This is not a diatribe on the impact of managers on the financial bottom line, on corporate strategic planning, on HR or legal policies. This is not a discussion on the perceived and real quirks of managers, such as lecturing with a mouth full of food and spraying you with crumbs (I wish this were only a made up example from my experiences). Instead, what is addressed here is the most important part of played by managers – at least to the rank and file, front line associate.
Specifically, the role of the immediate supervisor warrants our full attention given the importance it plays in the everyday life of the associates. Put simply, the number one determinant of happiness, satisfaction, and general well-being for associates in the workplace is the quality of the relationship each associate has with their immediate supervisor. If your boss is a jerk, your life can be hell. If your boss hears your concerns, clears obstacles for you, “has your back”, encourages your development, and has a sincere interest in your well-being and career overall, then your experience is something altogether different. Most associates typically experience something between these two extremes, but nearly everyone can vividly recall from some time in their career at least one example that in some way resemble one of these extremes.
In his 2011 book, Off Balance – Getting Beyond the Work-Life Balance Myth to Personal and Professional Satisfaction, Matthew Kelly takes on the accepted concept of “Work Life Balance.” In doing so, he aptly notes that what people want is not balance, but satisfaction.
Given that most waking hours are spent in the workplace and in the commute to and from it, achieving balance on the basis of the quantity of time spent is rarely achievable. Satisfaction, however, is indeed achievable, and in the workplace, the relationship with the immediate supervisor is a major contributor.
Kelly also notes that a lack of satisfaction at work carries over to impact satisfaction at home. The converse is also true: people struggling with the challenges of life – divorces, caring for relatives with health issues, wrestling with money issues, substance addictions, etc. – are not likely to find satisfaction at work at the time they are struggling because of the influence of these external conditions, irrespective of the relationship with their immediate supervisor. The distinction between the influences of external conditions and the relationship with the immediate supervisor is that external events often have a relatively intense impact but their influence is over a relatively short period of time. The relationship with the immediate supervisor is long-term and will typically emerge as the dominant determinant of satisfaction in the workplace.
In summary, as much as we would like to believe that people park their issues at the door on the way into work, this is unrealistic. It is not just the part that the employer might like to utilize in the workplace that is employed; it is the entire person – warts and all, so to speak. People come as a complete, integrated package, and the pointy-headed amongst managers sometimes forget this small but consequential detail.
“You are where you spend your time.” This mantra was drilled into my head by my management mentor of many years. I have found it to be quite true – associates need to be heard to be truly engaged in their work, and some amount of time periodically spent with their immediate supervisor is needed to ensure that the communication channel is open.
A rule of thumb that has served me well is that 30 minutes a week is probably the right amount of time to budget for associates to get a sense of what they are working on and understand concerns. Additional time may be needed to address those concerns as this typically involves other resources in the organization. The 30 minute target is obviously a challenge in organizations where managers have more than about a dozen direct reports. One wonders how effective managers with direct reports can be with groups significantly larger given the high priority of “people management” in their jobs – they may simply be spread too thin to effectively work with their direct reports.
An important note here is that the 30 minutes spent with an associate on a weekly basis is not just about the quantity of 30 minutes. Full attention is required, and this is not possible if a manager is hiding behind his terminal, perpetually in prayer position (what we call someone with head bowed and hands folded whilst using a smart phone or other PDA to the near exclusion of all else) or musing about the golf game he will be pursuing later in the afternoon rather than focusing upon the associate.
The answer to the originally posed question of “Do managers matter?” should first be rephrased: “Does what managers do matter?” The answer is of course, yes, given the impact they have on worker satisfaction in the workplace.
As a manager, a good indicator of which end of the relationship quality spectrum you have been ranked by your direct reports is given when you leave your position – did the party occur before you left or after you left? A Winston Churchill quote applies here (an applicable Churchill quote can always be found): “Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.