Why Your Relationship With “That Employee” Feels Broken

Leader, have you examined why your relationship with “that employee” seems to be broken? 

In my coaching and consulting work, the majority of my work falls into three categories that I call the 3Cs: compliance, conflict, and culture. Although I’ve been tempted to add a fourth C, change, the problems associated with change fall into the 3Cs. People will have to learn what compliance looks like in their new reality. Figuring out compliance along with new priorities and processes will, without fail, lead to some sort of conflict. Finally, the change will require cultural adjustments to affirm how the organization’s priorities have shifted or the existing culture emboldens resisters and late adopters (who I think are also resisters). 

Just as the 3Cs have been constant, so too are the most common reasons why leaders get in the way when the people who report to them are given the opportunity – at least in name – to lead. Through my coaching practice, here’s what I hear or learn most frequently:

1. They don’t trust the quality of the person’s work
2. They don’t trust that the person understands the business well enough
3. They don’t have time to teach, explain or fix mistakes
4. The leader and employee have different approaches/methodologies for problem-solving
5. They made a significant error in the past or a series of errors 
6. The leader thinks the person lacks the maturity necessary to lead effectively

The throughline in these is three-fold. The leader believes allowing the person to lead will ultimately turn into more work for them and potentially missed opportunities due to timing. Additionally, the leader is also concerned about embarrassment, especially if they are unable to contain or hide any problems. Finally, the often unspoken factor is anger. Specifically, the leader wants to avoid adding another straw to the camel’s back. Typically, by the time a leader finds themselves withholding meaningful opportunities to lead, they’ve already got a running list of failures and mis-steps, even if they haven’t made the employee aware of that list (which is unfair). What’s more is that the leader is sometimes unclear about the reality of their actions and say things like, “I’m not withholding opportunities. I’m waiting for better timing”. This may have some truth, but without a clear leadership development plan for the employee, the leader IS, in fact, withholding leadership opportunities. 

Many of these problems would be easier to solve with more honest, frequent and emotionally intelligent communication, greater comfort with difficult conversations, and project-specific transparency about tolerance for mistakes, missed deadlines, and the availability of support or assistance. Moreover, these problems are a reflection of the organization’s culture and indicators of where the leader could stand to improve. When the leader doesn’t have the freedom or opportunity to work on their own professional development, it is difficult to grant it to someone else. Many workplaces aren’t truly interested in hiring people who have room to grow. This is reflected in the intolerance for growth, which hinges on risk and potential mistakes. 

In the same vein, it is tempting to blame the employee by asserting that professionalism means always meeting deadlines and working with a spirit of excellence. The reality of some workplaces is that an employee can be regarded as being an underperformer when their behavior and work actually reflect the organization’s culture, poor feedback, nonexistent plans for employee development, and inconsistency about what’s acceptable — including known realities that deadlines aren’t always firm and excellence is a moving target.

Ultimately what is often happening with items 1 – 6 is that the leader is managing their own reputation, playing offense for damage control, and shouldering the burdens of a culture that doesn’t reward people for discussing its contradictions. 

Items 7 – 10, on the other hand, represent something more intentional and deliberate. Number 7 may be the hardest for the leader: they are managing their own boss as they deal with the direct report. Essentially, they are the liverwurst in the sandwich. The power dynamics are pulling double-duty. How does the leader safely disagree with their own boss – whether it’s about the substance of the distrust or the way the situation is being handled? Now, we have two people managing fight or flight in an environment where they are supposed to appear cool, calm, collected and aligned. 

1. Someone above the leader doesn’t trust the employee.
2. Power dynamics
3. Distressed interpersonal relationship
4. Leader has a blindspot and doesn’t see how they are undermining the person

When the leader isn’t caught in the middle, the power dynamics consistently punch downward. Whether the problem is a distressed interpersonal relationship (sometimes people just don’t mesh) or a leader who has a blindspot, the sentiment from the employee’s point of view is unchanged: I have to tolerate this treatment.  

Each challenge in 7 – 10 represents organizational politics, which worsens the lower your position in the hierarchy. When these issues are afoot, it often seems like the only answer is that someone has to exit the organization. Thus, this is where the battle begins – and often includes efforts to attend to liability. The employee files a grievance or an EEO claim. The leader begins to document more or issues a PIP. Then, the situation devolves into a who got whom first battle while the rest of the team watches and adjusts how it manages the culture (#employeesarevelociraptors).