Short answer to this question, IMHO: no, not really, although it probably should. There’s a new article on HBR from the Gartner HR practice about “the role of a manager today,” and while it makes some good points here and there, it’s generally infuriating because it keeps quoting HR leaders. HR leaders do not talk to managers all day/week. They mostly talk to them when the manager wants to fire someone or potentially hire someone, and not even in those cases. Sometimes managers jump HR and go right to legal. My wife is an ADA for a large county and sometimes front-line managers jump right to her on potential terminations; HR isn’t even contacted. It’s preposterous to write articles about “what we’re hearing from HR leaders!” because a lot of the time, that’s made-up or guesswork. They don’t have the insights into the business or the silos that they should.
Then, you have the second tier of bullshit you see in all these articles, where they spend 15 paragraphs talking about empathy and how managers need to be “empathy warriors” and “resilience coaches,” and then you get a paragraph like this:
Managers are already overburdened by the demands of the evolving work environment, and actions that drive empathy are time consuming. While 70% of midsize HR leaders agree managers are overwhelmed by their responsibilities, only 16% of midsize organizations have redefined the manager role to reduce the number of responsibilities on their plate.
You just admitted the problem after spending 15 paragraphs telling me that empathy would save the professional world. Who in the hell is going to focus on empathy when their manager is pinging them with 35 deliverables every night after dinner? Who has the time? Managers tend to view their jobs as (a) managing up and (b) making trains run. Managing down and developing people requires a huge degree of self-awareness and ability, and most managers simply do not have that. That’s just the God’s honest truth, and believe you me, I go to church very frequently, so I know — well, nothing.
Never really been a big fan of Gartner overall, anyway.
Alright, let’s get to the main issue.
How could the role of managers change?
Seems like the big discussion these days is hybrid models, i.e. some days in an office, some days remote/WFH. I wrote about this once for Medium. We don’t know if this concept will work well; some are already arguing it’s a disaster in the making.
Let’s say a manager has 10 direct reports, and 5 want to come in a lot, and 5 don’t (simple-ish math). Here’s what a manager’s priorities and responsibilities should be:
- How can I best maximize the interaction between on-site and remote?
- What days or weeks can I bring everyone together?
- Will I be biased and give better opportunities to those I am seeing more in-person?
- How can I grow the relationships on the team?
- Should I use a lottery system to determine who comes into the office on specific days, so that people see a different mix of co-workers?
These are some of the core questions that a manager should be thinking through, and some of how the general approach to management will need to change in the next 6-12 months. Instead, I’d virtually guarantee you a lot of managers haven’t even remotely considered team-building or bias, but are instead focused on:
- What are my daily tasks?
- What do the executives want?
- How can I position myself best with them?
There’s a huge difference between List 1 and List 2. I think that’s where management won’t change very much — people in those roles will focus on their own development and their own task execution, and not the bigger questions of what a hybrid model needs to look like at the team/individual development level.
Coaching on video?
It can be awkward to “build relationships” or “coach up an employee” on video calls, no doubt. It can be done, but it’s very awkward, and managers tend to avoid things that are awkward.
But this is a big shift in management too. Previously you could holler at “close the door, have a seat” with direct reports, or grab them in the hallways to talk about issues. I want to say managers are setting up true 1-on-1 meetings, or caring about coaching and development, but generally that’s not true. Managers grab you for projects, for updates, for discipline, or because you’re a warm body and they need shit off their plate.
That’s a much different skill set to do those things on video, and that’s one big way that management needs to change and adjust to a “new normal” world. I am not confident that will happen, but that’s something managers do need to be considering, yes.
Does management evolve in general?
Not really. We all know what bad managers look like, but bad managers persist generation after generation. There’s not much evolution.
That’s largely about incentives and perceptions of what managers do or are — i.e. what makes them successful. You see the same stuff with men, to be honest. We talk about “the evolution of masculinity” but most guys still want to make money, be virile, do big deals at work, have a nice house, get laid, etc. The underpinnings of “success” don’t change that much — very few guys want to be a housewife, honestly/sadly — and thus nothing evolves that much. But it’s good to keep discussing, right?
What could managers focus on in “The New Normal?”
A partial list:
- Employees
- Customers
- Developing long-term relationships
- Acknowledging that things can change
- Safety
- Rebuilding connection and vitality
- Mixed/hybrid models
- Managing emotional responses
- Having big conversations on video
- Team-building when some are scared to come in
- Etc, etc.
I’m not sure, again, that managers will focus on these things — but it’s some of the stuff they should focus on as priorities and team realities shift.
Takes?
