Skip to main content

The One Rule For New Supervisors

I sat down and flipped open my computer as I normally lunch alone.

Then a colleague who I knew from minimal interaction struck up a conversation. After a moment or two she sat down.

"Tell me about your job," I said.

"I have a new supervisor. She is making us read 'Who Moved My Cheese.'" 

She said that as though it were a bad thing.

"She is changing everything around. Very strong personality. Doesn't think that any of us know how to do our jobs."

It went on from there.

"One lady can't eat because of her, others can't sleep. It's really bad."

It went on from there.

"She favors her friends, who are ignorant, over the staff people who do a really good job. It's so frustrating."

I nodded.

"And every time one of us says something to another one, she somehow finds out about it."

Yes the workplace can be a small world.

"We're afraid to talk, and now she wants to go on a team-building retreat to build so-called 'trust'."

She laughed sadly and bitterly. I could see she was hyper-competent and the injustice of having to serve a new and awkward supervisor was killing her.

And then, the final blow.

"I'm looking to get out."

Later I told my daughter about it.

"Oh, teambuilding. Everybody hates it when they have to do that."

Reflecting on the whole thing, I felt bad for my colleague, and frankly felt bad myself as well. Because I've been on both sides of the coin.

And I could see both sides: As supervisor, wanting to prove yourself, and please your boss, and deliver the results you are bound to deliver in a difficult environment.

As employee, wanting to practice your tradecraft with minimal interference, wanting to not have to train all the new and awkward management folks.

What can I say, it's hard. But I do think supervisors can help themselves a lot by learning to listen more, especially at the beginning, absorbing the culture, and reserving comment for when it's absolutely needed.

*All opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …