I got an interesting call from an ex-colleague in the US yesterday evening, asking for advice on how to interpret and handle their supervisor, my ex-supervisor. They'd had a situation with them that they thought was very unfair and misrepresenting of the situation as it played out, and is now worried for his position, as if he is being set up for failure. Something I know a bit about I guess. So, after a catchup on family life and sharing surgery stories like the old men we are fast becoming, we got into the crux of the matter and I talked it through with them. I enjoy being a springboard to bounce ideas off, and I also enjoy picking apart situations to see what lays beneath the surface.
Enjoying it doesn't mean I am always right though, so I try to get confirmation or at least indication where I am able. What was doubly interesting in the above call, was that earlier in the day I had been messaging with another ex-colleague who shares the same supervisor about something different, but related. The supervisor makes an assumption that they are very good at reading situations, and they also make the assumption that they know what is best for everyone around them. Perhaps I am a bit like this at times too, maybe we all are, but the difference is that the supervisor doesn't check accuracy on their interpretation or application of what they believe to be the case. They suffer from a massive confirmation bias, where the accuracy is confirmed by the belief that they are right, rather than any actual evidence.
Feelings lie.
Feeling right, doesn't make it right. Yet increasingly we are being conditioned to "trust our feelings" as if they are accurate representations of reality. They are not. They are our interpretations of our experience, meaning that they are influenced by our past, our perspective, our beliefs, and our own personal mechanisms that tend to protect our ego. We see things as we want them to be, meaning that we will look to fulfil the prophecy of how we feel about it, rather than be objective of what actually happens.
My ex-colleague for instance saw the situation that arose one way and the supervisor another, but the supervisor then projected their feelings onto it and included other people who had been in the meeting, making assumptions about the way those others saw the situation. This opened a door though, because my ex-colleague then went to those others this week to review and verify, and thereby validated that they saw it the same as he had. While not infallible, it is a far better process to validate feelings than just assuming correctness.
The supervisor is highly intelligent, yet their beliefs about themselves, their abilities and others, gives them large blind spots in their experiential analysis. Without even entertaining the possibility that they might be wrong, they charge ahead as if they are correct. This means that when they are correct, they are very effective, but when they are wrong, they are very damaging. They are probably more right than wrong much of the time, which is how they are seen as effective, but when they are wrong the wash affects the people around them, not the supervisor directly. They get out unscathed, because other people are the ones doing the practical work.
The way we feel is a guide to our perspective, but shouldn't be confused as truth. Feelings should always be taken with a grain of salt, meaning that they shouldn't be fully trusted. Instead, they are pointers and flags that provide focus areas that can be further reviewed. Of course, in a pinch and when there isn't the time or opportunity to review, some feelings should be taken at face value - like fear for physical safety. But when the stakes aren't life-threatening and there is time to check some facts, it is best to acknowledge the feelings and then validate them.
This is emotional management - not emotional repression.
A lot of people think that I am negative on emotions, but it is quite the opposite. Emotions are vital for our human experience, but they aren't very well calibrated to reality, and they suffer from having to use the same physical systems that indicate base emotions. Like fear. The fear for the physical self while walking on the edge of a cliff is different to the fear of public speaking, but the feeling response is largely the same. But they are not the same.
Emotional control for me is being able to evaluate what kind of feeling is being felt, validating whether it is actionable, and then choosing an appropriate behaviour in response. However, there are times that this hinders experience, rather than enhances it. For example, it is good to slow down the emotional response when there is a lot at stake, or the decisions that need to be made should be carefully considered. But, if in bed with a lover, it is probably better to not slow down the emotional response and rather immerse oneself fully into the emotional experience of it. This second one would be living "in the moment".
If we are living in the moment for all the significant decisions and guided by our emotions though, this means we are actually slaves to our past, acting on what we know, which is what triggers our feelings, and behaving blindly, thoughtlessly, automatically. It might "feel right" in the moment, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Crimes of passion are actually just automatic responses acting on immediate feelings. If the perpetrator were to just slow down and think a little, they likely wouldn't premeditate murder, and act upon it. This is why there are laws in places like Australia about how guns are stored so that gun and ammunition are stored separately. This gives time between getting the gun and being able to fire it, and that small amount of space can interrupt the emotional train of thought.
I don't know if I am right.
I might feel right, but it doesn't mean I am. Part of my process to slow down my thoughts is to write a lot to process my experience. It doesn't mean I have to talk about the entirety of the situation, but it gives me a chance to ask questions of myself and think through the implications, and possible other perspectives. Too many these days don't ask themselves the right questions and too often, they say "this is the way I am" when it comes to their behaviours, as if their default response is the only way they can be. It is the behaviour of a toddler, who lives fully in the moment, without yet understanding the ramifications of their actions.
Intelligence doesn't equate to good behaviour.
At least, IQ doesn't mean someone will behave well. Nor does it mean that they are going to read situations well. I think that if we were truly very intelligent across all of the human faculties, we would have far less issues in the world because no matter what happened, we would slow our thinking down before we act, more often than not. But, unfortunately, we are far away from being that intelligent at scale, so poor behaviours will continue on largely unabated.
And everyone will still feel they are right.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
This post is Interesting to me. Because I would look at it from the supervisor / manager side of things as I have these problems regularly . Thankfully I don’t manage large workforces anymore so I’m bloody glad it’s in the past .
I took another approach that got me to a very high position in a multi national . If your boss or supervisor is wrong it and you don’t agree with him then that’s an emotional intelligence for their staff to deal with also. Not everyone is gonna be on the same page as their line manager. Actually I would go as far as to say that over 50% of their decisions may not be aligned with their staff .
I’ve been to a good few workshops on this as back in the day I would manage a large unionised workforce.
Here are 3 scenarios .
Current case : no one wins . Supervisor sees a snake in the grass going around validating with colleagues. Someone pulling against them. Not agreeing . Task or project or whatever it is ends up failing. Reason for task failing. Supervisor says people pulling in different directions . Result : warning for staff and supervisor stays in position. Staff and supervisor now weary of each other . Staff get mark against them and ruin chance of promotion for a couple of years for going against the line manager .
Scenario 2 :
Your supervisor asks you to do something that you don’t agree with. You do it because they are your supervisor . The task turns out to be a failure. Staff can just say they were doing what they are asked . Supervisor still has your respect . They talk highly of the staff in the succession meetings . He or she gets the sack after a while for messing things up . You cry crocodile tears while they pack their stuff . You get called into the head office and get their job. THE KING IS DEAD LONG LIVE THE KING. (Best case scenario)
Scenario 3 : supervisor asks staff to do something you don’t agree with (good of company) . You do it . The job or project works out really well. Staff take a look in the mirror and realise it was THEIR OWN emotional intelligence and poor behaviour that hindered it and not the supervisors.
Bottom line . Know matter who your line manager is (Unless they are Hiter and are planning a mass genocide ) just do what they ask you to do . I’d say I have had 100s of meetings where staff say the manager has a bad attitude and they cannot give me examples when I ask them. I would absolutely love your ex supervisors versions of events.
You say they are probably more right than wrong most of the time which is the key . I know a guy that fucked up a lot but when he got things right . He was very right and made the company millions . He now heads up the American expansion and the directors account for his fuck ups because more often than not he succeeds and this is the key.
I think sometimes to get things over the line executives assume correctness as more of tool to get buy in fast.
The key to this all is managing up and your friend isn’t playing the game well . Everyone has good bosses and bad bosses. If you play your cards right you can get further up the chain with bad bosses than good bosses . I’m surprised you mentioned this supervisor is intelligent because intelligent people put a lot more thinking into decisions so that’s a bit of an outlier but the fact remains. Do what the bosses says and you will go far .
In this case, the checking-in with colleagues (they were in a team meeting at the time of the incident) is part of the fair process approach that the supervisor has introduced and encouraged. The colleague did what was expected of them in this scenario, to check their position and apologise if necessary.
Scenario 2 rarely happens. As I was saying to a third ex-colleague the other day, the trouble is that the supervisors get to defend themselves directly, whilst their subordinates don't. In this current case, the company is going through "structural changes" and the supervisor is part of the leadership team making decisions.
It is actually interesting, as though a third-party and only hearing one side of this current case, I have seen it play out directly several times before. What was strange in this case (not mentioned above) is that it wasn't actually a thing the ex-colleague did, it was that they said they didn't know the answer to something in a team meeting. In a 1-1, they were then told that it would have resulted to a written warning if they had been in Finland. This is not true - written warnings are very rare and reserved for things like turning up to work sloshed.
Yes it is, especially for money-making activities. The role however isn't one of those - it is about relationship building and over the last couple years, a person who had built a lot of "relationship capital" has spent it all to the point that even friends are distancing. There is obviously something else going on in the background.
When it comes to intelligence, the supervisor is very good at some parts of planning, very poor at others. It is a bit like having someone who is autistic managing people. They are hyper-reactive to their own emotions, without reading the emotions of others well.
I like having your insight here, especially since it is based on only a little bit of information as I can't put the full conversation and details in.
In most cases I would agree, but I also have my own personal boundaries and ethics, and an aversion to authority. Going far doesn't get the stank of brown off the nose. For some, going far might be all that matters.
When it comes to organisational changes though and when people pushback against "their job changing", I remind them that it is not their job, they are filling a role as an employee and if they were just coming into the organisation that had just changed, it would be accepted. Do what is instructed and move on, or don't and move on and out.
the supervisors get to defend themselves directly, whilst their subordinates don't Exactly my point , so better for the staff to be rowing in the right direction which is more of a reason to do what is asked whether right or wrong. Now this is all under a I presumption that it is above board morally and professionally
an aversion to authority …….. and that my friend is the crux of the matter here. I have morals and standards too and luckily nobody asked me to do anything dodgy but there is a point where you just have to go with the flow and learn when to keep the mouth shut for the good of your career. There are many stupid decisions made by bosses the world over . The key is not to get burnt by them . Best to say nothing in my opinion and sometimes silence is powerful. Leave someone else take the fall.
There’s a lot to be said about brown nosing . It has a certain stigma which I find amusing . A colleague of mine once told me that brown nosing was the ultimate show of emotional intelligence. And I tend to agree. What’s the fastest way to more money and your mortgage paid off ? Butter up that guy or girl . Sign me up. It’s only a job . Your goal is money and that’s it.
Great post by the way. Love the discussion . Just coming at it from an employer angle. I have arguments with my wife about things so I get your points. 😂
The problem in this case (and my own direct past observations) is that it was nothing to do with not doing what was asked, it was just a comment in a team meeting that triggered it. The colleague feels they are being setup for failure, which I agree with. Which means that following the set process on how to handle it is the way to go. They are doing what the supervisor wants by going to the colleagues.
My aversion to authority definitely played a role in me leaving the company. However, the far bigger issue was my perceived health. Assumptions were made that were far from correct, but I was never able to speak for myself. I was in the midst of changing roles and would have had a different supervisor who had a clear understanding of the situation and things would have been far better. Having said that, the company is now having "change negotiations" and the department that is up for the most change, is that of my ex-supervisor. It looks like they will keep their role, but unsure how many of the team will be left.
For my consultancy (where me asshole boss [me] gets to make all the decisions), I spend a lot of time with companies planning different changes and dealing with employees. There are definitely better and worse ways and my advice to the majority of employees is, to go along with the changes, as it is just a job. There are limits though, and there are also differences if the person is looking to advance in the organization, because that can require more strategy. In the current climate here with 11% unemployment, just do the job, whatever it is.
Well, in my case, I usually just go with whatever the supervisor (boss in my case) says. Even when I don’t agree, it’s not like pushing my point will change much, most of the time it just gets brushed off. And if I keep pressing, I end up looking like the difficult one. So I just follow along. The plus point is, if the project fails, I’m not the one getting blamed. But the downside is we all feel the effects anyway–deadlines, stress and the mess that follows.
The way I have tried to deal with it is by picking my battles. If it is something small, I let it slide and do it–peacefully. Otherwise, I will quietly talk it through with a couple of colleagues first (mostly my best friend because at least he won't judge :).
And sometimes if more than one person raises the same concern, the supervisor at least pauses to think. Doesn’t always work or I should say it never worked 🥲, but it feels better than just sitting on my frustration. At the end of the day, I have accepted that some supervisors just won’t acknowledge they’re wrong–so I focus on what I can control and try not to burn myself out fighting a wall. Though, it hurts my bit narcissistic nature, but my main goal is my stomach and dues 😶🌫.
Most people just go along to get along, because they fear losing their position. And they should fear it, because it happens a lot. Supervisors are people, and many people are emotional and hold grudges, even when it is not in their best interest.
Picking battles is a must, otherwise it really is a never-ending battle.
I think being smart doesn't mean that one will always make good choices or understand situations correctly. Valuing emotions as a key part of our experiences is important and helps us grow as individuals.
I think people are behaving more as though they are autistic now, where they are focused on how they feel and react badly when they feel uncomfortable, but don't care how others feel.
I have seen in society that any person, no matter how wrong they are from their point of view, will try to prove that they are right. I have a good example of this in my work life. The logistics manager who recently left our company always said that his solutions were right, regardless of the experiences of others. He acted according to his opinion that the experiences he had gained so far were all fair. In the end, he had to leave because his point of view was not accepted by the upper management. It is not a good thing to make quick decisions thinking that the thoughts we constantly deal with are right. The process of slowing down thoughts plays an important role in such a situation.
And the problem with upper-management is that they believe they are right, even if they are wrong. They can also make the decisions to get rid of people who add value and may actually be right, because it doesn't align with whatever they believe is true :)
Being very smart isn't enough. You also need to have leadership skills. Even very smart people have flaws. These are significant flaws that prevent them from achieving great success. This is why there are so many problems in the world.
A good manager is someone who anticipates problems and finds solutions early on. They don't discriminate between employees and are fair and honest. The same applies to employees.
The problem is that everyone is discriminatory in some way, making preferences over others because of their own beliefs. It becomes much worse when the supervisor doesn't recognise their own preferences.
My wife is excellent at emotional management and I have been following her advice at my work place and learning a lot from her. Slowing down is a very effective tool and I have been using it and should use it even more.
She met my boss once, shook his hand and talked for just a few minutes. Right after that she told me that he is a spineless weasel. I was surprised about that but now years later I see that she was correct.
She also held back me on several occasions from telling him how it is when he basically stabbed me in the back and threw me under the bus repeatedly. That helped protect the relationship with my boss and I was supposed to be reporting to another boss after my promotion, but then he also has been promoted and I am still reporting to him.
I've been working through stuff like this quite a bit lately with my job. I've found that the longer I wait to reply to emails the less emotional I am about them and that really helps. It hard being the decision maker sometimes because no matter how much thought and research you put into a decision, when you make it there is something emotional about it that hits even harder when it ends up being the wrong choice.
It's quite something the way we usually let emotions cloud judgment, especially in workplaces. Being able to separate feelings from facts is one of the best factors in making matured decisions, chances of success is higher when we're more factual than emotional
Emotional control is also referred as a containment acts or managemental process by converting the intended reaction to problem solving skill in the mind first @tarazkp. There's no form in which intelligence equate to positive attitude, thinking of it actually there are technologist personnel that are yet nonchalant or rude. So you see. I liked your write up brother. @tarazkp
It often seems that people with a high IQ have a correspondingly low EQ (emotional intelligence). It's rare to find people with both high IQ and EQ.
Your ex-colleague is fortunate to have someone like you whom he can call to get advice and discuss these situations. Sometimes just talking through them helps a lot.
this one time.. I slipped and fell hard in the shower.. hit my head.. lots of blood.. couldn't move for a sec.. got up.. lots of blood.. big gash on head.. dried off.. ate chips.. my wife made me go to ER.. 7 stickes. old men. yup! :P
Emotions betray us all time. The process of growing up. I had had couple of situations where I took the best part, just for not being patient and think about what happened. Luckly, I learned, so I growed up a little bit.
My spreadsheet brain loved the bit where your ex-colleague circled back to others in the meeting to validate the story, that's basically an audit of feelings :) Your line that feelings lie is harsh but fair, your right that they need to be treated like inputs not truth. In my world, if I book a number becuase it feels right, it blows up later and the wash lands on everyone else, just like you said about the supervisor. That pause between trigger and action is the difference between a mess and a sober choice.. I’m trying to build that gap more often, even when ego wants the quick win.
I agree with this sometimes having a high IQ doesn’t always mean someone knows how to act or respond well in real-life situations. True intelligence also means knowing how to manage ourselves, think before we act, and especially understand others. Sadly, not everyone practices that, which is why poor behaviors are still so common. thanks for sharing 💜 this is what is happening now in my current work, it fits well.
Thanks.