A proven and dangerous way to manage collaborators so you don't get caught up in criticism or blame

We have spoken, in some previous articles, of the different managerial strategies on the management of the workers' activities of the own team, aimed at achieving the objectives assigned to each manager by the companies.

In particular, the theme of “Divide et Impera” which pushes towards maximum competition between human resources, letting there be moments of friction and internal struggle, to raise the bar of professional tension more and more and facilitating the flow of constant adrenaline.

The position of the manager who manages the fight from outside, the advantages or disadvantages of this practice, are elements to be taken with extreme pay attention to the implications that this approach can generate.

The "divide and conquer" could lead to an advantage in corporate objectives, in particular conditions and with a careful internal analysis of the team by the manager, but it is, of course, not the only passive theory that a manager can introduce.

In fact, another widespread practice of worker management can also emerge in companies, which is that of a team manager or several teams who “uses” collaborators to protect one's top position.

They are complex managers, with an elusive character, with a way of reasoning that is not always linear, who make the manipulation of the workforce a means to consolidate one's position, absorbing the advantages of this management from the daily work, whether it concerns successes, therefore his victories, team failures, therefore defeats and the incapacity of individuals.

The principle of their work is to involve collaborators in daily activities, transferring to them the concept of job responsibility and the enthusiasm of the objectives, with the ability to instill in people that sense of dedication to the cause and sacrifice.

Gladly praise, push, scold, assign tasks asking for sharing to the group or individuals, makes a team and keeps the competition high, creates a sort of dependence on his collaborators, a subtle form of perpetual gratitude towards himself, a feeling of inexhaustible debt towards the boss, without ever, in any case, entering into choices and decisions directly.

It pretends a constructive neutrality, a Franciscan form of aid to the growth of collaborators, a way of encouraging them to improve themselves professionally, through the assumption of own responsibilities towards the objectives and the company.

He even creates an abstract form of gratitude from his collaborators, who see his figure as an almost disinterested guardian in his top position , which strives to make the managers of the future grow, which shares its intelligence to improve the deductive and decision-making capacity of its collaborators.

Very often, however, it happens that the manager does not want to get his hands dirty with thorny, risky or uncomfortable decisions, which, however, his role would ask him to take on himself personally, also to protect his team.

He is astute in understanding that his position depends on the good result of the work of his collaborators, whose merits he will assume when the team reaches or exceeds corporate objectives, but that in the event of errors or failures in the objectives, he must demonstrate his ability to intervene to remedy the situation so that it is clear to everyone that the negative event is not his responsibility.

This attitude builds a clear communication with his superiors, about his efforts to find the culprit or culprits of the failure, demonstrating that his vision of the management or of the problem would have been different, and that within the team there could be some "bad apples" to isolate.

A behavior suitable for floating on problems without being overwhelmed, having acted in such a way as to attribute the blame to those who have exposed themselves among themselves collaborators, naively thinking that the team as a whole, including the boss, shared the choices made.

The collaborator who up to now has worked with satisfaction in bringing his own contribution to the company, experiencing the small limelight, enjoying the small envy of colleagues for one special professional relationship with the manager he depends on, he had the self-conviction that the group, including his contact person, had reasoned and decided together on the best paths to follow.

Instead he will find himself isolated, in the guilt of having taken decisions independently, without the explicit and clearly communicated endorsement of his superior , with what was probably the routine, becomes the exception of never authorized behavior.

What was clear to everyone, verbally, is no longer so for the superior and consequently probably also for his colleagues , who for obvious reasons could not take their defensive positions or even deny the evidence for convenience.

The old grievances resurface, the dormant rivalries, the new alliances in the team, the environment becomes hot and thorny to the point that internal showdowns are possible .

Any manager who adopts this defensive policy for his position, in a slightly different way depending on the company, the market and his character, will tend to worsening the condition of the collaborators on whom he has decided to blame for a negative situation, because saving them would mean, in some way, endorsing what they have done and what he should have done in their place.

Machine translation. We apologize for any inaccuracies. Original article in Italian.