When you interviewed for the job, the manager made sure you were a "team player". You have to work in a team, you need to make sure you put the team first, not your own needs.
When you interviewed for the job, the manager made sure you had initiative, you do not need to be continuously micro-managed, followed, told what to do every step of the way. You need to be able to make your own decisions and choices, organize yourself.
When you interviewed for the job, the manager made sure that you were trustworthy, honest, that you would report your progress truthfully and correctly. You need to be able to take control of things, do your work and not try to just make them believe that you have done more.
Now you have the job.
You are being told precisely what to do and how, you are given manuals and procedures and forms and templates and processes you need to follow as written down.
You are being continuously monitored and measured, filling in time sheets which are reviewed and audited and controlled and approved.
You are getting no feedback regarding what has been done with all these data or what management thinks of your work. At the beginning you had to wait 6 months to get a review, now it's once a year. The review is largely vacuous, your manager has desperately tried to find something positive and something negative to say -- the chosen comments appear to relate to the past two weeks exclusively and the items raised are largely insignificant details.
When you interviewed the candidates, you made sure you could hire someone who would fit into the team, who would be an asset to the organizational culture. When you interviewed the candidates, you made sure you could hire someone who was enthusiastic and energetic, who would have ideas and get things moving. When you interviewed the candidates, you made sure that you could hire someone who could think, take initiative, who would not sit around waiting for management to give detailed instructions every step of the way.
Yet, the person you hired was a pain in the neck, always criticizing the way we have always done things, continuously telling everyone that "where I used to work, we..." The person you hired resented providing the data which we need in order to report progress to the board.
The person you hired no longer accepts responsibility, but hides behind "the team" or "the process" every time something goes wrong, yet tries to take credit for the decisions you made.
The person you hired works from 9 to 5 and always has an excuse not to be available for overtime.
What happened?We play a farce in the work place in which managers hire people whom they believe (?) they can trust, but they never demonstrate that trust. The lack of trust managers show towards the people they hire naturally generates a lack of trust of employees toward their management.
The role of management is to provide the means and the support their staff needs in order to perform the work for which they were hired. Managers who do not trust their staff members obviously do not trust their own capacity to hire competent people. Managers need to focus on the people, not on the tools, budgets and reports. Their role is to provide the professionals in their team the resources, training, support, and anything else they might need to do their work. They need to trust the professionals to select the most appropriate approach within the context of the given framework and limitations. Micro-managing them will only serve to de-motivate and reduce performance, both in terms of productivity and quality.
Management is hiring good people, giving them the means and allowing them to do that for which they were hired.
The rest is interfering.