I had my employee review today, and it was 99 percent positive. The critical 1 percent called me out for being unprepared for meetings I chair. It's a valid observation because I usually attend meetings, I don't lead them. And for good reason.
I've been management before, and I wasn't very good at it.
In the past, I let the whole notion of being in charge get to my head, and it would trip me out. In my various editorial positions back in college, I ruled with an iron fist. At my first job, I was passed over many times for positions of greater responsibility. At the time, I bristled over the fact I was denied a fatter paycheck. In retrospect, passing me over did the organization much good. I would have so totally pissed everyone off.
Part of the reason I left journalism — aside from the lousy hours and lousy pay — was the fact success was gauged vertically. If you wanted to get paper, you had to climb the ladder. That didn't appeal to me, so I decided to move laterally — by becoming a developer. The pay was better, and I didn't have to supervise anyone.
The criticism in my evaluation was offered because the commenter in question would like me to see lead more initiatives in the department. Kramer advised me to start looking into management courses during our last consultation in May (right before my trip to Hawaiʻi.) He said in about three or four years, I'll be in management.
I had to wrinkle my nose at that prediction. Thing is, Kramer also said my music would "take off" back in 2002. Five years later, I ended up recording 90 some odd demos and did a short-run pressing of a CD.
Aw, shit.
If Kramer is right, I'm not looking forward to it. Maybe I can lead, and perhaps the 10 years since working at the student newspaper may have mellowed me out. But leadership is not my default position. I can stand in front of a crowd and speak with relative ease if need be, but I don't go out and volunteer for it. That's a hallmark of the INTJ personality type — we can be called to lead if everyone else sucks at it.
I actually prefer being No. 2. Someone I knew back in high school had a clever answer whenever scholarship interviewers wanted to know what she wanted to do in the future. She said she wanted to be chief of staff at the White House. Why not president? Because the chief of staff has more power and is the closest to influence the president.
That's why I never applied to be editor-in-chief. It's how I ended up managing editor instead.
I'm a terrific leader so long as I've got someone to front for me.