A Manager Is Not a Parent: Building a Productive Team

At nine in the evening, Kateryna sees a message from her manager: “Can you quickly look at a file? We’re all friends here.” She has already closed her laptop and sat down to dinner. Waiting until tomorrow feels awkward, although nobody agreed on evening availability. The following morning, her manager is genuinely surprised by her tiredness. He understood her agreement as an ordinary favour.

“We’re like a family” can express warmth. It is worth examining the conditions behind it. Can someone leave a message until working hours? Is disagreement treated as betrayal? When something urgent arises, is there a clear agreement about the task, pay, and availability? Those moments reveal how much freedom workplace closeness actually leaves.

A manager can notice tiredness, help with priorities, and support someone through a difficult period. They also assess performance, allocate tasks, and influence professional opportunities. That difference can make it difficult for an employee to say a question or request feels uncomfortable.

A friendly tone does not remove the authority. If a manager offers to discuss something personal, declining needs to be a genuine option without damaging the relationship. Practical support might involve a different schedule or clarified workload; it does not always require details of someone’s family history.

Partnership in a team means understanding the conditions and having influence over one’s part of the work. Some final decisions may remain with the manager, and that can be stated directly. Vague promises of equality create additional expectations where decision-making powers are actually different.

In transactional analysis, Parent, Adult, and Child name ego states. They describe ways of experiencing and responding, rather than job titles or diagnoses. Care and rules can be appropriate; feeling hurt does not, by itself, establish that someone has “become a child.”

It helps to examine a specific sequence: a manager rewrites every email an employee drafts, the employee stops suggesting decisions, and then receives criticism for lacking initiative. The useful question is which decisions can now be made independently and what criteria will be used to evaluate them.

An Adult position helps return to present facts. Kateryna might say: “I spent forty minutes on the file yesterday evening. I’d like to clarify whether that availability is expected in future and how we agree on it.” She may still be angry, but the conversation now has a subject.

Time boundaries concern schedules, deadlines, and response times. For Kateryna, genuine urgency needs to be distinguished from the habit of sending a message whenever a new idea occurs to the manager. If on-call work or special availability is needed, the arrangement should be discussed separately and made clear.

Emotional boundaries concern how much personal experience belongs in a working relationship. Listening to a colleague can be voluntary. Calming a manager after their family arguments every day should not quietly become another job requirement.

Boundaries around thoughts and ideas concern disagreement and how it is discussed. An employee can be mistaken or propose an unsuitable solution. A response about budget, risk, or a client requirement provides more information than “you don’t understand enough yet.”

Physical boundaries concern distance, touch, and personal space. A colleague’s habit of hugging everyone does not determine whether hugging is comfortable for you. You can state a preferred greeting without explaining your life history.

Material boundaries involve personal belongings, money, and use of private devices. Before someone is asked to purchase office supplies with personal funds, the amount, approval, and reimbursement process need clarification. “We’ll sort it out later” leaves the risk with one person.

Sexual boundaries concern unwanted comments, suggestions, contact, and pressure for personal involvement. If refusal leads to threats or retaliation, the problem extends beyond finding a polite phrase. Safety, preserving available facts, and access to a trusted support channel or an appropriate organisational procedure become important.

Guilt after refusing or irritation with a colleague can draw attention to something significant. Those feelings also depend on tiredness, expectations, and previous experience. A reaction alone does not establish whether an agreement was violated.

In writing, separate the event, thought, feeling, and next action. “The message arrived at 9 p.m.” is an observation. “If I don’t reply, I’ll be considered disloyal” is a prediction that needs examining. This makes it easier to ask about working conditions without turning one episode into a conclusion about personal worth.

One employee reacts sharply to feedback, another repeatedly asks for confirmation of an agreement, and a third delays a task through fear of mistakes. That is not enough to label someone narcissistic, paranoid, or depressive. A practical response needs observations and context.

If someone disputes feedback, return to a specific example and hear their account. If they doubt the conditions, record the decision in writing and consider whether those conditions previously changed without notice. If starting is difficult, clarify the obstacle, what counts as ready, and whether training is needed. None of these actions requires guessing a hidden personality type.

The Center for Creative Leadership describes SBI as situation, observable behaviour, and impact. Its SBII extension adds an inquiry about intent. At the end of the conversation, a specific request or next step can be agreed.

For example: “During yesterday’s meeting, you twice started speaking while Oksana was explaining a risk. We did not finish hearing her point and returned to it after the call. What were you trying to clarify?” The reply may add circumstances that were missed. They can then agree on a way to signal urgent clarification while allowing people to finish.

The Karpman Triangle may help someone notice how unrequested or undiscussed help turns into reproach, then another rescue. Naming a colleague “the Rescuer” is insufficient for change. Responsibility, consent to involvement, and the consequences of an unmet agreement need clarification.

David Emerald’s The Empowerment Dynamic offers the positions Creator, Coach, and Challenger. They can be used as questions: what outcome do we want, what support is missing, and how can a difficulty be named directly without humiliation? Change becomes visible through answers and actions, rather than new labels for the same people.

WHO connects occupational burnout with chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. Prevention needs attention to workload, control over work, support, and organisational conditions. One exercise cannot replace changes to deadlines or the amount of work assigned.

In a brief weekly review, note what consumed the most energy, what was useful, and which condition needs reconsideration. Rose, Thorn, Bud invites attention to positives, difficulties, and opportunities. It can address a process or project while leaving personal experiences optional. End with an action and someone responsible, so the meeting does more than repeat familiar complaints.

In the EQ Emotions Diary, you can track your response before and after a difficult conversation. In the Boundaries Diary, formulate one condition about availability that you want to discuss. A Planner can help review the actual workload: what has already filled the day, and what would have to move to accommodate another task?

Metaphorical associative cards can prompt a personal association with cooperation or tension. Team participation should be voluntary. Employees should not be expected to reveal private experiences, and another person should not interpret their card on their behalf. An ordinary notebook also works for personal entries. MriyaRun tools provide a format for reflection while leaving work decisions to actual discussion and agreement.

Generational categories should not become ready-made explanations of behaviour either. The article on Gen Z, autonomy, and teamwork examines the organisation of focused work, synchronisation, and shared decisions.

Sources: CCL on SBI and inquiring about intent; WHO on mental health at work; LUMA Institute, Rose, Thorn, Bud; ITAA on ego states; The Empowerment Dynamic.