New York Lawyer
November 14, 2002

Q:
I am a woman in a government office who supervises a number of attorneys, some male and some female. I get criticized because I�m not friendly enough, in the view of some of the women I supervise. They want me to be their friend, sort of a sisterhood thing.

However, in the past when I�ve gotten too close to people, it�s been hard to deal with them if there�s a problem with their work and I need to call them on it.

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

Most managers confront the friend versus manager conundrum at some point or another. Solving it requires clarifying the fundamental objectives of your workplace.

First and foremost, you�re there to work ... as a prosecutor or in some other governmental capacity, with all the aims that the workplace includes. That imperative reigns above all.

Another laudable goal is a comfortable and enjoyable place to work, one where people treat each other with respect and cultivate a collegial atmosphere.

However, personal relationships at the office differ significantly from ordinary social interaction. Managers in particular need to keep in mind that while they can and should cultivate positive relationships with the people who report to them, they must also be clear about the expectations on the job, and not become so enmeshed with underlings that they are incapable of fairly evaluating their performances. If that occurs, it�s unfair to the person involved and to others, who will be resentful and feel they are not getting a fair shake.

You sound like you already have experienced the situation where you had to deal with a "friend" whose performance had gone downhill. Therefore you already know the pitfalls here. Obviously I wouldn�t advise that you strictly avoid all personal and informal/social interaction with underlings, nor do you want to do that, as it will harm the professional relationships. But I would suggest being careful about the signals you send, the things you talk about, and the expectations you maintain about performances.

An aid to this balancing act is to have very clear expectations, as detailed as possible, about people�s performances, so that if there�s a problem, there are job criteria to point to in a factual, non-judgmental way to serve as a framework for discussion.

To those who criticize you about your aloofness, I would be very open about the difficulties involved in balancing your responsibilities and your relationships. Women often expect a "sisterhood"-type egalitarianism among women, even their bosses, and this can be problematic. They may resent a woman who actively puts herself above other females, feeling it violates bonds among women. In fact, however, the sisterhood requirement denies women the opportunity to exercise leadership and power in an effective way. No one denigrates a man who exercises power over others but they are more likely to criticize a woman who does so. Women wind up walking a fine line between asserting their responsibilities while not alienating people in the process. If you are fair about your relationships with people, and hew strictly to factual evaluations of people based on clear criteria, you will be better able to exercise authority without alienating people.

Finally, I�d suggest that part of the solution lies within you.

You need to develop a certain backbone in dealing with the disapproval of supervisees who are unhappy with your approach. If you clarify your own responsibilities -- to run your area as professionally as possible in an effort to better meet the mission of the office -- and ensure that you are treating people fairly, you can give yourself a break from any guilt you might experience due to criticism from others.

If you stick to your guns, unapologetically doing your job, treating people with respect but keeping a bit of distance to maintain enough perspective to evaluate them fairly along with everyone else, over time people will respect the balance you are trying to maintain.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work