How to Manage Your Manager

I understand the article. But I think sometimes there is a loss of balance. The idea of 'learning to manage your manager' sometimes becomes 'deal with it so your manager doesn't have to manage you'.

Here's the deal: Managers are supposed to be better at managing, than their subordinates. That's why they got the job, right?

So they are supposed to be better people persons. They are supposed to be better at management. They are supposed to be better at seeing the big picture rather than the details. They are supposed to be better at organizing projects.

And we're supposed to manage them?

Maybe this works for the ambitious technical person who is anxious to move up into a management role. Sure, give him the lead programmer title and let him manage-up to his heart's content. He'll be happier in that role rather than programming.

But the manager needs to manage the rest of us first.

@Scott, I look at it this way: someone needs to manage. If your manager isn't, then you need to.

But in truth, you aren't managing the department in his or her stead. In fact, I think "managing up" is something of a misnomer. What you're really managing is yourself, and how you communicate.

My comment is a reaction to your original post as well as Scott's comment and your subsequent response.

First of all, I completely agree with your original premise that managing up is a critical skill - particularly in a project management role such as yours. And I also agree that "how to be a great manager" is not taught in school - particularly in technical fields such as software development and engineering - and that far too many organizations thrust previous individual contributors into management roles without adequate preparation, training, and ongoing support.

Second, the primary role of a manager is to get work done through others. His/her role is to set and communicate clear expectations and priorities, provide ongoing feedback to you and your team about your collective performance, to be clear about the kind of supervision she/he will provide, and to help you develop. "Managing up" means getting clarity about expectations and changing priorities, clearly communicating progress and problems so the latter can be addressed on a timely basis - managers hate surprises - and as you say, being clear on what you need from the manager to be able to get your work done - like maybe interceding for you and your team on some issue. And your post generally addressed these aspects of managing up.

What really troubles me though is your comment about withholding information on how you are doing your job. When I was a practicing manager, I was very clear on "what results" I wanted to see and gave my direct reports a lot of flexibility on "how" they got those results - with a some clear parameters. I would check in with them on how they planned to get the results. As long as the "how" was ethical, legal, and would not create problems because of some issue they were unaware, I would let them go ahead even if I would take a different approach. I would give some feedback on things to consider though as part of the teaching aspect of managing. However, if a direct report refused or obfuscated how they were going to complete their work, I would treat that as a HUGE red flag. I actually fired someone for this behavior because it turned out they were hiding illegal activity. If your intent is to keep the manager from micro-managing you, maybe the conversation needs to focus on what the manager needs to know to be able to feel confident the results will be achieved.

Amber,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and I understand completely the technical/non-technical polarity that needs to be managed. I am also VERY aware of the pressures of the IT world and know that non-technical people can often have unrealistic deadline expectations. I was simply trying to raise a flag of caution more generally.

From the point of view of a non-technical manager, they are accountable for a specific result - e.g., a new system. And they are getting pressure from above about deadlines etc. from other non-technical people. What increases the stress of non-technical managers is the lack of understanding of the technical process needed to get the results for which they are accountable. In short, they need to trust a process they don't understand.

What you have going for you is a track record of high-quality, bug-free software that is easy to maintain. And that credibility that you have is how you help the manager trust you. What really helps a non-technical manager is knowing how he/she can buy you the time you need to do your work. So in this case managing up is helping them communicate upward to their manager as well. So they need your help here how to do that.

@JRandom42 You're right about needing the support of non-technical folks, which is exactly why managing upwards is so vital.

Non-technical folks trying to get involved in the technical details is sort of like saying you should set the quality standards for doctor's performing operations just because you can sew a hem. It's not just ineffective, it can actually be harmful.

Of course they will be involved in the process, but it's important for us technical folk to set appropriate boundaries (without them seeming like boundaries to them)

My original comment may have been a bit strident, so I'll clarify my opinion.

I have to often seen the suggestion to 'manage-up' be used as an offical excuse for lazy management. Sometimes it's also presented as 'empowering' the employees, by pushing down responsiblities to the employees that should be the manager's.

I fully understand that the employee needs to take their manager's needs into consideration sometimes. But it is primarily the manager's responsibility to take the lead in everything regarding their employees. After all, the manager is on the hook for their employee's work.

One example would be in the area of communication. I feel that it is the manager's responsibility to initiate communication with the employee on a regular basis. It's not good enough to say "come to me if you have any problems" and go away for a month. The manager needs to have regular meetings, conversations, status updates, etc. Then if the some unsusual situation comes up outside of these communications, then employee can take the initiative go to the manager. But if the employee has to take to initiate all or even most communications, then something isn't right.

The point is that there needs to be some baseline management already going on. And unfortunately, too often the idea of 'managing-up' is used as an excuse to avoid that.

@JRandom And really, that PM shouldn't be trusted, as he clearly wasn't listening to the customer. I'm just wondering though, if the company was willing to trust outside consultants, but not their internal IT department, why didn't they just hire the smart consultant guys into their internal IT department?

Manager must be easygoing and kindly because they will be manage a head system in one management.