When I've supervised other people, professionally, I've noticed that I don't issue instructions or prohibitions; 'Don't do A', 'Always make sure you do B'.
I tend to leave room for the listener to ignore my instruction in circumstances I didn't envisage. 'Look for chances to do A', 'Try to avoid doing B'.
Some of them love the responsibility, others hate having to decide for themselves. Interesting.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I have mentioned before (not in this article) that when information is a bit harder to come by, it is better absorbed, retained and is more activated. I think that leaving the room not only helps them find what you missed, but forces them to work a little harder. At least some.
Have you ever thought why there is a difference? I have spent some time thinking about it over the years I have been training and I have theories. Would be interesting to get your take.
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection
-Thomas Paine
I think there are two ways to look at a supervisor/manager relationship.
You can be a sibling or a parent.
A sibling aims to make themselves valuable. They want to be relied upon; a source of comfort and support, and a permanent feature.
A parents aims to make themselves redundant. They want to raise a child to be their own source of comfort and support, as the parent recognises the temporary nature of their role.
Parent types and sibling types don't really understand each other.
A sibling type will make themselves valuable to an employer; a crucial structural element of the organisation; while a parent type will constantly strive to make themselves replaceable.
A previous manager, and very good friend couldn't understand why I wasn't more of a sibling to the business. I had to resign suddenly, but he was relieved to find that several of the staff I'd been supervising were sufficiently mature, responsible and confident to fill the role.
He just got lucky, I guess ;)
I haven't hear it put that way before and is a useful analogy I think. I also think there are those who would not want to 'grow up' and rather rely on an authority to guide them as it takes away responsibility and gives a target to blame.
I tell my clients that I am not their mother or a kindergarten teacher.
My goal is to make myself redundant for my daughter too. I want her to never need me for any kind of support but know that it is always available if she does require it. I think it is only when we can really look after ourselves at all levels, that we can really treat people well without having an ulterior motive to satisfy our own needs.
Thanks for replying. That is really interesting and I am going to think on it more.