I'll try to summarize the problem: 3 supervisors run the day to day
Complicated office politics - need advice
Answers
You are asking the wrong question and the approach the manager has taken is misguided. This is a MANAGER problem not a PEER (among supervisors) problem. The Manager is responsible for not only the work but the "subculture" (in line with the company's culture) of his team. This involves among others, work quality and work relationships between his supervisors and down the org structure.
I will say this, concern yourself with the toxic personnel (if any) that acts like a disease and infects others (as you have indicated to be happening).
If supervisor one has better ways of doing things (being new), then he/she should present and justify it initially to his peers and then to the manager (if not received with open minds). With the conflict, the manager might have to decide and put his foot down.
Supervisor three should never have been involved in this.
Thank you Emerson. That makes sense and is a relief. As I am supervisor three, I naturally want to work it out to impress the manager to eventually be a manager too. The overstepping bounds complaints though led me to seek this counsel.
A follow up question...because I do want to advance, is it wise to volunteer to handle the situation for the manager after letting him/her know what's going on? Then I'd have a blessing to proceed and any complaints of overstepping bounds would cease.
1
I am a believer of not playing office politics. However, as a
Your efforts will be more visible if you focus on YOUR side of things.
Emerson, first-class advice.
Great advice, Emerson
You must stay fact based and focused on behaviors, not personalities. And, remember you are a peer. You are simply trying to make sure the three of you get accomplished what is expected of the team. You can only do so much before a higher authority will need to step in.
Emerson, those were excellent advice... every statement.
When looking at the bigger picture, look to the manager's motives for having his supervisors at odd's with each other. I also was involved in this same scenario, and looking back in retrospect, I believe that our manager intentionally put his supervisors at odds with each other. We were more focused on impressing our manger and staying in good graces, that we didn't realize that he was taking credit for all of our work and ideas up the reporting chain.
It may be that your manager is just a weak manager and is managing via non-managing, but take a look from the bigger picture. It maybe that your manager is playing all of you.
2
Conflict is another way of managing things. However, managers miss the fact that it should be conflict of IDEAS and not PERSONALITIES. Amazon's Jeff Bezos is a well known proponent of this method. He is known to just sit back and let his managers duke it out and justify their positions and recommendations in meetings. I have also once or twice decided on something that I initially was for the other side just because the other side was able to justify it better or more clearly. Afterwards, I approach the other party and tell them that if you were only able to justify it better.
However, one must be vigilant in keeping the conflict to ideas. We are only human and there is a tendency that the conflict bleeds into personalities. Previous reports (allegations?) on Amazon workplace atmosphere may reflect that danger.
Interesting view, but I don't think the manager is playing us. From what I seen over the years, it's more of managing by non-managing. The shame is that the manager is brilliant when forced to manage. I try to soak up as much knowledge as I can from those times.
The non-managing manager is one of the reasons why I feel the need to get involved all the time as a supervisor. You all helped me realize though that I shouldn't stick my nose in every dispute/situation. It's been a pattern in my
You are describing what I see as a fairly common problem - people have different skill sets and different personalities. People who like to control often see themselves as better than others - they also tend to be somewhat suspicious of others.
My style of intervention is to bring the conflicting parties - and groups - together with a skilled mediator (be careful who you select - because bad or mediocre mediators can make the matter worse) to air their grievences, learn about each other, and learn how to have more respect for those who have other skill sets.
Your example is of personality differences, not idea differences - so that's the level at which you need to intervene.