An interesting phenomenon in the workplace is the transition of a manager from one group to another.
In some cases the new manager will take time to get to know the staff and understand the new area of responsibility before enacting major changes.
In other cases the manager descends like a tornado with a compelling need to make a distinctive and immediate change leaving a path of destruction in its wake.
When the tornado manager hits, the team members find themselves on unsure footing.
All the plans and programs that were underway are blown up and no one is sure how to move forward.
Positions change overnight.
The tornado manager isn't interested in what the team has been doing or their ideas about how to move forward.
In order to get out of the path of destruction, often there is a major attrition rate as staff members flee to other organizations.
Work slows to a standstill while everyone waits for the disruptive manager to begin to get traction...
if traction is to be had.
What drives the need for this wholesale change? Is it a need to establish dominance or an attempt to demonstrate leadership? Is it the "not invented here" syndrome that automatically rejects any plans that weren't directly generated by the new manager? The manager's behavior immediately dismisses the work, effort, and even the structure of the team.
From where is the sense of empowerment derived? Often it occurs as part of the "buddy system" where a senior manager sponsors or recommends the disruptive manager for the new position.
The hiring manager who makes a decision based on the recommendation of an executive may find it to be an unpleasant surprise when the tornado hits and the attrition begins.
It becomes complicated for the hiring manager to deal with the situation without risking the relationship the sponsorwho influenced the hire.
What comes in the wake a year or two years downstream? More often than not the tornado.
They're often better at blowing through town than at rebuilding often destroying the confidence and careers of the staff.
The destruction can have impact that lasts for years.
If they've alienated enough people (especially the hiring manager and peers), then they'll probably start looking for a new opportunity to demonstrate their "take charge" capabilities.
How do you handle a tornado descending in your midst as the incoming manager? If you're really unhappy, start networking and look for other opportunities.
In the meantime, be sure to demonstrate loyalty and go with the flow because nothing less will be tolerated.
If you're lucky, you'll survive until the tornado moves on and find yourself, once again, in a functioning organization.
In some cases the new manager will take time to get to know the staff and understand the new area of responsibility before enacting major changes.
In other cases the manager descends like a tornado with a compelling need to make a distinctive and immediate change leaving a path of destruction in its wake.
When the tornado manager hits, the team members find themselves on unsure footing.
All the plans and programs that were underway are blown up and no one is sure how to move forward.
Positions change overnight.
The tornado manager isn't interested in what the team has been doing or their ideas about how to move forward.
In order to get out of the path of destruction, often there is a major attrition rate as staff members flee to other organizations.
Work slows to a standstill while everyone waits for the disruptive manager to begin to get traction...
if traction is to be had.
What drives the need for this wholesale change? Is it a need to establish dominance or an attempt to demonstrate leadership? Is it the "not invented here" syndrome that automatically rejects any plans that weren't directly generated by the new manager? The manager's behavior immediately dismisses the work, effort, and even the structure of the team.
From where is the sense of empowerment derived? Often it occurs as part of the "buddy system" where a senior manager sponsors or recommends the disruptive manager for the new position.
The hiring manager who makes a decision based on the recommendation of an executive may find it to be an unpleasant surprise when the tornado hits and the attrition begins.
It becomes complicated for the hiring manager to deal with the situation without risking the relationship the sponsorwho influenced the hire.
What comes in the wake a year or two years downstream? More often than not the tornado.
They're often better at blowing through town than at rebuilding often destroying the confidence and careers of the staff.
The destruction can have impact that lasts for years.
If they've alienated enough people (especially the hiring manager and peers), then they'll probably start looking for a new opportunity to demonstrate their "take charge" capabilities.
How do you handle a tornado descending in your midst as the incoming manager? If you're really unhappy, start networking and look for other opportunities.
In the meantime, be sure to demonstrate loyalty and go with the flow because nothing less will be tolerated.
If you're lucky, you'll survive until the tornado moves on and find yourself, once again, in a functioning organization.
Source...