The Not-So-Subtle Art of a Controlling Boss.

HAVING WORKED IN NON-PROFITS WHERE I HAD AUTONOMY OVER MANY ASPECTS TO A MICROMANAGED ENVIRONMENT IS QUITE CHALLENGING.

In a non-profit, one is often given a lot of freedom to make decisions, use their creativity and implement their ideas in order to achieve a goal. However, when a micromanaging leader onboards, one may feel suffocated and frustrated as every decision, big or small, needs to be approved, limiting one’s ability to take initiative and be innovative.

The constant monitoring and supervision definitely creates a less enjoyable work environment. It takes time to adjust to such a change and finding ways to navigate and thrive in a micromanaged environment can seem almost impossible.

I WORK FOR A SMALL NONPROFIT AS A DIRECTOR OF ONE OF ITS PROGRAMS.

The board decided to lay off our executive director in 2019 due to lack of performance. About a year later a new executive director was hired. Nine months later that executive director left the organization under bad terms due to a conflict with a board member. Within the next six months there was a lot of community conversations going on about our organization. The entire board changed and one of the board members ended up being our new executive director.

Even though all the directors were nervous and despite having had a couple of meetings with the board president about our hesitations of a board member becoming our new boss, we collectively decided there was nothing we could do about this. We decided to look at things in an optimistic light. We didn’t know these people but what could we do in the end, we needed our jobs.

GETTING TO KNOW THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WAS DIFFICULT.

Her office was separated from all the other directors’ offices by an outside courtyard. She never stopped by to say hello or check in. Before the end of her second month as executive director, she decided to have a “meet and greet” with all the staff of the organization. This ended up being an entire meeting discussing all the things going wrong with the practically hundred-year-old organization and all the things that she’s going to change. She went on to discuss how most of the programs didn’t fit the mission in their entirety and how they should all fully align. She left all the staff with an uneasy feeling and wondering if their jobs are going to be secure into the future.

SHORTLY AFTER THAT CAME THE CALENDAR INVITES TITLED “ONE-ON-ONE SUPERVISIONS.”

That word “supervisions” alone is enough to make someone feel diminished at a job they have been doing very well without official leadership for months on end. We were directors that always had a sense of autonomy. We survived the pandemic by transitioning programs to work virtually for community members and securing government funds to keep staff employed.

We never had a need for one-on-one “supervision” meetings with our executive director or our transitional leadership. Sure, we had one-on-one meetings, but not under the banner “supervision”.  We also used to hold director meetings once a month where we would all meet with the executive director or interim leadership and talk with each other about what we are doing with our programs and how things are going. This new executive director only held two director meetings in the first 6 months and spent both not learning about the programs we led, but about changes. Changes are a good thing typically and needed for forward momentum. But when someone endeavors changes at an organization without even appearing to understand the whole picture down to the daily tasks of staff, that can cause a good amount of frustration.

THE FIRST DIRECTOR TO LEAVE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.

They both left because they just could not effectively collaborate with this new executive director. When they resigned, they didn’t officially say it was for that reason but, we had all good camaraderie with each other, we all communicated with each other, and we all knew why they were leaving.

During my first few years at the organization, I was empowered to look for and be involved in the grant process, was allowed to network, and make community connections. I was also included in award events and other public events as a member of the organization’s leadership team. In addition, I was able to freely use petty cash to buy small things here and there needed for the program all the while being cognizant of my budget and trusted to stay within its limits.

During the course of the executive director learning the billing and other important pieces of the director of finance’s job before she resigned, the director of finance relayed to me that the executive director said I will no longer be allowed to use petty cash for staff appreciation items, that I will have to submit a check request. I was a little taken aback by this because staff appreciation gifts were generally spontaneous in the organization’s culture. To make that work I would have to plan out a month in advance because checks had to be requested a month in advance. But I decided to let this go because I can roll with things.

I WAS TOLD I WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO DO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS FOR MY OWN PROGRAM.

I had to go through the administrative assistant. Then I was told that I’m no longer allowed to coordinate contracts for my program, that has to go through the Administrative Assistant first. After that, I was told that all ordering had to be done online, only through two stores, and that must be done by the Administrative Assistant as well. The explanation for this removal of some autonomy was to establish a more streamlined process for things. All it did in reality was create frustration and cause more work in actuality.

IT SEEMED LIKE EVERY OTHER WEEK SOMETHING I USED TO HAVE AUTONOMY OVER WAS BEING TAKEN AWAY.

The program I direct provides meals. Each month I used to go to the local wholesale store to pick up a months’ worth of grocery supplies with the company credit card. Now I had to submit my order to the administrative assistant, and she had to order it online and schedule a pickup. It was just an extra step that was time consuming. One step I didn’t need to do for four years until now. It was more complicated because if an item was out of stock, we couldn’t get it. Prior I had the autonomy to pick out an alternative item while at the store. Now I had to have extra emails with the administrative assistant to choose an alternative. More often than not with nonprofit programs, it’s almost impossible to order everything needed online and from just two different stores.

Anytime I needed something for my program, and it was ordered, the administrative assistant would email that the order was placed and approved by the executive director. For some reason she felt the need to write that it was approved. Clearly, if it was placed, it was approved. This was definitely something that irritated the other directors in the organization as well.

THE INCIDENT THAT REALLY SHOWED ME WHO SHE WAS INVOLVED A GRANT.

Over the years I developed connections with different community organizations and an excellent reputation in the community for the people that I serve. One of the local alliances was giving out a $1000 grant award for an organization serving the population my program serves. We applied for and was awarded the grant. When we were awarded the grant, I wasn’t told.

I knew about the time when the grant should have been awarded but I hadn’t heard anything about it from the executive director. So, I emailed her asking if she heard anything about it and she said that yes, we were awarded the grant.

I was happy of course because that grant money was going to go towards activities for our clients. I emailed her asking if she could let me know who signed the letter so I could send them a quick thank you for supporting our program. She informed me that a check didn’t come in the mail, that there was an award presentation she received the check at. I was surprised that she didn’t inform me of our grant win. She also failed to invite me to the check presentation event, even though most of these attendees were my peers. I was also the one who brought the grant application information to the organization.

SHE WENT ON TO INFORM ME THAT I CANNOT REPRESENT THE ORGANIZATION AND THANK ANOTHER ORGANIZATION FOR A GRANT AWARD.

She notified me that if I know somebody personally within that alliance, I can send them an email of thanks on a personal level, but I must CC her in that email. I did not respond to that email because I was left speechless at the level of micromanaging she was enforcing.  I also understood I did not hold the position that represents the entire organization. My only intention was to thank them for their support of my program from one peer to another as had been the culture within the organization prior.

About a month went by and I didn’t say anything to her about it. But at one of our one-on-one “supervisions” I brought it up. I expressed it was very surprising to me that she didn’t want to ask me to join her for the check presentation. I explained that having had worked the past few years in this organization enjoying a wonderfully strong camaraderie with my peers and leadership, it was a little bit disconcerting to not have been included or acknowledged for having any part of the grant award.

I also mentioned to her that a few people from that alliance had asked why I wasn’t at that presentation and I told her all I could tell them was I wasn’t told about it. It was obvious she was uncomfortable with this conversation and probably surprised that I brought it up. Her conduct really zoned in on her myopic view of the organization and not looking at it holistically in relation to the staff or programs.

FOR ME THAT WAS THE CORE OF THE ISSUE.

She never took any time to learn about the programs since onboarding over six months ago. That was discouraging for the directors and program staff. She also never spent a day within any of the programs learning the nuances or how the staff interacted with each other. Not to mention never spending time with the directors learning what was required to do their jobs on the day-to-day. Everything seemed to be on a need-to-know basis. Here is an organization of less than twenty people and she finally asks for the staff schedules after being on board for over six months.

STAFF NEED TO FEEL TRUSTED TO DO THE JOBS THEY WERE HIRED FOR.

If staff feel trusted to do the job they were hired for, they’ll be happy and that will help make the boss’s job easier. Managing is not about having control over the staff but allowing the staff to just do their jobs. Executive directors should trust that staff will come to them when they need something or aren’t sure about something.

Most staff know their limits and what they need to ask approvals for. Most importantly, staff should be acknowledged for the work that they do, and they should be thanked for it, often. Someone with a leadership style dictating every move staff must make, without having any understanding of what moves are required daily, is very frustrating. Not to mention the fact that she’s often not on-site and takes over a week to reply to any email. But that’s a story for another time.

From your window, how do you see it?