What does it mean to "manage up"?
During a recent Student Affairs Chat (#sachat) session on Twitter, a conversation about supervision challenged some of my thinking about the topic. That week's #sachat session (on October 31) was the first week that our professional staff did a team chat. We reserved a meeting space, had lunch, watched the chat unfold on a projector using Twitterfall and engaged in conversation with colleagues from around the country. The topic happened to be about supervision, which led to an interesting conversation on Twitter as well as in our meeting room since I was with the staff I supervise.
The Twitter conversation seemed to move between how professionals supervise student staff and how professional staff supervisory relationships are created. A string of comments led us into a conversation about "managing up." No one in our room could accurately define what we mean when we say "manage up," so I'd like to examine it here.
The notion of "managing up" makes me a little anxious. My first thought was that the idea sounded manipulative and self-serving. My basic initial understanding was that it involved managing the relationship with your supervisor to give yourself more control (or the perception of more control) over your work environment. How could that be healthy for an organization? As a relatively new supervisor with a tremendous amount of room for growth in all facets of supervision, I am continually analyzing whether "managing up" is healthy or unhealthy in my own department and division.
So what is "managing up"? Allison Vaillancourt wrote a piece in July 2013 in The Chronicle of Higher Education's "On Hiring" blog called "Are you managing up?" Vaillancourt defines managing up as "the practice of engaging with the person above you in the organizational food chain in the way he or she prefers to be engaged and acting in alignment with his or her priorities." All judgements aside about her use of "food chain" for her definition of organizational structure, I think she makes some good points. Vaillancourt clarifies that managing up is different than sucking up in that it "requires adapting rather than selling your soul." The definition that Vaillancourt provides is really about the ability to analyze the culture and dynamics of an organization under the influence of a specific leader - who are the go-to people? What matters most to the leader? How do you shape your ideas to resonate with the priorities of the leader? Okay - I can get on board with this definition. It makes sense to me and makes the term feel a little less manipulative.
Jennifer Gould and Joshua Hettrick presented a session at the 2012 NEACUHO Fall Drive-In Conference titled "Managing Up: Engaging your supervisor in productive ways." The transcript of the presentation provides some insight into another way of defining "managing up." Gould & Hettrick give a list of guidelines for how to manage up effectively. Where I struggle with their guidelines, though, is that what seems to be intuitive about good supervisor/supervisee dynamics is being framed as "managing up." This is an interesting development (maybe not a new one, but certainly more of a revelation to me than I thought it would be). The need to shift the sense of power to the entry- or mid-level professional feels very much like a Millennial generation thing - that ideas like "communicate effectively," "no surprises!," and "provide solutions, not problems" are no longer just basics of organizational dynamics but now must be commendable efforts by those who are actively trying to control the dynamics of their relationship with their supervisor.
I am concerned about professionals now (including those in my generation) who feel that supervisors must adapt entirely to the preferences and style of work of the supervisee. If a relationship is not always positive or there are consequences to ineffective work production, then the perception is that a primary reason is some dysfunctional supervisory style. While I certainly think that there is a shared responsibility for the supervisor and the supervisee to work together to create an effective relationship, I'm not convinced that it needs to be a 50-50 share on the compromise. Call it old school or call it callous but I feel that a majority of the adjustment should be to on the shoulders of the supervisee to adapt to the priorities of the supervisor and/or leaders of the organization.
Are there bad supervisors? Absolutely. But generally those in supervisory roles are tasked with different levels of understanding and vision for an organization and therefore approach roles and responsibilities differently, which can often lead to tension or conflict - both healthy and unhealthy - between supervisors and supervisees. So while "managing up" can be an effective way for a supervisee to try to gain control on their work environment and relationships, it can also be misguided. We tend to know much more about our own role or those that report to us than we do about the roles of those who supervise us - I know the ins and outs of the Area Coordinator positions I supervise much more than I understand the pressures and responsibilities of the Vice President to whom I report. I work hard to understand the multiple dimensions of my Vice President's job and I feel that sort of relationship management is more about perception and awareness than it is control.I feel my perceived approach to relationship management promotes a stronger interpersonal working relationship, but I would tread very lightly into trying to manage any part of that relationship that dealt directly with the functional aspects of her job.
TJ Logan's Student Affairs Feature article about self-awareness speaks to this idea of "managing up" and clarying how the supervisor-supervisee relationship functions. Logan discusses the value in understanding one's role and being more self-aware about the ability to influence or control decisions. He ends the piece by saying "It is not just about engaging and having a voice. It is about doing those things in the most effective ways possible." So while it is important for a professional to determine the ways to be engaged in decision-making and leadership, it is also incredibly valuable to be self-aware and understand that - as Logan writes - "If you always have something to say, people will stop listening." Understand your role in an organization and be mindful of how and when trying to "manage up" will be most beneficial to your team.
So is "managing up" manipulative? Is it healthy? Is it beneficial to an organization? Upon further examination and thinking in the context of how I interact with my supervisor (and how my staff interacts with me), framing "managing up" in terms of organizational efficiency and by making transparency a priority makes me feel a little more at ease with the idea.
How have you heard the term "managing up"? Do you find yourself utilizing techniques of managing up that allow you to be more productive or allow your team to function more efficiently? Share your thoughts with me on Twitter (@pottscharlie)!
Tweet
