How to Overcome The 5 Common Pitfalls of Managing Others
One Manager’s Journey Through Managing for Impact and How It Changed Their Approach to Leadership.
Being a manager is a rewarding experience, but there are many pitfalls along the road to becoming a successful leader. This blog offers a glimpse into the journey of one manager who shares their experience with these five common pitfalls, and how their progress through our Managing for Impact series empowered them and equipped them with the skills and knowledge they needed to become an effective and inclusive manager.
Pitfall 1: Not Shifting to the Manager Mindset
A little under a year into my new managerial role, I had the opportunity to attend Managing for Impact. My department's Director was concerned that I wasn't adapting my mindset swiftly enough to maximize my leadership effectiveness. Initially, I felt somewhat hesitant about entering a development program because I believed I was doing well in my role. I consistently met deadlines and exceeded expectations. So, the request for "training" seemed out of place. However, I agreed to participate.
My first "aha" moment occurred during a session when the facilitator asked me how my approach to prioritizing work had changed since becoming a manager. I had to pause and think about it. "Not much, really," I replied. I had been such a highly productive employee and I wanted to continue that effort as a manager. Then the facilitator prompted us to list our priorities. I jotted down what easily came to mind, like preparing weekly meeting agendas, some proposals my team and I were working on, preparing reports and presentations, etc. The facilitator examined my list and then asked, “What about your employees? Where do they fall on this list?” I was a little embarrassed to be honest. While I valued my team, they hadn't become my top priority.
Through coaching within the program, I realized that I hadn't fully embraced the mindset shift necessary for effective management. I had mistakenly believed that managing others was business as usual, with additional responsibilities like performance reviews and tracking time off. I was wrong. My promotion had altered the rules for me. To succeed as a manager, I needed to prioritize leading and developing my team, even if it meant setting aside some of my own needs. Unlike when I was an individual contributor, being a manager required proper time management and delegation to provide my team with opportunities for growth, feedback, and clarity. Focusing solely on tasks could lead to neglecting more critical priorities. It was this manager mindset that had inspired my own manager to invest in my development. I knew I could, and needed to, do better.
Pitfall 2: Neglecting Inclusive Leadership
I eagerly anticipated session 2 of Managing for Impact, which included taking the Everything DiSC® assessment. I had assumed I was a C (Conscientious) leader, emphasizing precision and accuracy, due to my affinity for data and quality. To my surprise, I turned out to be a DC (Direct and Conscientious) leader, combining my focus on quality with a need for speed and results. More surprising to learn was how my natural DC leadership style impacts the quality of my team’s experience with me and with each other.
Building on what I had learned in session 1, I recognized the importance of not only valuing quality but also slowing down when necessary to ensure a diverse range of perspectives in discussions and decision-making. As an individual contributor, my primary focus had been on productivity, which is how I earned my recent promotion. However, as a manager, I now had to balance productivity and results with inclusivity, making my team members feel seen, appreciated, and valued, fostering engagement.
The significant takeaway from session 2 was the self-awareness I gained regarding situations where I might not be as inclusive and how to create action plans to address these issues. I realized that when my stress levels were high and I felt pressure to deliver, I tended to isolate myself and make unilateral decisions to move forward. While this might be appropriate at times, I committed to questioning that assumption more frequently to prioritize my team's well-being. It wouldn't always be easy, but my team deserved opportunities to thrive.
Pitfall 3: Hiring the Wrong Candidate
I recall the excitement of getting ready to interview and select a new team member. Among five strong candidates, one, whom I'll refer to as Clara, stood out. During our first interview, Clara and I realized we had attended the same university, leading to an animated conversation about campus life, the charming shops, and cafés that adorned the main street of our college town. It was during this conversation that I also discovered Clara and I had grown up in neighboring towns. The numerous commonalities we shared immediately established a sense of comfort and rapport.
In light of this connection, I was elated to extend an offer to Clara, and she graciously accepted. At that moment, I felt that I had made the right decision. Clara and I not only got along splendidly, but she also became my go-to person whenever I needed someone I could trust to step in and handle tasks efficiently.
However, approximately six months into her tenure, I began to receive complaints about Clara from both her colleagues and my peers in other departments. They described Clara's behavior as dismissive and, on occasion, condescending. I offered feedback to Clara about how her behavior was being perceived, and it seemed that she took the feedback seriously. Nevertheless, the complaints persisted. What alarmed me the most was the glaring disparity between Clara's behavior and our firm's established culture of respect and trust. Our organization's leaders had invested years in instilling these values at the core of our identity. Clara's actions directly contradicted these values and, in many respects, ran counter to our cultural norms.
Managing for Impact provided me with opportunities to engage with other participants and reevaluate my hiring practices. I discovered two critical practices I hadn't considered before. First, I learned that Diversity & Inclusion should influence the hiring process well before the interview stage. Where we look for candidates plays a vital role in our diversity strategy. Once candidates enter the interview process, it's crucial to assess their culture fit clearly. The second practice was to move away from unilateral decision-making. Instead, I should involve a diverse group of colleagues in the screening process, working together to select a candidate. This collaborative approach not only allows others to play a role in talent management but also reduces the risk of selecting candidates solely based on similarities with the hiring manager, promoting diversity.
Coincidentally, Clara decided to pursue an opportunity at another firm, which allowed me to put my newly acquired knowledge into practice. I formed a screening committee of six colleagues from different levels within the firm. While I had my favorite candidate, the team ultimately selected someone who aligned more closely with our culture. His onboarding was significantly more effective, as he had already established a connection with the screening committee members.
Pitfall 4: Relational Bias in Performance Assessment
About 18 months ago, I took on a new role as the manager of marketing for my firm, which brought both visibility from senior leadership and increased responsibility. My team consisted of six marketing staff members supporting various practice groups. For the most part, we functioned well, except for one team member who seemed to be underperforming. I had gathered evidence to support my perception, such as comparing his marketing activity to that of his peers (which was significantly lower) and the number of practice areas he supported (half of what other team members were supporting). His results simply weren’t sustainable. During his performance review, I brought this evidence to him and offered him 60 days to improve his performance before we would need to reevaluate if he was a good fit for the role.
In session 4 of the Managing for Impact series, we explored common biases in performance management. I was surprised to discover that I had succumbed to relational bias, comparing one employee's performance against another's. I had violated the standard rule in performance management, which is to hold people accountable to an organizational standard rather than a relational comparison. During group discussions within the program, I realized that I hadn't set an organizational standard for success in the role. For example, I hadn't defined how much activity a marketing specialist should engage in each month, how many practice areas they should support, and how to measure quality. Instead, I had used my top performer's results as the benchmark, which I now recognized was unfair.
Immediately after the session, I established clear expectations against which I would hold all team members accountable. I also sought input from my team, realizing that expecting everyone to consistently match my top performers' results was unrealistic. I set a fair benchmark that challenged people while remaining realistic, and all team members were held accountable against the same standard. It turned out that my "underperforming" employee's results were reasonable; they just appeared lackluster in comparison to others on the team. Additionally, I introduced additional incentives for those who wished to exceed expectations, rather than punishments for those meeting expectations.
Pitfall 5: Confusing Performance Management with Performance Coaching
I'll admit that I wasn't entirely clear on the difference between performance management and performance coaching. For most of my career, I relied on feedback during performance reviews to identify areas for improvement and guide my career. However, this process often felt top-down, with my manager evaluating my performance, rating it, and suggesting areas for improvement. I didn't always feel that the performance objectives were aligned with my career progression.
I've learned that while performance management is essential, it primarily focuses on how an employee can improve in their current role. Relying exclusively on performance management for skill development may limit an employee's opportunity to expand their capabilities and prepare for future roles or responsibilities. While both performance management and coaching aim for improvement, their underlying processes differ significantly.
Unlike the traditional top-down process that drives many performance management reviews, coaching is a more collaborative, employee-led process in which the manager plays the role of a thought partner rather than a judge, advisor, or director. Coaching empowers the employee to determine areas for development, making them more accountable for changing their behavior. It fosters competency rather than dependency. This was another real “aha” moment for me. If you empower the employee to decide what areas to develop, they are far more likely to hold themselves accountable for changing behavior.
I've already started implementing my new insights. I've engaged in individual coaching discussions with each of my employees over the past months. They selected areas for improvement, and we set objectives collaboratively. Our discussions involve brainstorming, critical thinking, and skill practice. These coaching sessions are proving to be beneficial for both my team and me. I’m finding that I, too, am learning a great deal during these coaching sessions. It feels like a win-win!
Learn more about our Managing for Impact Series
Managing for Impact is a five-week blended learning program that combines interactive virtual workshops with self-paced online learning modules and a one-to-one coaching session to give managers the confidence they need to lead their teams and achieve extraordinary results. Want to deliver this workshop in-house? Want to hear more testimonials like this? Contact us! We would love to hear from you.