Kdtyjb

I'm a first-time manager and sometimes have difficulties judging whether my expectations towards my subordinates are realistic or not.

How assertive/ cooperative should I be in the following situation:

You work on a project with your subordinate, discuss it thoroughly. Then you meet a client (one you know very well but still, it's a client) and present the results together. After you presented a proposal, your colleague tells the client he doesn't agree that the proposal you just presented is the best one and goes on to discuss a different one.

Now, my first reaction is to have a quite serious conversation with the colleague asserting that this behavior is unacceptable. Are there any better options? If the best solution is to discuss it, how should I frame it?

Btw, it's not the first time this happened.

Now, my first reaction is to have a quite serious conversation with the colleague asserting that this behavior is unacceptable. Are there any better options? If the best solution is to discuss it, how should I frame it?

Yes, I would say that a one-on-one conversation is in place here, where you explain to your subordinate that improvising or deviating from the plan during meetings is not acceptable.

You say this is not the first time this happens, but perhaps it's the first time it happens to you as a manager, and it is important to set things straight now to avoid this from happening again.

Be firm, yet respectful, and make sure to stress that this is not acceptable behavior and that they should stick to what planned for meetings, and that they should pitch with you any ideas or suggestions for meetings before actually doing them.

First of all, this is worth establishing:

• We're all in this boat together.

This statement requires both of you to operate as a team. Free discussion is something that is quite desirable when the team is together and deciding execution options, but the Client should only see the final result of this discussion - an united front. Which takes us to the second statement:

• It's way better if the boat gets to the destination.

The Client may perceive this lack of well-defined roles as disorganization. This is dangerous - this affects their perception on how successful this project can be.

So we need clear roles:

• As Project Manager, you're the Mediator.

You're the one in direct contact with the client. You listen to the Client's woes, discuss with your team, and offer the Client the proposed Solution.

• Your colleague is the Specialist.

They're qualified to evaluate the scenario and offer possible outcomes.

So discuss all you want before the meeting. Raise possible scenarios and implementation options. If called upon at the Mediator's discretion the Specialist may chime in and freely discuss during a live meeting.

But no conflict of roles should transpire at a meeting with the client, at the risk of weakening the Client's reliance on the capability of your team to deliver.

Finally, answering your question:

If the best solution is to discuss it, how should I frame it?

I agree that this needs to be addressed. Show your colleague the importance of projecting an image of functional, coherent team to a client.

You don't need to be "bossy", but you certainly need to inform that employee of a few things:

• Such behavior is a major signal to the client that your business doesn't know what it's doing. You will either not win bids, or will get fired by the client. You will have a bad reputation with that client, which will spread to any other potential clients that they talk to. This has the potential of doing major financial damage to your company and risking the livelihoods of all of you. This behavior is not acceptable and the employee must find a different way to handle the situation.




• Reservations about the solution must be brought up and addressed before presentation day. At the presentation, your company must show a united front, even if there are reservations or disagreements internally.

What can you learn on your end?

• Are the alternative solutions actually better, even in part?




• Which solutions do the clients prefer?




• Make sure everyone involved (especially everyone presenting to the client) has plenty of time to give input on the project and the presentation before final decisions are made.




• Could you officially present multiple proposals with compare/contrast and cost/benefit analysis, and let the client choose which to implement?




• Don't involve unnecessary personnel in presentations to clients.

They're not your subordinates, they're still your coworkers. If you go around thinking your better then them or that your thoughts are more valid, you're going to fail miserably. Managers aren't there to exercise tyrannical control or look good. Managers are there to make sure everyone is doing things that make the company money or otherwise meet it's goals. Suggesting that a potential solution doesn't go against that. It actually helps you reach your goal by helping you make a better decision.

Bottom line: Good managers listen to their coworkers.

Speaking like a boss is similar to convince the subordinates with words. Sometimes, rhetorical skills are defined as the result from training and a certain volume in the voice. But in reality it's much easier. Rhetorical skills are equal to educate the other side. If somebody is able to provide sense to a group, then the group will do what is necessary. A good boss looks like a teacher. He doesn't simple give orders, but he educates the other side.

A typical behavior of a failed communication with subordinates is, if they are trying to invert the social roles. That means, sometimes a subordinate is trying to educate the boss. There are two options available. Either the boss is smart enough to detect such behavior and is capable to integrate the subversive communication pattern, or he fails and will loose his authority to the other side. Then the boss has to ask himself, if he is trained enough in the subject.

Turn the Problem into a Solution

It's not really possible to know from the information presented if the sense that the manager and technical worker were in agreement was mistaken, if the technical worker thought the manager had confused the message in presenting it and that they were providing critical clarification, if it seemed the client's needs had changed, or if the technical worker specifically set out to undermine the manager in bad faith.

But rather than delve into that, perhaps it's more productive to focus on achieving a better presentation next time.

After discussion of the next project phase, the manager could assign the technical worker to the be the one to write up a specific proposal, which the manager will then approve (possibly after alterations) before the technical worker verbally presents it to the client in a joint meeting at which the written copy is also handed over.

While there is still a little room to stress differing interpretation of the words on the page, for the good faith considerations it's far more likely that the technical worker can feel that the key points have been made when they have been made in their own words. And for any bad faith concerns, there's much less room to undermine their own words.