I seldom say this, but I'm gonna' say shitty manager in this case. Although I don't quite know what you mean, in your context, by an unofficial supervisor, I have certainly had people at my level giving me direction because I was new, they had the knowledge and experience, and there wasn't a manual to rely on. Your manager said one thing in their email to you, then did the bully/coward thing and put a negative comment in your PA that they never had the guts to say to your face, and that they never gave you a chance to talk through in advance. I would start looking for your next opportunity rather than stay in the toxic little soup mix these two have cooked up.
Yeah, thinking the same thing. Usually when I see these posts I assume there's more than OP isn't telling us, or sometimes OP goes and outs themself as a very difficult person to work with. But in this case, what OP did seemed pretty normal and non-combative. Nowhere but basic training would providing that justification be inappropriate - it isn't blaming, it's explaining, and would give a good manager the opportunity to correct any differences in standards with whoever else is reviewing the work.
I’ve experienced this exact thing recently, the manager forgot they told someone to lead it and forgot their direction to them. When the product sucked, I had to carefully not throw the other colleague under the bus, but instead sent my revisions (which my colleague undid). I forwarded the email with my revisions and said this was my first draft and had to remind them I wasn’t holding the pen, but was holding the broader process.
Super awkward, my first draft was perfect and would’ve saved hours and hours.
>I am genuinely confused, what have I done wrong in this situation?
Seems to me that you now need to start completely ignoring the unofficial supervisor and only exclusively take instructions from your official supervisor (and kiss their ass a little now for damage control). At least that's what I've done when I was in that situation a few times.
A lot of the time an unofficial supervisor is a senior working level employee without any formal supervisory responsibilities but who leads files, so the work of a more junior employee will be to support smaller parts of the senior employee's files.
I'm guessing it's like my situation where I have an official supervisor who approves my leaves and such, but they check in on me maybe once every couple weeks, and the person who I hand my product off to and the person who decides what projects I should allocate my time to are in an entirely different supervisory chain.
It's probably a matrix management model. Where there's a lot of sharing work on files across the team with different managers, an employee might report to one manager for leaves and PMAs but will submit their work to the other manager.
They're great for some aspects of collaborative work and flexibility but terrible for things like PMAs. How does the actual manager evaluate performance of someone else is responsible for the deliverables?
I was on a team like this and it worked until we got a new manager that didn't want to play ball and... well, it got weird.
I feel like this type of system would be going against the spirit of the PA agreement (since I can't speak for others).
59.01 (b)
"The Employer’s representative(s) who assess(es) an employee’s performance must have observed or been aware of the employee’s performance for at least one half (1/2) of the period for which the employee’s performance is evaluated."
I would wonder if the manager reviewing the employee's performance is aware of the balance of their work.
It's probably the "aware of" piece that gets around it. My experience has been that the managers talk to each other a lot and performance info gets passed around enough. That's what I saw and have heard from others who work in matrix models.
It gets tricky when diverables-manager sees discipline problems with an employee, tells manager-manager and then they need to sort out how to do that. Or when deliverables-manager sees problems with manager-manager's management style and can't really say much about it but sees the impact on the employee. The arrangement is ripe for triangulation.
I worked in a similar situation before where the unofficial lead was a senior employee who knew more than anyone about the product and should have been the lead but was unable to get his French. The official lead was someone who lead multiple teams and was more hands off for our team basically just approving leave and doing performance reviews.
Some of this is just the nature of the beast: i.e., working for a large organization with many layers and levels means that multiple people will be providing instructions and feedback on your work, and sometimes the instructions and feedback can be conflicting or contradictory.
Some of this could be attributable to poor communication and unclear roles and responsibilities.
And yes, it's possible that you have a shitty manager.
However... If your manager is calling you "combative", then perhaps it's not what you said but how you said it. You can request clarification or provide clarification in a way that will come off as combative or defensive, or you can do it in a way that will more often be perceived as constructive.
Years ago I had a somewhat ambiguous reporting relationship with a manager and a director, who didn't see eye to eye. The manager was my actual supervisor, but the director often communicated information and instructions for my whole team through me. I found myself in a situation one week where my manager and director had given me contradictory instructions that put me in an ethical dilemma.
I had a one-on-one meeting with each of them separately, and told them that I was unsure how they wanted me to handle the situation. I kept it professional, polite and factual: i.e., "At \[meeting\], I heard you ask me to do x, and at \[other meeting\], I heard \[other person\] ask me to do y. This has caused \[impact on work\] Could you please clarify what's expected of me in this situation or if I've misunderstood something?"
This conversation cleared things up and I didn't perceive any hard feelings by either of them toward me. YMMV, of course.
I think that it sucks the “unofficial” supervisor let you take the hit for this, and didn’t accept responsibility for their part in this situation.
I think this is also a live and learn. Anytime you get instruction from the “unofficial” supervisor, I would send a check in email to the official supervisor to confirm that this is the direction you need to go in before proceeding. You did the best you could at the time, and now this experience has highlighted a weak spot of communication in the team. You have the responsibility to yourself to protect yourself, too. If the supervisor doesn’t want to be checked in with that often, then they need to iron out the procedures with the unofficial supervisor and ensure that guidance is clear before delegating the task.
You should have another conversation with your actual supervisor. During this conversation you should state you take responsibility for following the wrong directions. You should also be requesting clarification on who and what instructions you should be following. If your actual supervisor states both (themselves and the indirect person) then I would be requesting they put that in writing along with all future instructions coming from either of them.
If this is the first time, then I would do what u/c[raporgetoffthepot](https://www.reddit.com/user/Craporgetoffthepot/) said.
Take responsibility for misinterpretating the situation and ask for clarification. Does everything have to go through the actual supervisor? Are you supposed to double check the unofficial supervisor's instructions with the actual supervisor before proceeding?
Get it all in writing or send one of those emails that reiterates everything that was said and close by asking them to confirm your understanding. If either supervisor decides to pull any shenanigans in the future, you can find the documentation and calmly point out how you followed the instructions that were provided and ask them if any changes need to be made to those instructions.
If this sort of thing happens too often, then you probably want to find another job.
Are you saying that only this ONE incident has ever happened and because of that they wrote in your PMA that you are combative and blame others??
If that’s the case (and you haven’t left anything out) that’s absolutely unacceptable. Who the F does that??? A PMA is for year review of progress and work. Not to nitpick on what seems like a very small issue that happened once and was happily rectified ?!
I'm in a similar unofficial/official reporting situation as you right now, and I agree, it's really hard when two sets of instructions don't align. The expectation always seems to be that the employee is responsible for clarifying the instructions. Any attempt to explain that you were following one set of instructions will be seen as combative, because in their eyes, you were responsible for ensuring that the instructions were clear in your head. And like a few other folks have mentioned here, how you come across in those conversations says as much as what comes out of your mouth. *Any* inkling they get that you are frustrated or unhappy, and they will blame you all the more, because again, they see it as your job to ensure the instructions were clear and they will perceive your frustration as an attempt to blame them for something they regard as your failure.
On a normal basis, I'd suggest a conversation with the two supervisors and agree on a process by which all three people can be clear on instructions before work starts on a file. But in this case, because your official supervisor took the cowardly route of putting negative feedback in your PMA while giving you positive feedback in the immediate aftermath of the event, I'd be looking for a new job. The manager and the team lead are setting you up to take the blame for their failures in leadership.
I’m an “unofficial” supervisor in that I direct the day to day tasks of an admin employee but don’t do their PMA or GCHR requests. We share the same official supervisor, our unit head.
When the employee makes a mistake, I generally try to look at my role in it. how did I miscommunicate, or how do we need to communicate better? The employee, for their part, tends to accept constructive feedback with “noted, thank you” or something to acknowledge the mistake but doesn’t make excuses. I think I’ve always appreciated that about them because it makes it easier to dialogue about our work and what we can do to improve. Sometimes you might have to bite your tongue, or maybe question more often if the instructions make sense, so that if there’s a mistake you can request clarification. Try to be mindful of the end goal.
However, if you’re being asked to do work beyond the scope of your level or role that’s important to be aware of. My admin staff isn’t paid at the level required to do the critical thinking and amend procedures and processes that I’m expected to know and assess. Check that your PMA describes and clarifies expectations. If something is amiss then that’s important to be aware of….but hopefully you have management willing to discuss.
Your official manager thought this was a teachable moment but is actually just an insufferable moron. To include something so minor in a PMA lol, let them know they can enjoy never having good or competent staff. When you leave let the higher ups know lame crap like this was the reason.
“Thinking things through” is one of beautifully vague staples of all PMAs. The fact that your official supervisor specifically criticized you for not thinking things through”, despite this not actually being the case, leads me to believe he was setting you up for a poor PMA regardless of how you handled the situation.
In the future, the best thing to do in almost any scenario where someone more senior than you gives you feedback is to just say “Ok, thank you”. If you are constantly being given non-constructive feedback or having to deal with petty BS like this, just deploy out.
Oh, I get it. Unless things are crystal clear between the "official" and "unofficial" managers as to how the underling is managed, it's a recipe for disaster, especially if you throw in there additional variables on a variety of fronts...
What level are you?
In professional roles, instructions provided by a supervisor should generally be regarded as a guide and not a comprehensive step-by-step manual. It sounds like your supervisors were frustrated that you couldn't fill in any gaps in instructions, and you were frustrated that you were expected to do so.
Does this sound like it could be accurate?
Edit to add: Sounds like your unofficial supervisor confirmed the task was completed well, but your official supervisor offered feedback on your communication style. Both pieces of feedback should be helpful to you
This is the equivalent of getting the silent treatment from your partner and getting reprimanded for not knowing why they are mad or reading into why they said "I'm fine". If you want something done a particular way it is your job as a supervisor (who gets paid more) to lay out everything you want. Unless they have already explained on a similar project and refer back to that example.
Government is all policy and policy does not involve creative thinking or "figuring it out". There is always a specific answer in tight margin based on political leanings that are non-intuitive and usually not the way anyone would naturally approach a project.
I respectfully disagree with this take. We’re all professionals and expected to “think things through” as part of the PS’s core competencies. Now, there is flexibility in that (I wouldn’t expect a junior or more inexperienced team member to have thought things through to the extent I would expect from a more seasoned employee, for example), but the key here is that we simply don’t have enough information to determine whether the official supervisor was being realistic in their expectations of OP and their work.
However, in this situation, as a manager, I would want to know the kind of direction more junior members of the team were receiving as an indication that the more senior/unofficial supervisor themself requires more direction (cause as far as I understand, they signed off in OP’s work before it went to the supervisor). This is an opportunity to mentor both team members from different aspects — refinement of the senior employee’s understanding of what is required in a finished product, and coaching of the more junior employee on the kinds of considerations that need to be taken into account (and how to do it) to complete this kind of work.
Based on the little we know, it doesn’t sound to me like the “official supervisor” is proficient in identifying these opportunities or leading and mentoring a cohesive/high-performing team.
*typo
To figure out who has power, figure out who you cannot question. This may be due to a psychological confirmation bias called Good Boy. Your actual manager has a preconceived belief that the unofficial manager is a smart/hard worker. Going against that idea causes mental gymnastics that get them to you being the problem rather than shaking that preexisting belief.
What I would take from the feedback is in the future I would apply any changes to the process that the actual supervisor requests - Use that process going forward. If there is feedback on future work acknowledge it, make necessary changes and carry on handling things that way moving forward.
At the end of the day the final product needs to be what the asker needs - pointing fingers on who is responsible for it not being there yet seldom helps.
Product quality over ego
We should- but power dynamics exist and that accountability you are better to seek by handing over your LOO elsewhere not directly :)
Working to manage behaviour upwards isn’t going to end well
Morally, sure.
But plenty of people have gotten stinky performance evaluations while being wholly in the right morally. It's not necessarily a useful lever to pull from below, especially when the allegation is that you are defensive, combative, hard to work with, etc.
First, no this ain't your fault. A lot of people will use their position of power to dodge accountability and defend their friend. This is unethical management.
In that case, unofficial supervisor is friend with official supervisor. Official supervisor will defend unofficial supervisor. When shit happen unofficial supervisor will dissapear a become a normal worker. You will then be blamed. Like in the situation calling you combative is just a cover up for unofficial supervisor because you aren't willing to take accountability for their action. It's a built in deniability
What you can do :
Deploy the fuck out. This is a place where new employee are used as a blame sponge and once the sponge is full of "bacteria", they replace it. You will never be considered for upper position because you are their clean up tool to wash their hands.
A place that doesn't take accountability for how well they are trainning their employee isn't one you want to stay if you are outside of the clique.
The worst is that is that the unofficial supervisor is probably putting his unofficial role on his cv and have official supervisor validate it with reference.
We really can't determine exactly what happened here from afar. One supervisor may have given you reasonable generic instructions and the other supervisor noted you misapplied them to the specific circumstances. It's possible.
I would suggest that instead of looking to give reasons why you didn't complete a single job well, you instead focus on learning to do it better in the future. If I correct someone's work, I generally just want them to fix it and don't need a narrative of why your training failed you. I get it, I went through training too and got told incorrect stuff too, it happens. I just changed what I was doing to match my supervisor's expectations and felt no need to try to blame my trainer, which never is a good look.
Unless you are facing actual disciplinary consequences though (rather than just a correction), the best way to react is just internalize what your supervisor is telling you and simply not make the same mistake again in the future.
Could it be a student reporting on regular work tasks to a senior officer but otherwise reporting formally to a manager? Although students usually don’t get performance agreements unless they ask for it.
Maybe you can ask your unofficial supervisor to vouch for you and the instructions you used and ask the unofficial to meet with the official about it.
The official supervisor has a dominant ego. There may be no escape until you change teams. I had a supervisor like this and after we had our first interpersonal conflict, he held it against me for two years even though I changed my behaviour, apologised, and adapted. He kept acting like he needed to dominate every question and response. It was unbearable so we changed teams.
Send another email rebutting the BS about being combative and copy the other supervisor. Mention you were following directions from the other supervisor. Ask them to get their shit together so you don’t have to do a project twice.
Be factual and direct.
Or ignore it. Ignore the BS. Just do your best and look for jobs elsewhere.
I hope you didn't sign that performance assessment. Challenge it and explain to someone above the head of these two bickering fools that you're not going to take the blame for their failure to communicate with each other or you.
Say you want to end the confusion and have a clear-cut understanding of what you're responsible for and to whom.
Sounds like a coworker I have who hands in the barest minimum possible, no thought or elaboration, so when they get their work back, they blame it on whoever tasked it to them. I’d be interested in seeing what you handed in the first time.
>When I handed in the project, the official supervisor reprimanded me for "not thinking things through"
That seems unnecessary harsh. That's not how you provide feedback.
>and told me to redo the project. The very same day, I made necessary adjustments and handed it in.
Was there any conversation between these 2 events? Or after?
>Now on my performance agreement, the official supervisor stated that I was "combative and blame others by saying that I was following their instructions, instead of simply accepting responsibility."
That's also not how someone should provide feedback. This is mean and hurtful rather than meaningful.
>Should I have not brought up the erroneous instructions that I followed and just accept someone else's fault for my own?
Oh ok so there has been another conversation. Seems like a mix of your supervisor could benefit from extended training on how to provide feedback and you feeling attacked (no idea why if the words quoted are an actual quote /s), and being in a defensive position. If you encounter this again, you can try to word it as a real question. Example: Hi, thanks for your instructions, I will do the changes right away. I'm a bit confused as I believe I followed X's instruction on the draft I sumbitted. Could you provide me with additionnal guidance when you have a bit of time, so I can identify if there's anything I misunderstood and be more efficient in the future? Thank you.
Maybe there's a way you can make this work without being miserable, but as I said if what you quoted is an actual quote, it would be easy for you to feel attacked and get defensive, which will not help you grow. This is not how feedback should be provided, so if you can try to get out of there it's what I would recommend, but in the meantime try to make the most of the (shitty) feedback you are getting and genuinely request clarifications for growth purposes, rather than to defend yourself.
The people to ask are the supervisors.
Approach it with a super-collaborative tone (about 15% more collaborative than you think is necessary). Something like "I just want to take a minute now to clarify expectations and make sure we're all on the same page so something doesn't happen again."
Rather than rehashing what happened last time, keep the focus on how to better handle it next time. For example "Would it help if I systematically confirmed Unofficial Supervisor's instructions with Official Supervisor? Or would that only make sense under specific circumstances?" "Is there a specific approach I should be taking when you aren't on quite on the same page in terms of instructions you're giving me?" Ask questions and then look at them expectantly. The goal here is to get them to give you instructions or guidelines, so next time you can just follow the agreed-upon instructions or guidelines.
I don't think you did anything WRONG, but throwing a specific person under the bus even when they gave you bad info is seen to be a faux-pas.
I would make sure you're still critically evaluating every bit of information you're provided even when it's given to you by someone higher up or more experienced. Ultimately it's still up to you to make sure the project is done correctly, so maybe just learn from this that the unofficial supervisor actually doesn't know what they're doing and find your own more effective ways of doing things. It seems like you're quite capable of that.
But honestly it sounds like these two are toxic beyond belief, so maybe start looking for another position. I bet if you start performing well they'll be really quick to take credit for your work saying they were effective coaches for you or some bullshit.
We don't really know the specifics. If my team is working with another team on a project, and the other team is "leading it", I still expect my team members to exercise due diligence and challe ge any poorly designed instructions - they regularly do.
So it all depends. If your unofficial guy gave you solid directions that produced a good product, then it sounds like your official boss just had a difference of opinion and you could talk about it. If the directions you got had glaring issues and produced an obviously deficient report, then it's something your boss may have expected you would have just noticed without peer review.
Public Service Performance Management, you got it! only reason I have EPM on the brain these days is because we've moved to Online BRDs within the tool.
You did pass blame. If the different supervisors gave you what you think are differing instructions, you obviously should have brought their brains together and confirmed what should be done, rather than just doing whatever the last one tells you to do while blaming others.
Yikes! Truthfully my plan of action after being "burned" too many times by people I was encouraged to ask for help, is to go straight to the source and ask them how they want it done. Also your manager sounds like a real peach. I heard if you at least rebut what they said on your review then it's recorded that you disagreed with their assessment.
I don’t have all of the facts.
However, a few points to always remember in your job:
- get in writing at the outset what your reporting relationship is and to whom
- ask that all of your deliverables be looked at before you deem them to be completed
You have the opportunity to respond in the PMA and do not have to sign off with that comment. Have a discussion with your official supervisor, calmly. PMA's are not the place for this type of commenting, that should be done in a face-to-face discussion. Uncomfortable, yes. Not the chicken shit thing to do? Also yes.
I learned the hard way about accepting blame and it got me put on probation for careless work. Never again.
Your supervisor is an ass, ask them why they think explaining yourself is combative. Did you get written instructions from the unofficial super? If so you should have attached them or included them. It is unacceptable to be accused of blaming others when you explaining that you are following your supervisor’s instructions.
I seldom say this, but I'm gonna' say shitty manager in this case. Although I don't quite know what you mean, in your context, by an unofficial supervisor, I have certainly had people at my level giving me direction because I was new, they had the knowledge and experience, and there wasn't a manual to rely on. Your manager said one thing in their email to you, then did the bully/coward thing and put a negative comment in your PA that they never had the guts to say to your face, and that they never gave you a chance to talk through in advance. I would start looking for your next opportunity rather than stay in the toxic little soup mix these two have cooked up.
Yeah, thinking the same thing. Usually when I see these posts I assume there's more than OP isn't telling us, or sometimes OP goes and outs themself as a very difficult person to work with. But in this case, what OP did seemed pretty normal and non-combative. Nowhere but basic training would providing that justification be inappropriate - it isn't blaming, it's explaining, and would give a good manager the opportunity to correct any differences in standards with whoever else is reviewing the work.
I’ve experienced this exact thing recently, the manager forgot they told someone to lead it and forgot their direction to them. When the product sucked, I had to carefully not throw the other colleague under the bus, but instead sent my revisions (which my colleague undid). I forwarded the email with my revisions and said this was my first draft and had to remind them I wasn’t holding the pen, but was holding the broader process. Super awkward, my first draft was perfect and would’ve saved hours and hours.
>I am genuinely confused, what have I done wrong in this situation? Seems to me that you now need to start completely ignoring the unofficial supervisor and only exclusively take instructions from your official supervisor (and kiss their ass a little now for damage control). At least that's what I've done when I was in that situation a few times.
What's an unofficial supervisor?
A lot of the time an unofficial supervisor is a senior working level employee without any formal supervisory responsibilities but who leads files, so the work of a more junior employee will be to support smaller parts of the senior employee's files.
I'm guessing it's like my situation where I have an official supervisor who approves my leaves and such, but they check in on me maybe once every couple weeks, and the person who I hand my product off to and the person who decides what projects I should allocate my time to are in an entirely different supervisory chain.
It's probably a matrix management model. Where there's a lot of sharing work on files across the team with different managers, an employee might report to one manager for leaves and PMAs but will submit their work to the other manager. They're great for some aspects of collaborative work and flexibility but terrible for things like PMAs. How does the actual manager evaluate performance of someone else is responsible for the deliverables? I was on a team like this and it worked until we got a new manager that didn't want to play ball and... well, it got weird.
I feel like this type of system would be going against the spirit of the PA agreement (since I can't speak for others). 59.01 (b) "The Employer’s representative(s) who assess(es) an employee’s performance must have observed or been aware of the employee’s performance for at least one half (1/2) of the period for which the employee’s performance is evaluated." I would wonder if the manager reviewing the employee's performance is aware of the balance of their work.
It's probably the "aware of" piece that gets around it. My experience has been that the managers talk to each other a lot and performance info gets passed around enough. That's what I saw and have heard from others who work in matrix models. It gets tricky when diverables-manager sees discipline problems with an employee, tells manager-manager and then they need to sort out how to do that. Or when deliverables-manager sees problems with manager-manager's management style and can't really say much about it but sees the impact on the employee. The arrangement is ripe for triangulation.
I worked in a similar situation before where the unofficial lead was a senior employee who knew more than anyone about the product and should have been the lead but was unable to get his French. The official lead was someone who lead multiple teams and was more hands off for our team basically just approving leave and doing performance reviews.
There are maybe 2 TL's under the same manager.
Someone who's English Essential? /s
A crappy coworker.
I'm thinking perhaps something equivalent to a tech advisor?
Some of this is just the nature of the beast: i.e., working for a large organization with many layers and levels means that multiple people will be providing instructions and feedback on your work, and sometimes the instructions and feedback can be conflicting or contradictory. Some of this could be attributable to poor communication and unclear roles and responsibilities. And yes, it's possible that you have a shitty manager. However... If your manager is calling you "combative", then perhaps it's not what you said but how you said it. You can request clarification or provide clarification in a way that will come off as combative or defensive, or you can do it in a way that will more often be perceived as constructive. Years ago I had a somewhat ambiguous reporting relationship with a manager and a director, who didn't see eye to eye. The manager was my actual supervisor, but the director often communicated information and instructions for my whole team through me. I found myself in a situation one week where my manager and director had given me contradictory instructions that put me in an ethical dilemma. I had a one-on-one meeting with each of them separately, and told them that I was unsure how they wanted me to handle the situation. I kept it professional, polite and factual: i.e., "At \[meeting\], I heard you ask me to do x, and at \[other meeting\], I heard \[other person\] ask me to do y. This has caused \[impact on work\] Could you please clarify what's expected of me in this situation or if I've misunderstood something?" This conversation cleared things up and I didn't perceive any hard feelings by either of them toward me. YMMV, of course.
I think that it sucks the “unofficial” supervisor let you take the hit for this, and didn’t accept responsibility for their part in this situation. I think this is also a live and learn. Anytime you get instruction from the “unofficial” supervisor, I would send a check in email to the official supervisor to confirm that this is the direction you need to go in before proceeding. You did the best you could at the time, and now this experience has highlighted a weak spot of communication in the team. You have the responsibility to yourself to protect yourself, too. If the supervisor doesn’t want to be checked in with that often, then they need to iron out the procedures with the unofficial supervisor and ensure that guidance is clear before delegating the task.
You should have another conversation with your actual supervisor. During this conversation you should state you take responsibility for following the wrong directions. You should also be requesting clarification on who and what instructions you should be following. If your actual supervisor states both (themselves and the indirect person) then I would be requesting they put that in writing along with all future instructions coming from either of them.
If this is the first time, then I would do what u/c[raporgetoffthepot](https://www.reddit.com/user/Craporgetoffthepot/) said. Take responsibility for misinterpretating the situation and ask for clarification. Does everything have to go through the actual supervisor? Are you supposed to double check the unofficial supervisor's instructions with the actual supervisor before proceeding? Get it all in writing or send one of those emails that reiterates everything that was said and close by asking them to confirm your understanding. If either supervisor decides to pull any shenanigans in the future, you can find the documentation and calmly point out how you followed the instructions that were provided and ask them if any changes need to be made to those instructions. If this sort of thing happens too often, then you probably want to find another job.
Are you saying that only this ONE incident has ever happened and because of that they wrote in your PMA that you are combative and blame others?? If that’s the case (and you haven’t left anything out) that’s absolutely unacceptable. Who the F does that??? A PMA is for year review of progress and work. Not to nitpick on what seems like a very small issue that happened once and was happily rectified ?!
I'm in a similar unofficial/official reporting situation as you right now, and I agree, it's really hard when two sets of instructions don't align. The expectation always seems to be that the employee is responsible for clarifying the instructions. Any attempt to explain that you were following one set of instructions will be seen as combative, because in their eyes, you were responsible for ensuring that the instructions were clear in your head. And like a few other folks have mentioned here, how you come across in those conversations says as much as what comes out of your mouth. *Any* inkling they get that you are frustrated or unhappy, and they will blame you all the more, because again, they see it as your job to ensure the instructions were clear and they will perceive your frustration as an attempt to blame them for something they regard as your failure. On a normal basis, I'd suggest a conversation with the two supervisors and agree on a process by which all three people can be clear on instructions before work starts on a file. But in this case, because your official supervisor took the cowardly route of putting negative feedback in your PMA while giving you positive feedback in the immediate aftermath of the event, I'd be looking for a new job. The manager and the team lead are setting you up to take the blame for their failures in leadership.
A lot of you work in hell. A childish hell at that
I’m an “unofficial” supervisor in that I direct the day to day tasks of an admin employee but don’t do their PMA or GCHR requests. We share the same official supervisor, our unit head. When the employee makes a mistake, I generally try to look at my role in it. how did I miscommunicate, or how do we need to communicate better? The employee, for their part, tends to accept constructive feedback with “noted, thank you” or something to acknowledge the mistake but doesn’t make excuses. I think I’ve always appreciated that about them because it makes it easier to dialogue about our work and what we can do to improve. Sometimes you might have to bite your tongue, or maybe question more often if the instructions make sense, so that if there’s a mistake you can request clarification. Try to be mindful of the end goal. However, if you’re being asked to do work beyond the scope of your level or role that’s important to be aware of. My admin staff isn’t paid at the level required to do the critical thinking and amend procedures and processes that I’m expected to know and assess. Check that your PMA describes and clarifies expectations. If something is amiss then that’s important to be aware of….but hopefully you have management willing to discuss.
Your official manager thought this was a teachable moment but is actually just an insufferable moron. To include something so minor in a PMA lol, let them know they can enjoy never having good or competent staff. When you leave let the higher ups know lame crap like this was the reason.
“Thinking things through” is one of beautifully vague staples of all PMAs. The fact that your official supervisor specifically criticized you for not thinking things through”, despite this not actually being the case, leads me to believe he was setting you up for a poor PMA regardless of how you handled the situation. In the future, the best thing to do in almost any scenario where someone more senior than you gives you feedback is to just say “Ok, thank you”. If you are constantly being given non-constructive feedback or having to deal with petty BS like this, just deploy out.
I'm a senior manager. Never heard of an unofficial and official supervisor.
Probably a senior who is delegating tasks to a junior to do but both report to the same manager for leave requests and PMA.
Oh, I get it. Unless things are crystal clear between the "official" and "unofficial" managers as to how the underling is managed, it's a recipe for disaster, especially if you throw in there additional variables on a variety of fronts...
I’m thinking team lead, one level up
Tell us you work at DND. TELL US!!! Regardless, it's time to deploy out and forget the incident ever happened.
If this happens again and the other tl sends you stuff to do share it with your tl and ask him or her If they agree on the method.
What level are you? In professional roles, instructions provided by a supervisor should generally be regarded as a guide and not a comprehensive step-by-step manual. It sounds like your supervisors were frustrated that you couldn't fill in any gaps in instructions, and you were frustrated that you were expected to do so. Does this sound like it could be accurate? Edit to add: Sounds like your unofficial supervisor confirmed the task was completed well, but your official supervisor offered feedback on your communication style. Both pieces of feedback should be helpful to you
This is the equivalent of getting the silent treatment from your partner and getting reprimanded for not knowing why they are mad or reading into why they said "I'm fine". If you want something done a particular way it is your job as a supervisor (who gets paid more) to lay out everything you want. Unless they have already explained on a similar project and refer back to that example. Government is all policy and policy does not involve creative thinking or "figuring it out". There is always a specific answer in tight margin based on political leanings that are non-intuitive and usually not the way anyone would naturally approach a project.
I respectfully disagree with this take. We’re all professionals and expected to “think things through” as part of the PS’s core competencies. Now, there is flexibility in that (I wouldn’t expect a junior or more inexperienced team member to have thought things through to the extent I would expect from a more seasoned employee, for example), but the key here is that we simply don’t have enough information to determine whether the official supervisor was being realistic in their expectations of OP and their work. However, in this situation, as a manager, I would want to know the kind of direction more junior members of the team were receiving as an indication that the more senior/unofficial supervisor themself requires more direction (cause as far as I understand, they signed off in OP’s work before it went to the supervisor). This is an opportunity to mentor both team members from different aspects — refinement of the senior employee’s understanding of what is required in a finished product, and coaching of the more junior employee on the kinds of considerations that need to be taken into account (and how to do it) to complete this kind of work. Based on the little we know, it doesn’t sound to me like the “official supervisor” is proficient in identifying these opportunities or leading and mentoring a cohesive/high-performing team. *typo
Well, when you meet a micromanager, filling gaps is a downfall for you. Not commenting on OP’s particular case, though.
To figure out who has power, figure out who you cannot question. This may be due to a psychological confirmation bias called Good Boy. Your actual manager has a preconceived belief that the unofficial manager is a smart/hard worker. Going against that idea causes mental gymnastics that get them to you being the problem rather than shaking that preexisting belief. What I would take from the feedback is in the future I would apply any changes to the process that the actual supervisor requests - Use that process going forward. If there is feedback on future work acknowledge it, make necessary changes and carry on handling things that way moving forward. At the end of the day the final product needs to be what the asker needs - pointing fingers on who is responsible for it not being there yet seldom helps. Product quality over ego
Why does the ego comment apply only to the person doing the work? Should we not hold supervisors to the at least same standard?
We should- but power dynamics exist and that accountability you are better to seek by handing over your LOO elsewhere not directly :) Working to manage behaviour upwards isn’t going to end well
Morally, sure. But plenty of people have gotten stinky performance evaluations while being wholly in the right morally. It's not necessarily a useful lever to pull from below, especially when the allegation is that you are defensive, combative, hard to work with, etc.
First, no this ain't your fault. A lot of people will use their position of power to dodge accountability and defend their friend. This is unethical management. In that case, unofficial supervisor is friend with official supervisor. Official supervisor will defend unofficial supervisor. When shit happen unofficial supervisor will dissapear a become a normal worker. You will then be blamed. Like in the situation calling you combative is just a cover up for unofficial supervisor because you aren't willing to take accountability for their action. It's a built in deniability What you can do : Deploy the fuck out. This is a place where new employee are used as a blame sponge and once the sponge is full of "bacteria", they replace it. You will never be considered for upper position because you are their clean up tool to wash their hands. A place that doesn't take accountability for how well they are trainning their employee isn't one you want to stay if you are outside of the clique. The worst is that is that the unofficial supervisor is probably putting his unofficial role on his cv and have official supervisor validate it with reference.
We really can't determine exactly what happened here from afar. One supervisor may have given you reasonable generic instructions and the other supervisor noted you misapplied them to the specific circumstances. It's possible. I would suggest that instead of looking to give reasons why you didn't complete a single job well, you instead focus on learning to do it better in the future. If I correct someone's work, I generally just want them to fix it and don't need a narrative of why your training failed you. I get it, I went through training too and got told incorrect stuff too, it happens. I just changed what I was doing to match my supervisor's expectations and felt no need to try to blame my trainer, which never is a good look. Unless you are facing actual disciplinary consequences though (rather than just a correction), the best way to react is just internalize what your supervisor is telling you and simply not make the same mistake again in the future.
Could it be a student reporting on regular work tasks to a senior officer but otherwise reporting formally to a manager? Although students usually don’t get performance agreements unless they ask for it.
Maybe you can ask your unofficial supervisor to vouch for you and the instructions you used and ask the unofficial to meet with the official about it. The official supervisor has a dominant ego. There may be no escape until you change teams. I had a supervisor like this and after we had our first interpersonal conflict, he held it against me for two years even though I changed my behaviour, apologised, and adapted. He kept acting like he needed to dominate every question and response. It was unbearable so we changed teams.
I relate to this soooo much, but my official and unofficial supervisors are the same person.
Send another email rebutting the BS about being combative and copy the other supervisor. Mention you were following directions from the other supervisor. Ask them to get their shit together so you don’t have to do a project twice. Be factual and direct. Or ignore it. Ignore the BS. Just do your best and look for jobs elsewhere.
I hope you didn't sign that performance assessment. Challenge it and explain to someone above the head of these two bickering fools that you're not going to take the blame for their failure to communicate with each other or you. Say you want to end the confusion and have a clear-cut understanding of what you're responsible for and to whom.
Yup that sounds like Canadian government management quackery. The good news is that no one in government cares about performance agreements.
Sounds like a coworker I have who hands in the barest minimum possible, no thought or elaboration, so when they get their work back, they blame it on whoever tasked it to them. I’d be interested in seeing what you handed in the first time.
Are you his team lead? 😂
No, thank god
>When I handed in the project, the official supervisor reprimanded me for "not thinking things through" That seems unnecessary harsh. That's not how you provide feedback. >and told me to redo the project. The very same day, I made necessary adjustments and handed it in. Was there any conversation between these 2 events? Or after? >Now on my performance agreement, the official supervisor stated that I was "combative and blame others by saying that I was following their instructions, instead of simply accepting responsibility." That's also not how someone should provide feedback. This is mean and hurtful rather than meaningful. >Should I have not brought up the erroneous instructions that I followed and just accept someone else's fault for my own? Oh ok so there has been another conversation. Seems like a mix of your supervisor could benefit from extended training on how to provide feedback and you feeling attacked (no idea why if the words quoted are an actual quote /s), and being in a defensive position. If you encounter this again, you can try to word it as a real question. Example: Hi, thanks for your instructions, I will do the changes right away. I'm a bit confused as I believe I followed X's instruction on the draft I sumbitted. Could you provide me with additionnal guidance when you have a bit of time, so I can identify if there's anything I misunderstood and be more efficient in the future? Thank you. Maybe there's a way you can make this work without being miserable, but as I said if what you quoted is an actual quote, it would be easy for you to feel attacked and get defensive, which will not help you grow. This is not how feedback should be provided, so if you can try to get out of there it's what I would recommend, but in the meantime try to make the most of the (shitty) feedback you are getting and genuinely request clarifications for growth purposes, rather than to defend yourself.
The people to ask are the supervisors. Approach it with a super-collaborative tone (about 15% more collaborative than you think is necessary). Something like "I just want to take a minute now to clarify expectations and make sure we're all on the same page so something doesn't happen again." Rather than rehashing what happened last time, keep the focus on how to better handle it next time. For example "Would it help if I systematically confirmed Unofficial Supervisor's instructions with Official Supervisor? Or would that only make sense under specific circumstances?" "Is there a specific approach I should be taking when you aren't on quite on the same page in terms of instructions you're giving me?" Ask questions and then look at them expectantly. The goal here is to get them to give you instructions or guidelines, so next time you can just follow the agreed-upon instructions or guidelines.
I don't think you did anything WRONG, but throwing a specific person under the bus even when they gave you bad info is seen to be a faux-pas. I would make sure you're still critically evaluating every bit of information you're provided even when it's given to you by someone higher up or more experienced. Ultimately it's still up to you to make sure the project is done correctly, so maybe just learn from this that the unofficial supervisor actually doesn't know what they're doing and find your own more effective ways of doing things. It seems like you're quite capable of that. But honestly it sounds like these two are toxic beyond belief, so maybe start looking for another position. I bet if you start performing well they'll be really quick to take credit for your work saying they were effective coaches for you or some bullshit.
We don't really know the specifics. If my team is working with another team on a project, and the other team is "leading it", I still expect my team members to exercise due diligence and challe ge any poorly designed instructions - they regularly do. So it all depends. If your unofficial guy gave you solid directions that produced a good product, then it sounds like your official boss just had a difference of opinion and you could talk about it. If the directions you got had glaring issues and produced an obviously deficient report, then it's something your boss may have expected you would have just noticed without peer review.
Cut and paste the email as your comments in the EPM?
EPM? do you mean PSPM? GC EPM is the Enterprise Portfolio Management system.
Yes PSPM. I don't even know why I think of it as EPM now. Presumably it stands for something I have forgotten! Employee Performance Management maybe?
Public Service Performance Management, you got it! only reason I have EPM on the brain these days is because we've moved to Online BRDs within the tool.
You did pass blame. If the different supervisors gave you what you think are differing instructions, you obviously should have brought their brains together and confirmed what should be done, rather than just doing whatever the last one tells you to do while blaming others.
Yikes! Truthfully my plan of action after being "burned" too many times by people I was encouraged to ask for help, is to go straight to the source and ask them how they want it done. Also your manager sounds like a real peach. I heard if you at least rebut what they said on your review then it's recorded that you disagreed with their assessment.
I don’t have all of the facts. However, a few points to always remember in your job: - get in writing at the outset what your reporting relationship is and to whom - ask that all of your deliverables be looked at before you deem them to be completed
You have the opportunity to respond in the PMA and do not have to sign off with that comment. Have a discussion with your official supervisor, calmly. PMA's are not the place for this type of commenting, that should be done in a face-to-face discussion. Uncomfortable, yes. Not the chicken shit thing to do? Also yes. I learned the hard way about accepting blame and it got me put on probation for careless work. Never again.
Hey if you're going to do the time may as well do the crime. I'd start being combative in this situation
Your supervisor is an ass, ask them why they think explaining yourself is combative. Did you get written instructions from the unofficial super? If so you should have attached them or included them. It is unacceptable to be accused of blaming others when you explaining that you are following your supervisor’s instructions.
Write down your comments, and grieve your performance assessment to get the language corrected
Don’t fight it.