Do My Job

One school of thought among management theorists and practitioners holds that we can optimize organizational performance by focusing on only three factors: defining each job carefully, hiring people who have demonstrated success in previous similar positions, and finally providing people the resources we think they need to succeed. Then all we need do is have supervisors ensure that their subordinates do their jobs.

Or so the theory goes. In practice, things sometimes work out a bit differently.

For example, some supervisors require not that their subordinates do their own jobs; rather, they require that the subordinate perform some part of the supervisor's job as well. In effect, the message from supervisor to subordinate isn't, "Do your job." Instead, it's, "Do my job." When this happens, trouble is inevitable.

An intra-organizational scenario

Here's an example of a do-my-job scenario involving players who all work in the same organization.

Consider a supervisor — call him Kukla — who suspects that a subordinate — call her Fran — might be revealing still-confidential product development plans to favored members of the sales force. The revelations happen out of the supervisor's awareness, but not out of awareness of other subordinates. So Kukla approaches another subordinate — call him Ollie — and directs Ollie to report on Fran's transgressions. And Kukla tells Ollie that he (Kukla) has asked other subordinates to report on Fran also, so if Kukla hears about Fran's misbehavior from others, but not from Ollie, he (Kukla) will not be happy.

Ollie is now in a bind. He and Fran were friends. Ollie now avoids Fran, because he doesn't want to be present when she talks with sales people. If he is present, and if Fran reveals secrets, Ollie will need to report on his friend. Meanwhile, Fran detects Ollie's new coolness, and their friendship is in peril.

That's just the beginning. It gets really ugly when Ollie witnesses one of Fran's transgressions.

In the above Some supervisors require not only that
their subordinates do their own jobs;
rather, they require that the subordinate
perform some part of the supervisor's jobscenario, Kukla is requiring Ollie to do what is more properly Kukla's job. Supervisors who use this ploy must endure the consequences of fractured relationships among the people they supervise. But some of them do this anyway because they're uncomfortable with the difficult conversations that would otherwise be necessary.

A multi-organizational scenario

Avoiding difficult conversations is just one reason why supervisors require subordinates to shoulder some supervisory responsibilities. Offloading political risk is another. Consider this scenario:

As part of a reorganization, all product development teams have been matched with sales and marketing teams to ensure that the products developed match customer needs. Kukla, the technical Director for the Time Travel product line, has been directed to work closely with Fran from Marketing and Ollie from Sales. But neither Fran nor Ollie have been cooperative. They've told Kukla, "Just you do your job, and we'll do ours." So Kukla delegated his collaboration responsibility to his subordinate, Max, saying, "Make it work with Fran and Ollie."

Now Max, who is subordinate to Kukla, is even less likely to succeed than Kukla, because Fran and Ollie outrank Max. But Kukla was reluctant to press Fran or Ollie, so he offloaded this entire nasty mess to poor Max. Essentially, Kukla's message to Max was, "Do my job."

Here Kukla is delegating to Max work that is properly Kukla's. Kukla does that because of the political risk associated with calling out Fran or Ollie for being uncooperative when all three have been directed to collaborate. Max is even less likely to succeed, not only because he's outranked, but also because of the message the delegation sends to Fran and Ollie. They will assume, rightly, that Kukla is unlikely to stand up for Max if Max tries to report Fran or Ollie as non-cooperative.

Last words

If you notice one of your subordinates running the "do-my-job" play, or if you're on the receiving end yourself, be aware that these scenarios rarely turn out well. The Maxes of the world tend to view these plays as opportunities to perform. That is one possible outcome. Here's another: Kukla can claim that delegating the work to Max was Kukla's very own brilliant idea, and that Max would not have succeeded without Kukla's steadfast support. If Kukla does this, Max gets little credit for his work.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

The Advantages of Political Attack: I

In workplace politics, attackers sometimes prevail even when the attacks are specious, and even when the attacker's job performance is substandard. Why are attacks so effective, and how can targets respond effectively?

Lateral Micromanagement

Lateral micromanagement is the unwelcome intrusion by one co-worker into the responsibilities of another. Far more than run-of-the-mill bossiness, it's often a concerted attempt to gain organizational power and rank, and it is toxic to teams.

Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: I

Although skip-level interviews have their place, they can be dangerous, explosive, and harmful to the organization. What are the dangers?

Appearance Anti-patterns: II

When we make decisions based on appearance we risk making errors. We create hostile work environments, disappoint our customers, and create inefficient processes. Maintaining congruence between the appearance and the substance of things can help.

Recapping One-on-One Meetings

Some short one-on-one meetings produce important decisions without third-party witnesses. Instead of relying on fickle memory to capture these results, send a recap by email immediately afterwards. Recaps improve decisions and make them more durable.

See also Workplace Politics and Organizational Change for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I

To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways require, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety. Available here and by RSS on December 13.

And on December 20: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: II

When we begin using new tools or processes, we make mistakes. Practice is the cure, but practice can be scary if the grace period for early mistakes is too short. For teams adopting new methods, psychological safety is a fundamental component of success. Available here and by RSS on December 20.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info