update: our new boss is ruining the organization and is upset that I’m pushing back

by Alison Green on December 26, 2024

It’s “where are you now?” month at Ask a Manager, and all December I’m running updates from people who had their letters here answered in the past.

Remember the letter-writer who was concerned their new boss was ruining the organization, and the boss was upset that they were pushing back? Here’s the update.

Reading your response and then the response of the commenters made me question everything about the situation — like maybe I was just overreacting — so I didn’t engage with the comments because I was embarrassed. Those comments did, however, help me realize that the details provided didn’t really tell the whole story and made me step back and try to look at the situation from a more neutral viewpoint. I also want to be clear that the changes themselves — the schedule, the reogranization, the new policies and procedures — are not really the issue. The issue is more the way the changes have been implemented. Quickly and with little to no staff input. And when staff gave feedback, the feedback was dismissed or turned back on them. Like when I let her know that folks were reeling a bit from all the change, she sent a survey to staff to gauge their level of change readiness.

All that to say, a lot has happened since then. After I got her response detailing her concerns, I heard nothing again for a few weeks (which is especially weird because we’re a small organization and our offices are right next door to each other). However, because staff continued to be unhappy and bring concerns to me, I wrote a letter to the board with my concerns about where the library was heading and asked for their help (we don’t have HR). Nothing for a few weeks. I then received an email telling me that I had been signed up for a professional development course about effective communication and conflict management. No goals or other information attached. She and one other staff member would also be taking it. (This other staff member was suspended for gross insubordination after she continued to share her thoughts and pushed for answers to her questions.) When I asked her whether I would have goals or benchmarks, she said I would and that I would be put on a PIP in my upcoming review. None of the issues that were mentioned had been brought up to me before this. Several of them were simply based on feedback from two staff members (a mother and daughter). At no point was I asked about my perspective or to explain any of the issues.

My review took place on a Friday and I learned that she had seen my letter to the board the day before. To say she was angry was an understatement and my review reflected that. My scores were based on the one or two small things in each performance area, ignoring the rest of my work. I was able to provide some background information about many of the situations to which she said, “I wasn’t aware of that.” I did point out that if she had talked to me about any of these things, many of them could have been resolved through a conversation between staff. She called me unprofessional, disrespectful, unethical, and disengaged. I told her that staff had come to me with their concerns and that I did not go out looking for them and that I had, in fact, spent her first few months trying to convince staff to give her a chance.

I finally got a response from the board that said they would not be getting involved. It’s not super surprising, but I was hoping that since they are the ones to whom the director answers that they might be able to provide some opportunities for professional development for her or something. I do suspect they might have other concerns with her performance, however, related to the finances and budget and maybe that’s why they aren’t getting involved. Who knows.

Either way, I’m actively looking for a way out. One staff member has already accepted a new position and I know of at least two others who are actively searching. At this point, I am trying to be professional and friendly and do my work the best I can, taking into account the things I learned from the mandatory training (which was quite helpful — and validating).

Late-breaking update to the update:

One final update: the director is leaving the organization, effective next month. They took a job with another organization that would “better use their skills” and so they could be back in the city they moved from (we are located in a small town). We will now spend the next few months picking up the pieces of their disruption and see what happens.

So, all is well that ends well I guess. The drama and disruption is not over but I suppose it probably won’t get much worse than it was.

You may also like:
{ 145 comments }

{ 145 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Another Michael*

    Marcia and the board don’t seem to be handling this well, but there are also a few instances where it seems LW is communicating concerns and they’re not being received the way they intend. If you haven’t already it might be helpful for a trusted friend or industry colleague to review and give feedback – just in case there’s something you’re not seeing.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      This is a bad habit people (all of us) have. The narrator doesn’t need to do even more to see if she is the problem. She’s fine. You even overlooked where she took “a professional development course about effective communication and conflict management” and that it was “quite helpful and validating”.

      Reply ↓
      1. PineappleColada*

        That doesn’t necessarily mean anything though. A lot of people with communication issues lack self awareness, so they will cherry-pick points out of a workshop to show they are right in their approach, or they don’t realize that their version of something being taught is not how others are perceiving it.

        And a lot of these workshops just teach theory. Seeking feedback about your actual practices from safe, impartial others is a great way to improve.

        Reply ↓
        1. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

          Agreed. I had an employee once who was the least self-aware person in the world. They had no filter and just said whatever popped into her head, often in front of customers. They took several professional development courses and definitely picked up new techniques and soft skills they didn’t have before. None of it got to the base issue of not thinking before they spoke. I talked with them many times. I moved on to a different role, last I heard, my replacement had to fire them for asking a culturally insensitive question of a customer in the least tactful way possible.

          Reply ↓
  2. Chairman of the Bored*

    Sending a survey to gauge how the team feels about change and gauge their readiness for more seems like a very practical and thoughtful move in this context, I’m not sure why it’s being phrased as a bad thing.

    This case continues to sound like the board brought a person in to make changes they thought were necessary, that person is dealing well with the inevitable friction that results from change, and at this point people are welcome to either get onboard or go somewhere else.

    None of this is unusual, unreasonable, or surprising.

    Reply ↓
    1. Been There*

      I’ve seen surveys designed as a “gotcha,” with any less than positive results compiled and brought as evidence that staff with legitimate concerns were difficult and disruptive. Also one with a question about people’s level of trust, and when there were a few low scores, it was brought to a meeting and the people who scored it low were expected to stand up and identify themselves. Maybe I’ve just had bad luck.

      Reply ↓
    2. Software Engineer*

      Change-readiness surveys should be performed during the planning and preparation phases of a change initiative to gauge potential implementation strategies and roadblocks, not during actual implementation itself. I suspect the only reason why the director sent out such a survey was to validate her own thoughts and use the results to discredit what OP was saying.

      Reply ↓
    3. bamcheeks*

      In the broader context (small organisation, people not feeling listened to, LW saying she didn’t speak to Marcia for “weeks” despite having offices next door to each other), I can imagine it could have landed as massively avoidant compared to actually talking to people.

      Reply ↓
    4. Wayward Sun*

      I would interpret such a survey as a way to weed out the troublemakers. I never put anything negative into a work survey because it could be used against me later.

      Reply ↓
    5. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      Probably because you don’t send a survey like that *after* you’ve already implemented a bunch of changes and gotten negative feedback about them. That survey could have been good if it had been sent out first.

      You must have skimmed, because your summary is the opposite of the update. The director did not deal well with the friction. Ignoring employee’s concerns and calling them names, not getting the perspective of all involved in a conflict, giving the silent treatment to someone who works right next to you… those may be not be surprising, but they are unreasonable.

      The director is the one who didn’t get on board and went somewhere else.

      Reply ↓
    6. Parakeet*

      “Readiness” makes it sound the changes are a done deal and the survey is just about whether the workers are “advanced” enough to take it without pushback. It makes me think of “reading readiness” as applied to little children. And in a small organization, why not just talk to the workers and find out what they think? Even if we leave aside my ick reaction and assume this is a common and reasonable thing, what purpose does it serve to do it mid-stream (as opposed to while you’re actually planning the thing, in order to guide your planning)?

      LW, I know that this is much easier said than done and people can be very glib about recommending it, but if you all unionize, then there would be established, protected channels to provide feedback and make demands should this come up in the future.

      Reply ↓
    7. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

      I definitely think the director didn’t do as much face-to-face communication as they could’ve, at least based on OP’s descriptions.

      On the flip side, having had to manage chaotic good teams like this before, oftentimes explaining “we are making these changes and here’s why” somehow gets interpreted as “we’d LIKE to make these changes, but if you debate and whine and complain throughout the entire meeting, maybe we’ll change our mind and not do it.” You can only deal with that so much before you tell the board “see ya, I can get another low-paying non-profit job with about 50% less drama by going one town over.”

      Reply ↓
      1. Elbe*

        The update presents a clearer picture of why the LW thinks that the new director handled things poorly (not communicating enough, not open to feedback, etc.) but it still doesn’t show any indication that the changes were bad. It seems to be more of an issue with culture fit.

        Organizations can vary quite a bit in how they are run and how much input each team member is allowed to have. If the director is used to a top-down environment, it would explain why constantly offering feedback (and expecting that feedback to be a major contribution to the final decision) would rub her the wrong way, like they’re stepping on her toes or trying to tell her how to do her job. And if the other employees are used to having a say in decisions, it makes sense that they would feel like they’re being bulldozed or ignored. Maybe it was just a poor fit from both sides.

        Reply ↓
        1. Snarkus Aurelius*

          But in the average workplace, the boss has the final day in organizational decisions. I suspect that was always the case in this office, but the director and the staff rarely disagreed so the lack of conflict gave the appearance of harmony.

          If what the LW says is true, I’m very surprised at how so many people think this office is a democracy. It’s just not.

          Reply ↓
          1. Elbe*

            If the new director wants to give people less of a say than the previous director, that’s their call to make. It is the boss’s role to make decisions on behalf of other employees.

            Without the details, though, it’s hard to tell if the reduced collaboration is the right choice for this org or not. The LW could have specific reasons why having team discussion is a better fit, or it could just be a habit based on the way that the previous director handled things. The fact that the changes didn’t seem to cause problems points to the latter, but the fact that the discontent was apparently wide-spread (and a separate employee was actually suspended for push-back) points to the former. It’s really hard to say based on this info.

            I can say, though, that I think that I would be fired if I pushed back so forcefully on my boss’s decisions without any evidence that the decisions they were making were the wrong ones. Going over your boss’s head is a really drastic step and I would need rock solid reasons to do that. In the absence of that, it almost seems like the employees are trying to micromanage their manager . It’s really unclear why they would feel like they are owed oversight in choices that were hers to make.

            Reply ↓
  3. I should really pick a name*

    I do suspect they might have other concerns with her performance, however, related to the finances and budget and maybe that’s why they aren’t getting involved.

    I think this summarizes the issue fairly well.

    At no point does the LW acknowledge the possibility that their approach has not been the right one.
    Perhaps they’re not getting involved be they have concerns with the new boss’s performance, but I think it’s more likely that they agree with how the new boss is handling things, so see no need to intervene.

    I think getting out is the only option. The LW doesn’t seem open to the possibility that the new boss might know what they’re doing.

    Reply ↓
      1. Lucifer*

        Or the boss got fed up with all this nonsense about [checks notes from original letter] “staff members having to be at front desk to help patrons on a consistent schedule, reorganizing areas, etc” and such, and decided to seek more sane pastures. Or the truth lies somewhere in between both extremes. I’ll be honest, this update is not exactly making me think “yes of course the OP is the misunderstood scapegoat Elphaba to the director’s conniving and manipulative sham wizard!!!!” But YMMV of course.

        Reply ↓
        1. Scrimp*

          That is not a dirext quote from anywhere. In the original letter, the LW does mention changing to a “strict service desk schedule,” but that doesn’t mean people weren’t at the desk before. It could mean that they kept someone by the desk at all times, but not exactly behind the desk (maybe they were doing other work as well), or that the responsibility was not exclusively one person all day at the desk (which might make semse for a small town library).

          Reply ↓
          1. Tenebrae*

            Was going to say something similar! I work at a nonprofit that requires desk coverage, but my staff would also chafe at a strict desk schedule because it doesn’t take into account all the nuances of a day. “Jane has to be at the desk from 9 – 3 on Tuesday, no excuses” is a lot less practical than “Jane will generally cover 9-3 on Tuesday, but she has a meeting at 10, so Marsha will cover until 11, then if it runs over Peter can take over so Marsha can take her lunch,” etc.

            Reply ↓
        2. Parakeet*

          [Checks notes from this letter, emphasis mine] “I also want to be clear that the changes themselves — the schedule, the reogranization, the new policies and procedures — are not really the issue. The issue is more the way the changes have been implemented. Quickly and with little to no staff input. And when staff gave feedback, the feedback was dismissed or turned back on them.”

          Reply ↓
          1. Seal*

            That jumped out for me as well. The fastest way for a new director to alienate the staff is to mandate change for the sake of change to show they’re in charge now. As a librarian, I can safely say that it’s pretty rare to NOT have a few hiccups when implementing a new policy or procedure. Far better to act on feedback from the staff and make adjustments accordingly than fix a preventable mess down the road.

            Reply ↓
            1. Snarkus Aurelius*

              And nowhere has the LW ever said that the changes resulted in negative outcomes with the exception of staff merely not liking change at all.

              Staff not liking change isn’t enough of a reason to stop implementing change.

              Reply ↓
  4. Fotze*

    So sorry. OP. FWIW, I can relate to some of this frustration. Once you started explaining what happened it kept thinking -get out! get out!

    Hope you find something bigger and better!

    Reply ↓
  5. The Not-An-Underpants Gnome*

    I know it’s a small thing to pick out of the whole letter, but the mention of a second staffer being suspended for gross insubordination gives me pause, especially since it was apparently done after said staffer kept sharing her thoughts and pushing for answers to her questions.

    That, however, begs a question in its own right: was the other staffer truly not getting answers, or were they getting answers they just did not like?

    I honestly think that MAYBE Monica could have waited to do the PIP meeting until she cooled off a bit, BUT BUT BUT I fully understand that 1) that may not have been feasible and 2) mayhaps that the review reflecting her anger is only LW’s read of the situation. That being said, if the review DID truly reflect Monica’s anger at LW AND it could have feasibly been done after Monica had a cooling-off period for the letter, that’s not cool. That’s a part of the whole thing we just don’t know enough about and I’m not gonna fanfic it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Aggretsuko*

      One of my new teammates was always getting in trouble at her old job for asking questions, because nobody wanted to deal with that or answering them. My vibe from reading this is that OP and other coworker are pushing back and getting pushed off a cliff instead, because how dare you speak up at this joint.

      Reply ↓
    2. LA*

      When I read “kept sharing her thoughts and pushing for answers to her questions” I thought “there’s almost no way that that’s how this was perceived by the director and/or the board”. I think that phrasing is likely the best possible way to spin whatever was happening, and while I want to take the LW at their word as we should, I think it is just as likely that someone might say instead “X takes every opportunity no matter how loosely connected the topic might be to complain or vent about the new procedures/policies/director and works complaints about not getting the answers they want into every interaction” – which is a very uncharitable spin on the hypothetical situation, of which we can’t know true specifics. Yes, there are plenty of places where someone can get in an unfair amount of trouble for patiently, professionally, in the right time and place and with the appropriate language of the appropriate people, asking questions about changes. Buuuuuuuuuut…. I think I’ve seen a LOT more situations where people just don’t like any change and are much more likely to gripe about it and spin it out of discontent to everyone around them.

      Regardless of what really happened, it’s not always the right thing to “keep sharing your thoughts” and “pushing for answers” because it’s a workplace, with an established hierarchy.

      Reply ↓
      1. Snidely Whiplash*

        We can’t know for sure, but I know when there was a regime change in my former job, the new director eyed those of us who had been there longest as “part of the problem” (the mostly non-existent problem of how things were done before).

        All of our “this is how we have been doing it” got translated into “we don’t like how you are doing it”. Innocent and positive comments such as “Look at you, Nell, painting all the teapots yourself!” caused the director to say things like “Now Snidely, you know we revised the teapot painting procedure.”

        tl;dr Dudley the Director saw pushback where there was none. (And there wasn’t a ton, despite foisting massive changes on the team with nary a “Thank you for being so flexible.”)

        Reply ↓
        1. Seal*

          Not all problems are created equal; it all depends on who’s defining the problem. I’ve seen long-standing “problems” magically resolve themselves with some simple fact checking and rumor debunking. I’ve seen “problem” departments and staff members blossom with new managers. And I’ve seen productivity and job satisfaction skyrocket when everyone understands what is or isn’t a true problem. None of this is obvious to a new manager of director, which alone should be reason enough for them to think twice before implementing change right off the bat.

          Reply ↓
      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        Hard for me to judge what happened in LW’s situation, but I side-eyed that comment too. I have a colleague exactly like this. They “keep sharing their thoughts and pushing for answers to their questions” but in my colleague’s situation it’s usually things like, they’ve come up with a change they’d like to see, were told no and the reason why, decided they didn’t think the reason was valid enough, and kept pushing for answers until they were reprimanded to stop. I think it’s important to remember that we aren’t always owed answers for why a company chooses to go a route that it does, as much as it would be nice to receive one.

        Reply ↓
  6. AnonymousOctopus*

    Sometimes you have to stop being the messenger. If no one is willing to bring things up directly with the people who can actually change things, then it doesn’t matter enough for you to fall on that sword. Or they know that bringing up issues will lead to getting pushed out, and they’ve decided it isn’t worth it to them. Never put yourself on the chopping block in their place.

    Reply ↓
    1. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ This is an important lesson to learn. Some people are happy to bring their complaints to coworkers who they know will try to do something about them – and those same people are equally happy to stand back and watch you get thrown under the bus. It’s a win-win for them, because it’s no risk.

      Reply ↓
      1. Snarkus Aurelius*

        This is precisely what happened, and I’m very concerned the LW doesn’t see how this spineless dynamic got her in deep trouble. I simply do not advocate for other people unless they’re my direct reports on a specific issue.

        If the person can complain to the LW, there’s nothing stopping them from complaining to the appropriate people.

        Reply ↓
      2. Jojo*

        Given that her PIP was based on complaints from other staff members, I don’t think that’s even what happened. I think the LW decided they spoke for everyone.

        Reply ↓
      1. Escape to victory*

        Yup. There’s nothing to be done when the entire staff is this entrenched. They will swear blind they are just raising concerns and just want to be consulted, and will manage to stonewall every effort anyone makes to improve things. I’ve seen it before. The place is doomed. New manager did the smart thing and bailed once she realised what a total nightmare she’d been landed with.

        Reply ↓
        1. Potatoes*

          Yeah that other part jumped out at me too. Whether or not the boss was all/the only problem, it seemed like there was already a culture of “someone—aka the LW—will take the hits for us while we never have to deal with the fallout ourselves.” Personally speaking, I don’t get paid enough for that.

          Reply ↓
    4. JHunz*

      I agree that this is an important takeaway. There’s value in advocating for people that don’t have the confidence to do it directly, but the potential consequences of taking that role can’t be ignored.

      Reply ↓
    5. JSPA*

      That’s where I fall.

      Yes, ideally everyone would and should be heard. Before, during and after changes, and periodically.

      But if people are not all on board enough with a short list of specific push-backs, being the self-appointed (or role- anointed) megaphone for their concerns is going to blur the lines between “essential make-or-break issues” and “stuff that people will carp about to a friendly ear, but would not bring up to the boss.”

      If the boss is asking you how people are feeling about changes, of course you can say, “they’re finding it hard, to the point where the whole vibe has shifted, and I can’t seem to inject any positivity.” But bringing each person’s beef about changes to their roles strikes me as a lot of granular detail that’s not going to make a manager care more.

      If it can be presented in terms of “efficiencies vs false efficiencies” and “theoretical gains vs measurable outcomes,” you again have a leg to stand on. But passing on, “people hate what you’re doing” is almost never going to get the same reception (especially given how often people dislike change simply for being a change).

      None of which makes the viewpoint of the LW wrong (or right). The manager’s goals could be theoretically defensible or a total pile of mis-motivated, buzzword-based nonsense. As many people as hated it, probably the latter.

      But the LW should nevertheless not be very surprised to have become the focus of push-back, after putting themselves on the pointy end of complaints…and then shoving hard.

      Reply ↓
    6. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      YES! I have become very familiar with the question in my typical response, “That sounds [insert emotion you pick up on here]. Have you talked to [person] about it? They ‘re who can change things, so I’m curious how they responded.” Because the answer is almost always that they have not talked to the person involved who could actually change something. And when they say a version of, “I couldn’t do that!” I ask why they are comfortable talking to me about it. lol

      Reply ↓
    7. MrsThePlague*

      This is 100% what I was thinking while reading both letters.

      As others have said, it’s not entirely clear whether it was the new boss or the staff that was being unreasonable (though I’m personally inclined to believe that the org was a mess and the staff too entrenched to really change, since the changes the LW mentioned seemed very reasonable to me, as even the LW attested to), but regardless, it was really…notable that the LW kept putting herself on the firing line every time the staff complained to her, especially when she was getting into deeper and deeper trouble each time.

      Whatever else, almost losing your job acting as the messenger seems like a not great strategy.

      Reply ↓
  7. BW*

    This was the organization that was run “Chaotic Good.” It still sounds to me like Marcia is trying to organize this into “Lawful Good” and the inmates are rebelling because they can’t do what they want anymore.

    I learned long ago that my job is not to service customers according to my ideas, but to make my boss happy, since boss has a picture of the organization that I do not have. Granted, there are bad bosses, but Marcia does not seem like one of them.

    Reply ↓
    1. BW*

      I just saw the update. It sounds like Marcia was hired to whip this organization into shape, and the inmates weren’t having it. I’m curious to see what happens next. LW, please update when the next director is hired.

      Reply ↓
      1. Middle Aged Lady*

        It’s puzzling because the OP said the board didn’t bring Marcia in to make changes, but continue the good work that was already being done. Sounds like big communication failures on someone’s part, but from the letter and updates, it’s not sure whose. I agree with others that ‘readiness for change’ surveys done after the change are not useful. I tend to sympathize with OP because I worked in an organization like this: the board and new director said one thing when they got hired, then it all went sideways as soon as he started. Massive, bad changes, scapegoating anyone who questioned him, etc.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nakji-bokkeum*

          That struck me as well. Why is Marcia making sweeping changes if it’s not a problem?
          The old idea that new managers shouldn’t make changes for six months isn’t always helpful. But, changes should be for a reason.

          If she wasn’t hired to make changes, why didn’t Marcia take a breath and see how and why things are done a certain way. And I will say library boards are really bad at not knowing the policies they created.

          Reply ↓
      1. Zona the Great*

        I couldn’t glean from the letter if that meant Marcia ignored her all together or if she only didn’t say anything about the discipline until she was ready to.

        Reply ↓
      2. LifebeforeCorona*

        I suspect the director after another round of disagreements and resentments from the rank and file decided that the job wasn’t worth her time and energy. It’s possible she was given the green light to bring the library up to a higher level and didn’t expect the amount of pushback she received for imposing standards that are the norm for larger orgs. Several years ago a new manager was hired for our 8 person site. We were a small branch that came from a very large tree of academia and had our own way of doing things that weren’t as rigid as Big Academia. We also weren’t front facing which makes a big difference. Profs and faculty never knew we existed and the New Manager wanted the same standards as though the Chancellor was about to drop by. Needless to say, morale became very low and pushback was standard.

        Reply ↓
      3. LA*

        I don’t think you can infer that at all from what’s been written. Not following up on something for a period of time that seems unusually long usually has about ten better explanations than the silent treatment. I find that in a workplace and in professional interactions the best thing to remember it “it’s not usually about me”.

        Reply ↓
        1. M*

          And, indeed, in a context where OP has already suggested the situation needs external intervention, per the previous letter – it’s *entirely* possible it’s less “Marcia is doing silent treatment” and more “Marcia is carefully only communicating with OP in witnessed or documented interactions, because she strongly suspects the next step OP will take will either be a board complaint or a legal intervention”.

          Reply ↓
    4. Smithy*

      As someone coming from the position of working in a nonprofit, I do think that this is likely an overly harsh review of the OP and overly kind view of Marcia.

      The reality for most nonprofits is that there’s never as much money available to invest in administrative systems as would be ideal. Therefore, it’s not uncommon for many systems to have “chaotic good” systems that are overall the result of workarounds because there isn’t the time/money for more formal systems. This isn’t to say that these systems are amazing or beneficial to keep forever, but to dismiss staff as the inmates – or in actuality not taking time to understand their workarounds is an alienating position.

      Think of a system where a large part of the work is still done via paper, or a system not sophisticated enough to automate certain steps – so it still requires manual efforts. Most people figuring out these work arounds are not entirely resistant to move away from workarounds – but to not engage in staff around the why’s of their workarounds can result in investing in new systems that don’t answer the primary workplace needs. And then you’re just stuck with a new system that requires new workarounds, because there isn’t the money to keep fixing.

      While I have a lot of sympathy for the OP, I also know that it can be incredibly difficult to articulate your concerns and not end up with this reaction. In my situation I just ultimately left the job and was only really vindicated with how bad that workplace was by other former coworkers and then people who’ve taken jobs there now under new management. It’s been ten years, and they’re still working through odd choices made the management of that time.

      Reply ↓
  8. Hamster Manager*

    Hmm, the whole situation is a mess, but if I recall, many of the original commenters recommended you not write the letter; I am not surprised there’s been a lot of fallout. I do understand your perspective, but still, you did undermine your boss.

    I think most people experience a bad boss at least once in their lives, the unfortunate reality I’ve found is that ‘staff input’ is really not a thing for a lot of managements. You seem kind of stuck on “we should have been consulted,” in an ideal world, yes! The people who’ve been doing the jobs have valuable info management should want to hear. But in this world, I haven’t found many workplaces that actually work that way, and yours isn’t one of those either. Most times, you have to hold your tongue, even when management is making obviously bad decisions.

    Good luck!

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      “Staff input” should really include your assistant director though. I can’t imagine any change that doesn’t start with getting the rest of your leadership the on board and making sure they understand what you’re trying to do. Marcia was not doing a great job IMO if she was trying to do that without LW.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hamster Manager*

        It should, yes. But once management makes it clear your input is not welcome, you can keep pushing and harm yourself, or you can shut up and let them do what they’re going to do regardless. I wasn’t saying Marcia was right or doing a good job, we don’t have enough info to know, all we know is how OP handled it.

        I was in a director role once where C-suite and board let me know directly that my input was not valued or wanted. I know how much it sucks!

        Reply ↓
        1. Gatomon*

          I agree. Once you’ve said your piece, it should be laid to rest. You have to trust that management has received, processed, and decided on the course of action based on what you’ve given them, even if the decision doesn’t seem to make sense to you. They may have more information than you, or maybe they’re actually just stubborn, but ultimately it’s their decision to make, not yours.

          I think this is one of those situations where everyone has some ownership of the problem though, not strictly OP, the rest of the staff, or the (now departing) director.

          Reply ↓
        2. M*

          Also, “should really include your assistant director” does rather assume that the AD is *also* engaging positively and constructively in the feedback process. I remain deeply curious as to what this letter would look like from Marcia’s perspective – I’ve certainly had team members whose input I really *wanted* on a set of changes, but who were stuck on providing only “we don’t want changes”. If changes *have* to happen – for good *or* bad reasons – there’s a point where repeated “but we still don’t want them” simply isn’t useful input, and you’re going to get shut out in order for things to actually progress.

          Reply ↓
    2. Lurker*

      Yeah, this part stuck out to me:

      The issue is more the way the changes have been implemented. Quickly and with little to no staff input. And when staff gave feedback, the feedback was dismissed or turned back on them.

      But companies are not democracies; not everyone gets a vote. Sometimes (a lot of times) not everyone even gets a say. Or they can say their opinion, but at the end of the day the Director (or Board, to a lesser extent) has the final call.

      In my experience organizations that let everyone have a say in the decision making are nightmares because nothing ever gets done, or it takes forever to come up with a compromise/decision. Which I guess falls under “Chaotic Good?” But why have chaos if you can avoid it?

      This place sounds stressful and the Director probably left because she got tired of the pushback on what sounds like reasonable things.

      Reply ↓
      1. Saturday*

        Yeah, having a staff expecting input on everything would be exhausting, and I imagine that’s probably why she left. If the staff was “reeling” after the changes mentioned, it seems like in the past, things changed very, very slowly or not at all. It sounds like it would be really hard to get things done.

        Reply ↓
      2. NotAManager*

        Yeah, Chaotic Good might have made the staff happy, but I do wonder if the previous hands-off management style was tenable in the long-term for the patrons or organization as a whole. Companies and non-profits have administration for a reason: to look at the big picture and make sure everything is being run smoothly and efficiently.

        Reply ↓
      3. Tenebrae*

        I think it depends on what the staff input is. Work may not be a democracy, but if you’re making widespread changes, you should be talking to staff to figure out why things were done the way they are and how feasible implementation is. I could see staff bristling if she’s needlessly disrupting their workflow or expecting instant change for procedures that take time to get up to snuff.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cmdrshprd*

          “I could see staff bristling if she’s needlessly disrupting their workflow or expecting instant change for procedures that take time to get up to snuff.”

          sometimes the staff workflow isn’t the priority but something else is.

          Like say a process change that saves management 30 minutes a day by adding 2 hrs of work to low level employee. from level employee it may seem silly that they have to doore work to only save management a small bit of time. but for management and the organization as a whole that 30 minutes often is much more valuable than the 2 hrs of a low level employee.

          so the goals are not always the same.

          Reply ↓
      4. Elbe*

        Exactly this.

        Based on the letter and the update, my best guess is that this situation is just a culture clash where the director is used to making decisions independently and receiving feedback only when crucial, while the staff are used to being consulted about most changes. Both approaches can work well and both have pros and cons. The issue here seemed to be that the staff kept pushing to retain their say even though the new director made it clear that she wanted to be to handle things differently.

        I do think it’s interesting that the previous director was praised for being pretty hands-off. It seems like the LW understands the benefits of working independently and being trusted to make ones own decisions, but doesn’t necessarily apply that same logic to the director role. If the changes she implemented without consulting others weren’t a problem, then why question her choices just because you weren’t consulted? Generally speaking, I think employees and managers should be trusted to handle decisions within their purview unless their decisions are shown to be bad.

        Either way, though, it sounds like this was resolved. Maybe the new director will be a better culture fit.

        Reply ↓
    3. LaminarFlow*

      100000% yes to this.

      LW is totally stuck on “this is the way things should be” instead of the way things actually are. Those two things frequently don’t align, and we all get to pick how many F*cks we really give about them.

      Reply ↓
  9. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    I finally got a response from the board that said they would not be getting involved.

    You can’t care more than the board does. I’d still vote with my feet, even after the director has left; I’m sure the employee file has been tainted thoroughly, and I’d be shocked if the board reverses course on the next director given that they didn’t change any direction with the outgoing one.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ex-Prof*

      Yeah, I think LW should keep their resume updated and circulating. There’s no telling what harm could be done down the road by that PIP in the file.

      Reply ↓
    2. Saturday*

      I don’t think that not getting directly involves necessarily means the board doesn’t care. Getting directly involved in day to day operations would be a big move, and it should be one that they take only in rare circumstances.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        I admit I don’t understand how a board can hire a new ED, but any feedback about the new ED magically transforms into “daily operations” that they shouldn’t be involved with. Especially when there is no HR or anyone else to appeal to.

        Reply ↓
        1. LA*

          I’ve seen plenty of small orgs with a handful of employees, no formal HR, and a governance board. The HR would report to the board too, after all. The board was clearly satisfied with what they were getting from the director, including the additional information from the staff. We should not assume that they weren’t aware of the changes being implemented and in fact have every reason to believe they were done so at the board’s express desire. You really don’t want a board getting involved in these sorts of staff issues – it never ends well.

          Reply ↓
    3. Snarkus Aurelius*

      But typically Boards do not get involved in everyday matters and employee performance issues. That’s what a director is for.

      It’s not about not caring; it’s about focusing on the bigger picture and strategic planning.

      Reply ↓
  10. Lemons*

    “We will now spend the next few months picking up the pieces of their disruption and see what happens. So, all is well that ends well I guess.”

    I totally disagree that anything has ended well here. Even after reprimand, a PIP, being sent to training, a rebuff from the board, and probably a torched reference, LW still writes as if they believe they were totally in the right all along. I think that’s the most frustrating part for me, they don’t seem willing to accept that they had any part in creating the drama and disruption, when they were doing exactly that by complaining to the boss and the board so much that they almost lost their job over it.

    Not saying the boss was right or perfect (though I’d love to hear her version), but I wish LW would be more self-reflective here.

    Reply ↓
    2. NotAManager*

      Yeah, I’m not saying the new director navigated this situation perfectly, but I think that as long as the staff believes they don’t need to be managed, they’re going to have problems regardless of what director is brought in. What happens when then the next director implements completely reasonable things like regular personnel reviews, making sure that public-facing service areas are consistently staffed, and *checks original letter* updating the calendar. None of the things the new director did are outside the norm of running this type of organization nor would any reasonable manager ask for extensive input from the staff before implementing them.

      I’m not surprised the board declined to get involved since it doesn’t sound like anything the new director did (with regards to managing the staff and collection) was out of the ordinary and boards don’t usually get involved in the social aspects of personnel management, which is where it seems the breakdown in communication came in. For the sake of this library’s patrons, I hope the next director is a better fit AND that the staff are a less reactionary when it comes to change.

      Reply ↓
    3. Same Boat*

      I’m currently on a team going through a leadership change that’s extremely similar to this situation and the thing that has been most infuriating and demoralizing to deal with is my own coworkers who act like LW. Change is hard, but behaviour like this only makes it harder for everyone.

      I’m also very skeptical of their characterization of their suspended coworker as “just asking questions”…. Maybe I feel too close to this because the team I’m on has been reacting similarly to its own new management and I’ve seen how bad this kind of team dynamic can be in practice, but it hurts to read.

      Reply ↓
      1. Snarkus Aurelius*

        Exactly. There’s a difference between genuinely asking questions to learn something and continually asking questions because you don’t like change and you’re passively-aggressively cross-examining leadership nonstop.

        Reply ↓
      2. Katy*

        This is something I occasionally experience as a teacher. I teach an elective subject, and sometimes you get handed a Level 2 or 3 class where the students loved their Level 1 teacher and are very used to their way of doing things. Most students can roll with the changes; a few take longer to adjust and give you some pushback. But then there are usually one or two students who hate the changes and will never stop thinking that you are Doing Things Wrong and that it is their job to fix it, or failing that, to convince the students who are in the slower-to-adjust camp that you are a bad teacher.

        I had a student a couple of years ago who was like that; she was determined to learn nothing and get a low grade as a kind of moral stance against my teaching. I eventually realized that her attitude was poisoning her whole table group to the point where their performance in the class was dropping. I couldn’t do anything about her, but when I broke up her table group and put the other students at tables with good participation, their performance and morale shot up.

        Reply ↓
    4. Salsa Verde*

      Yeah, I kept hearing that the LW “heard nothing” for a while, or didn’t get communication from the director, and I was waiting to hear that the LW maybe tried to set up a meeting, or tried to talk to her in person after getting the email rejecting the facilitator idea. I get that the director should be taking the lead in that communication and that the LW shouldn’t have to reach out, but do you want to be right or do you want to try to move forward?

      And saying that a staff member was labeled as insubordinate “after she continued to share her thoughts and pushed for answers to her questions” is not really giving us enough to go on. If the director has asked for everyone to use a certain tool for scheduling, and the staff member’s thoughts continue to be “I don’t think we should use this tool” and her questions are “why do we have to use this tool?” after the director has explained it several times, that IS actually pretty insubordinate.

      Just saying, I can really see how this situation could be interpreted very differently from other viewpoints.

      Reply ↓
    5. Tio*

      Yeah, I’m kind of falling here.
      LW says “I also want to be clear that the changes themselves — the schedule, the reogranization, the new policies and procedures — are not really the issue. The issue is more the way the changes have been implemented. Quickly and with little to no staff input. And when staff gave feedback, the feedback was dismissed or turned back on them. Like when I let her know that folks were reeling a bit from all the change, she sent a survey to staff to gauge their level of change readiness.”
      I understand it’s hard when a lot of things change at once, but right here it says the changes themselves were not the problem. So… If the changes are fine, but it’s just disorienting that they were done quickly, you push through. You don’t keep complaining. if the changes themselves were creating issues, then that would be one thing. But I’m seeing a lot of crying without listing and real specific negative impacts to the org other than “We don’t like this.”

      OP, can you sit down, list all the changes, and then list the measurable negative cost they have brought? i.e., having someone always at front desk means there are less people and time to reshelve the books, leading to a big backlog of unshelved returned books. Leave out everything about what people feel right now. Quantifiable, objective things only. Then look at it. These are the real problems. People don’t like change and they’ll have to adjust when things change, even if it’s a lot, even if it’s all at once, and while that is a problem, the solution is generally NOT to cancel the changes or slow everything down until people feel ok. Sometimes if people literally don’t have enough time to learn a system before it’s rolled out, that might require some slow down and phased rollout, but just not liking a lot of new changes… that’s unfortunate but not necessarily an actionable item, and if you were coming to your director and constantly undermining her and passing along *non-actionable* complaints, that’s a problem that is going to persist. If you go down this road with a new director in the future, please – for each problem you bring them, give them a measurable negative problem and if possible a potential solution. That might work better for you in the future

      Reply ↓
      1. Lanam*

        This is great advice and a way of forcing yourself to articulate the problem to yourself too. Sometimes things FEEL like problems when they are just differences in approach and opinion.

        Reply ↓
      2. I own one tenacious plant*

        I think Tio nailed it. Time and money have gone into these changes. If they are are at least as equally effective as the old method it does a disservice to the organization undo the new processes. As for the person who was labeled insubordinate, at some point you need to stop criticizing changes and comply or get a new job. A job is not a democracy.

        Reply ↓
      3. Snarkus Aurelius*

        This is the perfect comment, and I hope the LW reads it.

        Okay so the issue wasn’t with the changes themselves only*how the changes were being implemented.

        I don’t understand what the LW expects? Yeah staff don’t like change, but this isn’t a democracy. If we had staff decide everything, there would be chaos. What is the Board supposed to do? Are we really going to wait to get 100% staff buy in before anything changes? How would that even work?

        I’m curious what this letter to the Board said about these changes and what the LW asked the Board to do. The only type of letter I can think of is one with a bunch of complaints that aren’t actionable.

        If that’s what occurred, then no wonder the Board didn’t respond. They couldn’t.

        At some point, you have to accept the changes and move on or find a new job.

        Reply ↓
      4. holding out for pizza*

        Yeah, the “well it was the WAY the changes were done!!” aspect seems to hit a little too close to like, “I’m not upset that my GF dumped me, it’s HOW she dumped me that made me upset!!” or something like that. And if you’re harping on that all the time…
        I’m just still getting a lot of “We the LW and coworkers have never done anything wrong ever” vibes here.

        Reply ↓
    7. Snarkus Aurelius*

      This. All of this.

      The LW still doesn’t seem to understand that Marcia’s changes were intentional and not a mistake or lack of understanding on her part. Her saying, “I didn’t know that,” doesn’t necessarily mean the LW was in the right. Many times, small details don’t really change the outcome.

      As long as staff and the LW think this workplace is a democracy, then the director is pointless and the “chaotic good” will fuel inefficiencies and low productivity.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the next director is a complete hard ass. That’s who I would hire.

      Reply ↓
    8. sulky-anne*

      My main impression here is that the LW is lacking skill in playing office politics. I say this as someone who is abysmal at this kind of thing, so I’m not judging.

      But the LW does seem to be treating the workplace in terms of social dynamics and not paying attention to the power dynamics at play. I’m sensing some of the old “geek social fallacies” in wanting to make sure all staff members feel good about every change rather than trying to pick their battles with the director. I think this approach is liable to just lead to more frustration regardless of who the director is.

      Reply ↓
  11. Parenthesis Guy*

    Going forward, I think next time you should apply for the director job. You clearly have strong feelings about how things should be done, so you won’t work well with a different vision. It’ll also give you an idea of whether the board thinks you have a future in this org. If they reject you out of hand, you know it’s time to leave anyway.

    Reply ↓
    2. Snarkus Aurelius*

      The first around, the LW had a chance at the job. Given everything that happened with Marcia and the ill-advised letter to the Board, I do not see LW being considered the second time around. The Board originally wanted change; LW has stated in many ways they have zero intention of changing anything.

      Reply ↓
      1. Parenthesis Guy*

        I suspect you’re correct, which is why I made that recommendation. If she’s dismissed out of hand for the director position, then it’s likely they’re not going to want her in the assistant director position. If that’s the case, she should probably find something new before she’s let go.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cmdrshprd*

          I think that is where there was a miscommunication the board saying they didn’t want change, I took as saying they didn’t explicitly bring someone in to completely overhaul/change the library. But that IMO is very very different from saying “there will be absolutely no changes at all.” Managers/directors often have (and should) leeway to make lower level changes and run things how they see fit even if it’s something that the director just prefers a certain way.

          Like director prefers to know who is working the front desk at all times based on a rotating schedule versus having it change all the time, is within directors purview to change, but deciding to get rid of the service desk altogether would be a different story.

          Reply ↓
        2. Saturday*

          They said they didn’t want a complete overhaul – but that just means they didn’t want drastic changes, not that they didn’t want changes at all. To me, the changes LW describes don’t seem particularly large, and they don’t seem to have been implemented particularly quickly.

          Reply ↓
        3. Snarkus Aurelius*

          They didn’t want a complete overhaul, which isn’t the same as no change at all. It’s completely unrealistic to assume everything will be the same under a new director.

          The changes the LW complained about are in line with what the Board wanted.

          Reply ↓
    4. Liz the Snackbrarian*

      I think it’s less that LW is rigid and won’t work with a different vision, I suspect too many changes were made too quickly without enough staff input. In libraries there’s also often a disconnect between admin and frontline staff where admin just doesn’t have a great idea of what frontline staff does all day. Hopefully LW fares better under a different director and can feel heard while remaining open to change.

      Reply ↓
  12. Observer*

    I haven’t read the rest of the comments yet, but I have a few thoughts.

    Firstly, I would keep looking if I were you. On the one hand, I am *deeply* unimpressed with the way your Board handled the whole situation. On the other hand, I also think that while the ex was a problem, it’s also pretty clear that your staff was not all as collaborative and friendly as you thought.

    So a lot of dysfunction and a Board that is likely to not make the best decision.

    Reply ↓
    1. All Het Up About It*

      I too am a little concerned about the Board’s response in relation to not having an HR. Whether Marcia was really a problem or the staff was really the problem, or a little bit of both, I think this situation highlights that there is certainly the ability for conflict to arise without a good neutral resolution method. The Board needs to realize that they DO need to play HR when it comes to the Director who has the ability to abuse their position of power – Or they need to have an HR consultant on standby or something.

      Reply ↓
    2. Msd*

      I kind of thought that the board declined to get involved because they did not agree with the OP. Which, if true, is still kind of spineless.

      Also, I have been on both sides of the “but we always did it this way” and I have to say that it can be much harder being the manager trying to implement changes than the employee impacted by them.

      Reply ↓
  13. Lanam*

    I rarely write comments but this one felt too familiar to situations I’ve been in and observed so I wanted to share lessons I learned. I don’t intend to sound condescending and am writing this for past me as much as any early career folks reading the comments.

    I think it’s hard when you’re used to a certain culture to accept that a new boss has the authority to change that culture, and as the non-boss you have to accept it (within reason). As a leader yourself (assuming assistant director oversaw other staff), it’s also important to support your own leadership’s decisions to your staff even if you personally don’t always agree with them. This is also a form of building trust with Marcia.

    It doesn’t sound like Marcia approached things in an inclusive “fair process” way by getting input from staff before changes, which is a sign of a bad CHANGE manager, yes, but not necessarily a sign that she was a bad boss, period. As your letter noted, it wasn’t the changes themselves but the quickness and lack of staff input that rankled people. None of that is worth elevating to a board. It is normal for staff to complain amongst themselves, but unless her changes were getting in the way of their work, changing their jobs such that they are no longer doing what they agreed to do when they were hired and/or not being compensated appropriately, or other direct impacts on people’s ability to work besides being unhappy that their feedback wasn’t considered, then you end up being in the kill-the-messenger position when you elevate group complaints, and you give the boss the idea that there’s a whisper campaign happening, which deteriorates her trust in you all and doesn’t put you or the team in the position to get what you need (not want, but need).

    The approach I’d have taken (again, after observing these kinds of dynamics in my career), is to tell my staff to trust that she was hired to do the job she’s doing because she has the skills to do it, and while it’s not how our culture has been in the past, it’s her prerogative to run things differently. (It sounds like you tried this for a few months?) Then build trust and a relationship with her such that she eventually trusts you and the team enough to care what you think (and if she never does, then you have a bad manager who won’t change, and you accept it or look for another job). For individuals whose jobs were changed enough to warrant review, their manager should handle individually.

    A great boss/change manager would have proactively started off building relationships with you all, explaining why she wants to change things at the pace she is, explained if and how she’d like feedback, and more. She’s likely NOT a great leader. But she had the authority and the board’s trust, so without extreme circumstances, pushing back on her consistently for things she is authorized to do, when she has repeatedly shown she isn’t interested in feedback, is simply putting yourself at risk, as you experienced with the review and the other staff person did with the suspension (which I suspect was more about the delivery rather than the content of their feedback, but if not then they should handle that as an individual problem with their manager as well).

    I appreciate your effort to advocate for your team and preserve your culture, but I would have stopped after the first few conversations with her. She’s the boss – if she was interested in changing, she’d have been responsive to those conversations. Sending the email suggesting an outside facilitator was already a step too far. Going over her head with the letter seemed like going nuclear to me, and it didn’t seem like she had done anything to warrant that step (from your letters, I know you haven’t shared everything). Alison’s suggestion of a discreet conversation with one or two members would not likely have backfired the way this did. I’m not surprised she left, and I’m glad for your sake that your job is safe(r). But in this case, I think this was simply a culture clash that snowballed because of a lack of trust/respect (perceived or real, and perception is reality unfortunately).

    Reply ↓
    1. Elbe*

      Agreed. It’s kind of hard to get a feel for the situation based on the letters, but it almost sounds like the original director was hands-off to the point that she let the employees make her director-level decisions by committee. Everyone was consulted and everyone got a say.

      But that’s not normal for most organizations. In most places, questioning your boss’s decisions is very frowned upon and is only appropriate to do for instances where there are negative consequences that affect you. “Nothing is wrong, I just felt like I should have a say in what the director decides to do” is an attitude that would not go over well in most places. It’s hard to tell how justified the employees were in pushing back in this particular instance, but it something that the LW should give more thought to in the future with the next director.

      Reply ↓
  14. All Het Up About It*

    Fascinating! OP – thank you for updating us even though you felt embarrassed the first round!

    No matter what – it sounds like Marcia was not a good fit/hire. Sometimes that happens at any level! Maybe she was trying to bring “big city” ideas to a small town org that were never going to work. Maybe she was right in her ideas and wrong in her approach. Maybe you and your staff are not nearly as good in your “chaotic good” as you think and the Board does want to see change. Truly – we commenters cannot know.

    I’m glad for you that a serious source of stress has resolved itself and wish you and your team luck moving forward!!

    Reply ↓
    1. Roland*

      Well said. There’s a tendency for commenters to think “oh, I can easily judge this situation” but I think it mostly comes from which situation the commenter first thinks of when reading the letter and casting themselves as the party In The Right. But just because a letter reminded you of the time your boss/report was Totally In The Wrong, doesn’t mean that’s what’s happening here, especially when we just don’t have that many details.

      Reply ↓
  15. Zona the Great*

    I don’t think you would have deserved this but I’m honestly surprised you weren’t let go, LW. IME, new directors who have clearly come on board to make big changes remove silos like you and your team much quicker.

    Reply ↓
    1. LA*

      If the director had stayed I think OP would have been let go. They have demonstrated they are a clear impediment to the change the director expects to implement, and it doesn’t matter if that change is necessary, terrible, great, whatever. You can’t have an assistant who clearly won’t get on board and is actively part of the problem and you can’t spend a significant chunk of time patiently walking that person through your logic, experience, decisionmaking process, everything – each time you need to make a change.

      Reply ↓
  16. Full time reader, part time commenter*

    Response to the Late Breaking Update: it can always get worse! Be mindful of how you handle the new director. Some lessons should have been learned in this go round. Anyone coming in will want to make changes, no one will embrace the former system, regardless of what it was and most probably not if it was “good chaos.” Be prepared to pick your battles with them. Getting your resume up to date is a good idea. No doubt the new director will be aware of what happened to their predecessor. Maybe a conversation with the other staff too to make it a better experience all around.

    Reply ↓
    1. LA*

      Anyone interviewing for this job is going to find out about this situation and see some red flags. Maybe they’ll take it anyway, but I think it’ll be worse now for any outsider coming in to try to implement the will of the board in making any changes because the staff now feel vindicated in their approach to the last one.

      Reply ↓
    2. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      And remember that the new director will have access to that performance review Marcia started. Even though she is gone, there will be lasting effects to deal with.

      Reply ↓
  17. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

    I’m surprised at the number of people who think Marcia, who did not write in, is great and the OP is an unreliable narrator and clearly the real problem. I guess we all like to engage in black and white thinking sometimes, but I’m going to actually take the letter writer at her word.

    OP, I think you should definitely consider leaving. You mentioned having to do a lot of work to earn back the goodwill of the community from previous iterations of your org. Was this board in charge back then? If so, then you should assume that the improvements were only by chance because of your previous director. If not, maybe they don’t have the full picture of what it was like before.

    As an outsider, I can’t say, but maybe you and your colleagues have a bit of veterans in the trenches trauma bonding and your mentality of “hold the line, we can’t go back to how bad it was before” makes it hard to accept a new leader who hasn’t been there with you. It’s also possible that Marcia was a bad hire, you all were fine and she overreacted to perceived threats to her power. Or both. She certainly sounds like a “questions are a threat” type of insecure person.

    I hope things improve from here. Thanks for updating us.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

      No one is saying OP is an unreliable narrator. Commenters are giving OP a reality check because based solely on *what the OP has said* the OP has not mentioned any *real* problem beyond staff not liking the changes. (and then even clarifying that the changes were fine, it just wasn’t communicated in a way that people liked.) OP is also very vague about these changes, and unless there’s some huge missing piece, changes like enforcing a schedule, wanting to know what staff are doing on work time (likely taxpayer funded work time), and setting expectations are not bad things. They are probably good things, but at worst, they are net neutral and are based entirely on manager preference, which, since OP is not the director, OP does not get a say on it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Saturday*

        Exactly – it’s through the LW’s own words that people are getting the impression that this is a staff that is resistant to change even when those changes aren’t problematic.

        Reply ↓
    2. Zona the Great*

      Interesting. I can see where commenters feel like LW was not necessarily in the right but I don’t see any comments showing they think Marcia was “great”.

      Reply ↓
      1. Web of Pies*

        I’m assuming those impressions came from commenters saying they thought Marcia’s changes sounded normal and needed. Which I also thought…I mean ‘chaotic’ anything would just be intolerable for me in the workplace, not a badge of pride!

        Life is chaotic enough y’all, let’s let the Marcias of the world put some systems in place.

        Reply ↓
  18. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

    I’m going to be real, I assume this is a small library. I’ve been in library management for over 10 years and have some thoughts.

    OP – you seem to be dismissive of any concerns that aren’t people you agree with, and seem focused on the director achieving consensus among staff. I’m going to be completely honest with you – you are in the wrong field if that is the management style you are looking for. You need to move into academic libraries, where departments often do operate based on consensus, and apart from department directors and faculty chairs, tend to have a much flatter hierarchy. Public libraries are technically local government institutions (whether they are separate tax districts, or part of the city/county) and thus have bureaucracy built into their very nature.

    Very frequently, though, small libraries are able to sidestep the (often necessary, because of taxes, levies and local governments) bureaucracy because they find a decent director who doesn’t have a lot of actual leadership or management skills or experiences, but is well-liked and uses that amiability (whether they realize it or not) to get people to meet base expectations. This is not effective management though, because it depends *entirely* on people liking you and being willing to do their jobs “as a favor” to you. This sounds very much like your old director’s approach, and is a classic small-town library between 1990-2008 vibe. Post-recession, some small libraries still operate this way, but I’ve noticed it’s becoming fewer and farther in between. (My theory is that the last 10+ years of the far right demonizing libraries has made either actively malicious boards who get rid of “feel good vibes” people; or boards who realize that they have to take things very seriously and get much more professional so that they can withstand increased scrutiny and challenges.)

    If it is a library, it’s also concerning to me that the entirety of your letter focuses internally on office politics. How was your director treating the community? Were the staff concerns that the Board took seriously related to the community? How do you see the community and your library, because you only mention vaguely in your first letter about how previous iterations of your organization weren’t well-liked by the community, but you mention nothing to demonstrate that that changed, just that the most recent director was hands-off. Just because your small library has avoided the bureaucracy that can often impede progress, does not mean that your organization couldn’t have swung to the other side where it became a more enjoyable place to work, but didn’t necessarily have any material benefits or changes to your customers/patrons.

    It sounds like the current staff is overall far too focused on people wanting to feel like they have some kind of role in the decision making process, but no real reason to feel that way. If it’s just feeling put out because the old manager let everyone do whatever they wanted….well, that has real community spillover, results in inequitable workplaces (librarians are overwhelmingly white, middle-aged, cisgender, straight, centrist females), etc. etc. Additionally, for you directly – in both your original letter and your update, you do not focus on that big picture at any point, but still want your board, your boss and your team to let you have input on that big picture – this is where I feel that the board and your ex-boss likely made the right decision putting you on a PIP and requiring professional development and growth.

    The only criticism I have of your supervisor is that from your descriptions, it seems they didn’t have a ton of in-person conversations with staff. Written documentation is important, so I understand the impulse to email, but if I was your director, you and I would have had a very direct face-to-face conversation where I lay out my expectations for someone in your role, how you aren’t meeting them currently and ask how you plan to meet those expectations moving forward. That’s the pre-emptive step of a PIP and it doesn’t appear it was laid out so clearly to you by either your ex-boss or your Board.

    You say that alls well that ends well – libraries are libraries, in my experience. That is to say, it’s a small field, and most people in director positions know each other and talk to each other. Many of you all go to school and get your masters’ together. Take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but know that if you get to the end of a lot of interviews with no offers – when you’re in public libraries and have years of experience, it *very* often comes down to soft skills and often the way people find out about soft skills is to ask through the librarian grapevine.

    All that said, I might be a touch harsh. I’m in a very large library system right now and there are several people with the attitude of “we’ve gotten by just fine before why are things changing” that are actively making our organizations mission harder; that are making strides in diversifying our profession harder; that are actively creating roadblocks as we try to address unfettered political attacks in a bright red state; and even creating legal liability because apparently “we’ve always done it this way and never gotten in trouble” is an appropriate answer to “you can’t do X – it’s literally illegal”.

    Food for thought.

    Reply ↓
    1. Quick counterpoint*

      Just to note that these things can also be turned around. I’ve spent many years in both government-funded public library and academic library, and the academic library has been many magnitudes more hierarchical. Also have seen management push changes when the situation was “you can’t do X – it’s literally illegal,” but staff bringing that up (as tactfully as possible) was combative or insubordinate. So mileage certainly varies.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

        It’s true that there’s a counterpoint to anything. But that does not negate that wanting to work somewhere with a flat org chart means that OP probably needs to look elsewhere from government work; and that actively pushing back against big picture changes that *are* legal and fully within the director’s purview to change isn’t likely going to result in significant career growth or positive perception of soft skills.

        Reply ↓
    2. NotAManager*

      This is a top comment for me. I hope LW and the rest of the staff give it a read and hopefully the transition to the next director goes much more smoothly, for the new hire, the staff, and the community they serve.

      Reply ↓
    3. Kitty*

      Well I’m not LW but this comment was really helpful to me as someone sympathetic to LW but in the flatter org chart situation you describe. I’ve been feeling frustrated with the folks in my org who resemble this new director and so was surprised by all the pushback from commenters. Your analysis has helped me realize how much I’ve been acculturated into this flat structure where amiability plays a big role and therefore have a hard time with new folks from state systems where authority might play a bigger role.

      Reply ↓
  19. I’m harder to forget than I was to leave*

    Okay so the LW says that actually the problem was that stuff like a new calendar system (or any calendar system?) and organizing a storage closet were implemented quickly and with little to no staff input. And on the one hand I can see how that would chafe. On the other hand (based on experience in non-profits, including libraries, and experience in the kind of chaotic orgs that the LW described in their original letter)…the director might have just been trying to avoid a months-long merry-go-round of meetings, debates, etc about which calendar system to use, how to set up the calendar (I’m talking very nitpicky details), the exact type of storage boxes and file folder labels, arguments against any type of calendar or storage system, etc. So what seemed like it was implemented with little or no warning to LW and the staff was actually just like, a perfectly normal timeline/announcement at most other orgs? With no handwringing or “how many angels on the head of a pin” type debates?

    I could be totally wrong! But that is just something that I’ve come across in my career occasionally.

    Reply ↓
    1. Salsa Verde*

      I have absolutely come across that, in library jobs as well as other not for profit organizations. It’s exhausting.

      Reply ↓
      1. I’m harder to forget than I was to leave*

        And while it could happen in the private sector and in behemoth orgs, it seems like (again at least in my experience) a situation that is more typical to smaller nonprofits and/or nonprofits with a very “we’re pulling this all out of our butts as we go” (whether by necessity and/or just the general mindset* or whatever). Then the org gets big/successful enough to *need* more formal structures and procedures (and hierarchy) but the people (especially the ones who were there from the beginning) freak out because “that’s not who we are, maaaan! Don’t come down here with your rules and time cards, harshing our vibes, narc!”

        *here, I’m thinking specifically of an art college that is less than like 85 years old, had a lot of odds stacked against it before and during its founding** and is very big on like, “we do things our own way damn it.” Which is great for student creativity and innovation but they extend that to even the very basic ways of running a college and then wonder why there is Constant dysfunction and crap morale among faculty and staff (and sometimes students), and a very love-hate relationship with the local community.
        ** excluding the actual money despite what they say, lol

        Reply ↓
  20. Not Jobless (Yet)*

    I’m in a similar situation, so I have a lot of sympathy for the employees. My boss was hired (at a salary double that of anyone who held the position before her, with very little relevant experience) because she was friends with the person at the top. The Top Person loves change and doesn’t seem to understand that some people might not be excited by it. We had a very rough, stressful transition, which was much worse than it should have been because of the lack of communication from management to employees. My boss is very opposed to doing anything the same way it had been done before, so a lot of things that were useful were dropped.

    Maybe it’s not necessary for management to talk to employees before making big changes, but it it helpful to see how things work, what people need to do their jobs, and how to make changes that work for everyone. We went from having a team that works well together to having a people that do what they think is necessary to make her happy, at the expense of trust and respect with other members of the team. :-(

    The Top Person is leaving early next year, so I’m hoping that means things will change in a good way.

    Reply ↓
  21. FunkyMunky*

    my take is that Marcia was a bad fit to the team/organization. It was always surprising to me how critical everyone got of LW, but I don’t think they were a bad guy in this situation. Marcia sounded like someone who categorically didn’t want to have people question her ways and was not open to feedback, and also someone who’s spiteful and holds grudge (bad review, PIP, voluntold course) and is into punishment. Frankly she sounds like a terrible manager all around. Hopefully she learns a lesson out of this too.

    Reply ↓
    2. HiddenT*

      Agreed. There are ways to make changes while still ensuring that the team feels heard, it sounds like she ran roughshod over them and then got angry when they pushed back.

      I also wonder how many people commenting have worked in a library before. Libraries are not like corporate jobs. They’re often expected to work miracles with minimal funding, and the majority of librarians do it because they’re passionate about it, not because of the perks.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lurker*

        I haven’t worked at a library, but I’ve spent decades at museums and small arts organizations which often have the same limitations. The good ones are run more like proper businesses. But I’m not sure what any of the typical nonprofit limitations have to do with a staff that’s clearly resistant to change…like having a standardized calendar system is pretty basic office best practices 101.

        Reply ↓
      2. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

        I’ve been in libraries for over 10 years. Running a government organization (public libraries are *not* non-profits, they are either independent tax districts or a department of city/county government – public libraries are *always* tax funded organizations, that’s what makes them public) with “vibes-based” leadership and chaotic good, trust-us-we-have-good-hearts, is a disaster in waiting. Because these are government organizations, there are likely policies, rules and literal laws that have to be followed. Recent right-wing backlash towards public libraries has not made this easier, and it’s not uncommon for boards and directors to be wanting everything clearly documented, signed, filed and available before the first challenge of “librarians are misusing our tax dollars to be evil to children” arrives. OP has made no actual statement of how the new changes were harmful, just that it wasn’t how the organization used to work, and that the implementation rubbed some people the wrong way. That does not justify going nuclear, both Alison and the majority of original commenters pointed that out from the first letter.

        I also challenge your statement about how libraries are supposed to work miracles with minimal funding for two reasons. The first, related to this letter, is that the director likely was tasked to make magic happen with minimal funding *and* a disruptive staff – getting caught up in the office politics of not feeling “heard” means that the magic isn’t going to happen. The second, related to our industry, is that the job should never be based on passion alone. That’s how the field stays white, married, middle-class, cisgender/straight and female (what’s the demographic of a passionate reader willing to work part-time for pennies? – usually a white, middle-class mom whose kids have hit high-school age); it also allows for boards and government decision makers to continually justify paying us nothing.

        Reply ↓
    3. Web of Pies*

      Well, to be fair, everything we know of Marcia was framed by the LW, who has a motivation to make Marcia seem like she’s the problem. I agree Marcia was probably a bad fit for the workplace, but the consequences LW faced seem to align with her behavior.

      Reply ↓
  22. DJ Abbott*

    This makes me think of our manager who started last year. I answered her questions about my work and tried to help her understand our processes. She took offense and said I was uncooperative because as it turned out, she thought she knew best about things she hadn’t learned yet.
    Once she made that clear, I withdrew and stopped trying to help. I’m an admin, not an assistant director, so I have no influence.
    Finally after 1.5 years, she has acknowledged I have some value and given me a review of “meets expectations”.
    She still does negative things like latching on to a small error and continuously bringing it up, or if I tell her about something smart I did she tells me not to, and she continues to be unprofessional in many ways, like spending an hour or more each day chatting with her bestie, who is her employee and my colleague.
    Since she’s very friendly and sociable, I have to remind myself not to tell her too much or give her opportunities to be negative.
    One day her arrogance and unprofessionalism will get her in trouble. I hope I get to watch. :)

    Reply ↓
  23. supeisedcanuk*

    Going above your boss’s head is a bad idea. It’s the nuclear option. You just need to do what your boss says unless it’s illegal or immoral or dangerous. Your boss may not have been very good, but it sounds like you don’t like change or wanted to be consulted. Wanting to be consulted is understandable.

    Reply ↓
    1. Web of Pies*

      Agreed! Once you’ve said your piece once, they’ve heard you, there’s no reason to harp on it, even if you don’t like that your boss’s answer is no.

      Reply ↓
  24. Sneaky Squirrel*

    Marcia doesn’t sound like she was a best fit for the role but it sounds like LW wanted to be treated as a decision making partner given their role in the organization. LW says that they provided Marcia feedback a few times about their concerns, but when Marcia didn’t agree with LW’s feedback, LW needed to go along with Marcia’s choices unless doing so caused substantial harm to somebody or something. At the point where an outside facilitator was suggested, and then again at the point where the board was contacted, LW was signaling to Marcia that they were not going to respect her authority.

    I would suggest LW step back and review what happened. Marcia asked LW to stop taking staff feedback. LW did not. LW should have directed any staff providing their unsolicited feedback to Marcia directly. Marcia called LW unprofessional, disrespectful, unethical, and disengaged. These are concerning accusations by someone supervising anyone’s work. Was Marcia the type to make up information about the staff? LW was put on a PIP. LW was asked to a professional development course about effective communication and conflict management (it’s not clear who sent LW this email – Marcia or the board – it sounds like it came from the board). The board was not supportive in resolving LW’s concerns which is a sign that they weren’t concerned about whether Marcia was acting within her authority. I’ve also noted LW noted that Marcia had some feedback from two staff members (the mother and daughter) which implies that maybe staff weren’t all rallying for LW the way LW implies.

    Reply ↓
    1. Elbe*

      I had a similar read.

      When people are used to a very flat, egalitarian approach to management, it makes sense
      that it would feel bad having someone who exercises the authority of their position. It doesn’t surprise me at all that some people were upset about not having the same level of input that they were previously used to.

      But the LW has to understand that the boss DOES have authority. If they are not getting key details or consulting their employees properly, the decisions that they make will be bad and have negative effects. If the changes they are making do work, then that’s a pretty clear indication that feedback wasn’t necessarily required for that instance. Just because they are doing something in a different way doesn’t mean that’s it’s the wrong way.

      Reply ↓
  25. Riley*

    I then received an email telling me that I had been signed up for a professional development course about effective communication and conflict management. […] She and one other staff member would also be taking it.

    snip

    they might be able to provide some opportunities for professional development for her or something.

    Sounds like she did get development opportunities…and she shared them with her staff. Also sounds like the problem you have with this is that you don’t feel you should be lumped in with her and your coworker as a person who needs development.

    Congrats, LW, you drove her out. I hope you both land the career you want.

    Reply ↓
  26. Calamity Janine*

    y’know, i am not going to try and armchair quarterback super hard here – though believe me when i say i see the appeal and i am not shading anyone who is. some letters are little mystery stories that engage our inner wannabe detectives. even and especially when the mystery isn’t intended but is the downright banal (and not malicious) side effect of hearing one perspective of a story (on account of that’s how people experience reality, yada yada, life is always full of the Rashomon effect).

    and honestly i see why some people are being grumbly with the LW… but i also think the only way we’d actually know what was happening truly and completely is probably through the use of a team of investigators. and a time machine.

    yeah this means that i have reached a way more boring aesop at the end. but it’s one that i think might actually be the most useful to the LW:

    clearly there’s some hinkery-dinkery afoot. whether it left with Marcia or not, i think we can diagnose that hinkeries have been dinked. i think your impulse at the start here – to step back and look at things more neutrally – is a good one, and one that you should cultivate for future use. and, yes, honestly, i think an exit route is probably the best option. either the organization has now lost faith in you for doing your best to try and be reasonable, or on the other end you’re so out of step of norms that you beefed it, or somewhere in-between – i think at some point dissecting that gordian knot is immaterial, y’know? it sounds like it’s toxicity that has gotten into a reinforcing spiral. i’m not really interested in figuring out who pooped in the pool, it’s more sensible to get out of the pool first.

    and, honestly, it will be a good idea to… well, to just finish torturing this metaphor, make sure extra chlorine gets in the pool and is cycled through before you jump in again. it could be your bad behaviour LW, it could be their bad behavior, it could be you picking up on some wackiness that got normalized in this workplace, whatever. it’s just a good idea to do something of a cleanse of professionalism and look forward to having a very different environment soon.

    going forward into your new workplace aiming to match their culture and tone as you mind your ps and qs is probably the best thing to think on now.

    …and, yes, definitely the most boring and unsatisfying for us to read because “a complicated situation was complicated and there’s a good amount of ambient suckage” doesn’t make a terribly interesting tale to follow LOL

    Reply ↓
  27. Meme*

    LW, your letter doesn’t reflect that you’ve internalized that *you were going to be fired* and only through sheer luck she found another job before she could fire you.

    Whether your actions were correct on principle, they still led to you losing your livelihood, only avoided incidentally. This is a devastating outcome! You are extremely lucky she happened to find another job.

    If I were the board members I’d have a conversation with you about what transpired to drive this director out, given your letter and their response to it. I would prepare for what to say to them to demonstrate that you have good judgment and will not impede (intentionally or not) another of their hires.

    Reply ↓
  29. Lizard Lady*

    I still think contacting the board was the right move. Now you know where they stand- which is wherever they have to be to avoid giving any direction. You know that the information they shared with you and the rest of the staff was just what you wanted to hear (that they didn’t want an agent of change). In my opinion, the board probably doesn’t care what the director they hire *does* so long as they are willing to be the one doing the heavy lifting.

    With that knowledge, you are forewarned that your entire workplace culture (which matters!) will depend on whoever is director, for good or for ill. Pick up the pieces but be ready to leave.

    Reply ↓
  30. Hubert*

    No need to be embarrassed! This is just another letter in a long line of letters about new hires that don’t understand how and why things are done the way they are, demand everything change to suit their preferences, launch attacks at all pushback, and storm off when their sense of entitlement isn’t catered to.

    “took a job with another organization that would ‘better use their skills'” is a common graceful way of saying “was fired”, so that is a promising sign that the higher-ups do not agree with the complaints or demands. I hope that the collection of attacks (bad, cherry-picked review; professional development courses; PIP) are therefore seen as the temper tantrum that it is, resulting in it having no effect on your file.

    Good luck cleaning up the mess they made. You mentioned in the earlier letter that you were not interested in applying for the director position. You may want to rethink that; sometimes the only way to prevent someone from abusing the power of a throne is to occupy it yourself.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS