Great question: Who manages whom?

It has always been assumed that one of your main tasks as a manager is to manage your employees. Be of service to them; take care to use their strengths; to engage them; hold them accountable… well, you get the picture.

Some even take it so far that the manager is responsible for the happiness and success of the employee at work. I don’t agree with that. Of course a manager has a huge impact on the workplace but even the best managers can’t make an employee happy or engaged if they really don’t want to. A manager can’t force people to be happy or engaged at work.

What you can do? As a manager you can create the circumstances in which a person can choose to be happy but that’s it.

Lately I’ve seen a new perspective on the responsibilities and impact of a manager. Some CEO’s of larger companies are taking a different approach.

For example, Yuchun Lee (founder of Allego), doesn’t want to manage his employees. As he said in an interview in the New York Times:

I tell everybody: I’m more of a leader, not a manager. So, don’t expect me to manage you. You have to manage me. (New York Times, January, 8th, 2017)

Lee is not the only CEO with this kind of approach. Another CEO is Sukhinder Singh Cassidy. Her approach is a bit different than Lee’s but she also emphasizes the possibility of her being managed, instead of her managing the employee. Her philosophy is:

Either You Manage Me or I Manage You.

And although Cassidy indicates that the option of her managing an employee is available she stresses in the same interview that if she must manage an employee’s time or create a vision for them then she nor the employee are at their best. (New York Times, July 10th, 2016)

Both CEO’s expect more from their direct reports. They leave more responsibility with the employee than a more traditional manager would do: the employee needs to take ownership for their needs and wishes. Yes, the manager is still of service –available when you need them and willing to manage you when needed – but the rules of the game are different.

The employee takes the initiative and owns the interactions in the manager-employee relationship much more than in the more “traditional” manager-employee relationship.

How could that look like?

So, what are the consequences of that approach in Lee’s company?

1 — No performance reviews.

2 — No one-on-one meetings. Only when an employee request one.

3 — Feedback: on request or when Lee has feedback himself

4 — Help: always provided when an employee asks for it but Lee is not actively thinking about your needs for being successful, more productive, or reaching your goals.

The concept of employees managing you could be worth exploring. It does require, however, that you, as the manager, are easy to approach. I’ve met so many managers who tell me that their door is always open. And that is true: their door stands open most of the time. But somehow the amount of people who walk through the threshold is very limited.

I think that if you’re ready to have your employees manage you, this would be the first step. Make yourself approachable and easy to talk to, even when things don’t go according to plan.

And that might be something that we would all like to work on. No matter who is managing whom – be accessible.