the rather high-handed manner in which the appointment had been made. What is Sam to think? Is Bob some sort of spy for upper management? Has Sam lost face or influence in the eyes of the executives above him, and will Bob have more political clout than Sam does? Why was Bob's appointment handled outside normal channels?

Granted, this is a unique and somewhat rare case. However, it still demonstrates how easy it is (even with the best of intentions) to reach a crossroads in a relationship before it even begins to build momentum. From a day-to-day perspective, the EVP is effectively no longer in the equation. Bob and Sam both have choices as to how they develop their working relationship. They can individually and collectively choose to collaborate with one another based purely on guarded trust (giving each other the benefit of the doubt) until they have a chance to mesh their perspectives and styles (best case). Or, Sam could allow personal grievances to overshadow their interactions putting their budding relationship firmly in an adversarial mode right from the start (worst case).

In this situation, I

nce in Bob's abilities to handle the responsibilities and challenges of the position. Although there may have been other political reasons for Bob's appointment, this appears to have been the primary reason for the EVP's actions in this particular case. In short, Bob was seen as the best candidate for the job. Had Bob, his past work, and the work of his prior team not been visible to the EVP (either personally or by reputation), Bob would likely not have been considered for the new position.

Secondly, the actions of the EVP put Bob and Sam in very awkward positions at the start of their relationship. Whether or not Sam would have chosen Bob to fill the new position, given a range of candidates, became moot once the EVP had made the appointment. Sam was bound to feel resentful at the rather high-handed manner in which the appointment had been made. What is Sam to think? Is Bob some sort of spy for upper management? Has Sam lost face or influence in the eyes of the executives above him, and will Bob have more political clout than Sam does? Why was Bob's appointment handled outside normal channels?

Granted, this is a unique and somewhat rare case. However, it still demonstrates how easy it is (even with the best of intentions) to reach a crossroads in a relationship before it even begins to build momentum. From a day-to-day perspective, the EVP is effectively no longer in the equation. Bob and Sam both have choices as to how they develop their working relationship. They can individually and collectively choose to collaborate with one another based purely on guarded trust (giving each other the benefit of the doubt) until they have a chance to mesh their perspectives and styles (best case). Or, Sam could allow personal grievances to overshadow their interactions putting their budding relationship firmly in an adversarial mode right from the start (worst case).

In this situation, I

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.otheradded.com/article/46647/otheradded-My-Manager-Doesnt-Like-Me.html">My Manager Doesn't Like Me</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.otheradded.com/article/46647/otheradded-My-Manager-Doesnt-Like-Me.html]My Manager Doesn't Like Me[/url]

Related Articles:

Team Building Strategies: Top 7 Tips For Building Trust in Distant Teams

In the past, we developed teams by putting people together and letting them spend time learning about each other before we charged them with completing assignments. In spite of all our best effort, some teams were more successful than others.

Are You Making it Fun at Work?

Business is serious, but it can be made into serious fun. When games and competition are added to the workplace, teamwork and joy can happen, and more focus and productivity can be the result.

WEBconference Applications For Production

Within companies, coordination of information, whether technological or professional (related to architecture, engineering, or other kinds of practices) is of utmost importance.

Bookmark it: