Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

Regarding this - there are different communication styles that work for different people. You may consider adjusting your speaking style to accommodate his ego. For example, some people respond better to a Socratic style that leads them to the answer, rather than directly telling them what to do. In this case, instead of "make sure you include XYZ on the agenda", try "Where in this agenda to you plan to have XYZ speak? Does XYZ know this, and does anyone in the audience need to know what time that will occur?". He'll either tell you how he's addressed this, or he'll realize that it needs to be added - but then it's HIS idea to add it (at least in his mind), so it's OK. "Have you already met with <staff> to discuss the details of XYZ's talk? No? Well, do you know how long of a time slot he needs, what a/v equipment he needs?". This gives him an opportunity to tell you what he has already done without feeling attacked, and gives you an opportunity to raise any areas that may not yet be addressed.

Same thing with reviewing a document. Instead of re-writing to add a section for him, ask questions about the missing content. Make him realize on his own that stuff is missing.

This won't work for everyone, and it does take more time on your part, but I have seen it work well with some very difficult employees. The problem with your current style is that "add XYZ to the agenda" sounds like a nitpicky order that he thinks he's already met the intent of, which makes him believe all of your communication falls into that category, which will lead him to getting defensive or dismissing more important topics as well. Good luck, however you decide to approach it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the situation, my employee and I have a stressed relationship. He is very cocky, acts like a know-it-all, and treats me like a colleague rather than supervisor. He gets very defensive when I correct something he's done so it's gotten to the point where I really hesitate to correct him (I'll correct factual and grammatical errors, but if its style or professional corrections, I think about it more and second guess myself).

For example, When I email him "you need to add XYZ to the agenda and coordinate with [staff] to find out what time XYZ will speak" he'll always respond with an argument or excuse or reason why he did things his way, "I'm already prepared for [staff] to come. They are coming at 10:00 and I'll just stop the discussion to talk about XYZ.

When another supervisor or boss or someone says the same thing to him, his response is always "okay, will do."

I annoys the crap out of me.

He's also made statements that his degree is more advanced than mine (it's not) and that I micromanage him too much.

Today, he sent my boss a document for review and blind copied me on it). In the email he said that 2 colleagues reviewed and edited his work and he was sending it to my boss for review approval.

My boss also forwards me the email (didn't know my employee bcc'd me on it) and asks why I didn't review it? in other words, I'm in trouble for "letting" my employee send something up the ranks that I didn't review.

A few minutes later, he sends the original email to me and adds [my boss] asked that I review it before she looks at it.

I know exactly what he was trying to do - circumvent me and deal with my boss.

Would you make this a big deal and tell him that from now on he needs to go through me before sending anything to the big boss or do you think he got the message because my boss already told him she's not reviewing unless I see it.

What's funny (sad funny) is that after I made edits to the document, he sent it back to my boss but HAD to add that I only made minor edits. I know the way his mind works and he's trying to subtly tell my boss that I didn't need to review.

I know it sounds like I'm obsessing over a little thing, but trust me when I say that this guy is VERY difficult to work with. He argues every point with me and will never just do what I ask, he tries to get away with as little work as possible and tries to "catch" me in mistakes, oversights or other things. It gets old and tiring fast.

WWYD?

Anonymous wrote:He wants your job. Fire him now before he gets it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to be very clear with him about what you expect, and you need to follow up when he doesn't do what you asked him to do.

"Bob, yesterday, you sent BigBoss a document before I had a chance to review it. In the future, I need you to provide me with a copy for approval prior to sending it to BigBoss. Can you do that?"

"Bob, when we spoke about running the TPS reports by me before sending them to BigBoss last month, you agreed that that was something you could do. Today, you sent another report without my approval. What's going on with that?"

(I am a fan of Alison Green at AskAManager.org for supervisory advice, too.)

Do all of this in email not verbal, and if you do need to offer verbal feedback follow with an email summarizing.

Anonymous wrote:You need to be very clear with him about what you expect, and you need to follow up when he doesn't do what you asked him to do.

"Bob, yesterday, you sent BigBoss a document before I had a chance to review it. In the future, I need you to provide me with a copy for approval prior to sending it to BigBoss. Can you do that?"

"Bob, when we spoke about running the TPS reports by me before sending them to BigBoss last month, you agreed that that was something you could do. Today, you sent another report without my approval. What's going on with that?"

(I am a fan of Alison Green at AskAManager.org for supervisory advice, too.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it sounds like you may be micro managing him. Why do you need to tell him exactly how to manage a meeting he is facilitating? Why not trust to see that he can manage it? Why are you making minor edits on a document that three other people are seeing? You should either be having major input into the document at some stage, or not editing at all if it's just "minor." He does sound like he has an attitude problem, but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss."

well, honestly because he gets it wrong when I don't tell him. And I get in trouble when he gets it wrong.

My job is to oversee his work and that's what I'm doing. I didn't even know about the document until today when all this came about. Usually there are not minor edits - I am re-drafting significant portions of his work product. And it's not grammar or style, it's adding entire sections that are relevant that he didn't bother to include.

Regarding the agenda issue - if you knew that XYZ had to be part of all meetings and when your employee shared an agenda with you that didn't include XYZ. What would you do? Would you let your employee know? That's all I did - say "hey, just make sure XYZ is included" That's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would have changed the order of the meeting items, told employee what should be included, etc. I'm being sincere here when I say - what would you do differently to ensure he does it right?

but it also sounds like it's not clear that you are adding any value by managing him. Which is likely why he tried to go straight to the "big boss

I did smile at this comment, though, because I am sure this is exactly what he thinks. It's not true, but it's funny how you picked up on exactly what he thinks. He actually thinks there's no reason for even my boss to review or approve documents. He thinks he should be able to operate in his own bubble without having to go through any approval process.

I'm not going to argue with you on the details, but it seems pretty clear that this is an employee who appreciates more autonomy than you're giving him. He's TOLD YOU he feels micromanaged. You're the manager, so you need to figure out how to approach this situation so you can both ensure the quality of his work, and give him the space that he needs to do a good job. If you think his work product is poor, that's a whole separate issue.

it's clear that he feels micromanaged. it is appears that his work is subpar. he is not a superstar that is best left alone.

That's wasn't my point. My point is that OP is a manager, and she needs to, well, manage. She needs to figure out how to address his weakenesses and take advantage of his strengths. It appears that she hasn't done anything at all to communicate where she feels he is being inappropriate, starting with his inability to take criticism. These are all things that can be addressed, but only if she actually steps up and acts like a manager.