Reading between the lines is fair but architecting entire narratives is a stretch. Even then, the narrative lacks logic: why are we arbitrarily trusting what the manager and engineer says “at face value” but not OP? Where on earth is it even remotely implied that OP lets the engineers do what they want?
Repeatedly saying “I don’t know what’s really happening buuut” is not a coupon to let you arrive at such a negative conclusion.
Trust does not matter. The manager might be totally wrong and the guy is getting worse and worse. This does not matter for my argument, which is that the manager puts his opinions above the one of the team lead. And he sees the team lead as part of the problem. Do you think there is an alternative explanation besides the manager not believing in the leadership qualities of OP?
I am also not trusting what the problem guy says, except that OP calls him a competent jerk, which tells me that OP does not disagree that the problem guy is a capable engineer.
>Where on earth is it even remotely implied that OP lets the engineers do what they want?
I wrote it below. If you are the leader of 10 people, 9 of whom trust you and 1 constantly disagrees with you, you can still push through any decisions, because the 9 people will stand up for you and force the one guy to accept whatever you decide.
Imagine having to go to your manager because one guy in your team of 10 does not want to do a post mortem. There have to be 9 other guys who do not care at all about your decisions, else they would have immediately stood up for you, for something as reasonable as a post mortem.
So why do you love working for a leader, but do not care at all when the leader gets criticised for something extremely reasonable. They do not like him because of his leadership abilities. Maybe they like him because he is a nice person or because his lack of leadership gets them something they want.
To your second point, there’s MANY other explanations. We don’t know how the team reacted for a start - maybe they did back up OP. Or maybe, based on the alleged jerk’s aggressive behaviour to the team in the past, they felt scared to speak up. Or maybe they’re junior. Or maybe you’re right and all 9 people unanimously felt OP was in the wrong.
My point wasn’t any of this though, it was mainly: avoid coming to such harsh judgments based on so much extrapolation. Criticise the reported actions, sure, discuss some hypotheticals, but going straight for “you’re a bad leader” goes a bit beyond.
We know they reacted in a way which forced OP to go to his manager.
>Or maybe, based on the alleged jerk’s aggressive behaviour to the team in the past
If that were the case OP would have mentioned it. Workplace bullying is certainly more important than disagreeing and this would make a reasonable case to fire him. If the jerk was bullying his team and OP did not notice, that would prove my argument even more.
>Or maybe they’re junior.
There are 9 other people. And they weren't asked to stand up for their own opinion, but for their team leads opinion. I do not think this matters much. 9 people not standing up for you as a team lead is a very bad sign, even if they are all juniors.
>Or maybe you’re right and all 9 people unanimously felt OP was in the wrong.
This isn't my interpretation at all. My interpretation is that OP had one opinion the other guy had his and the rest did not particularly care either way.
>Criticise the reported actions, sure, discuss some hypotheticals, but going straight for “you’re a bad leader” goes a bit beyond.
But having to go through your manager to force through a totally reasonable decision that is yours to make is being a bad leader. I do not think that there is any alternative interpretation then that this event at least is a failure in leadership.
I am saying this because I want to tell OP how his situation sounds to a complete outsider. OP was there if the 9 guys all immediately stood up for him and told the other guy that he was clearly in the wrong, then this obviously disproves everything I said and OP knows that I am wrong. But if they did not, then he should reconsider his actions and at least allow for the possibility that this was a failure on part of his leadership.
How did you jump to this conclusion? I was following you all along and here you made a logic jump I don't understand
- One person on the team does not respect him. That is pretty unambiguous.
- His manager puts his own (in all likelihood, based on quite limited information) opinion about the one guy over the opinion of the team lead. The team lead definitely knows the guy better, yet his manager disregards that. Why would he do that if he believed that the team lead was doing good leadership? Questioning the behavior of your subordinates is something you do when you don't trust in their abilities.
- The post mortem. If you are the team lead and you want a post mortem, then you will do a post mortem. "Because I say so", should be enough of a reason. Yet somehow his own manager needed to get involved, to force through the decision of the team lead? This also relates to the point before this.
- The Team. And I think this is the biggest tell. Imagine you are a team lead and you tell 10 people "we are doing X", one guy disagrees. There are still 9 other people, if they trusted the team lead as a leader, they would take his side, especially if X is something as obvious as doing a post mortem. This whole situation can only develop if the 9 people "who like to work with him" refuse to stand up for him at all. If you as a leader have 90% of the people behind you everything you say will be done.
The real question is why the rest of the team is doing nothing. Either it is because they are more afraid to go against the one guy (unlikely) or because they do not think it is worth it to stand up for the team lead. The real thing OP should consider is why his team does not appear to care the tiniest bit about his leadership position. If they did, the one guy would not be a problem at all.
One question remains, why do they love working with him. I do not think they are flattering him, I think they mean it. Often working for a weak leader is easy, because you can set your own rules and you can push your leader around. They probably enjoy that the atmosphere in the team is more relaxed, they get to have more influence on decisions and they can deflect work they do not want to do.
100% agree. It’s almost always an engineer who’s used to being respected because they’re an engineer and have 0 soft skills.
If anything it's the opposite. I don't think my technical skills are as strong as some peers at my level. A big part of the difficulty is that the other engineer is more experience in certain technologies than I am. I'm self-aware enough to recognize those cases, and don't try to override him.
If your soft skills are so good why are you getting bodied by this guy?
If your are such a great leader why are your reports siding with the jerk?
In another comment I've explained why I think this "OP is the real problem" narrative probably isn't the case, just based on other data points I've had.
> You have a engineer in your team who thinks you are a looser and incompetent. This is why he second guesses you at every point, because he does not believe that you can make adequate decisions
I do think this is broadly correct, though.
> they have very little respect for you as a leader, they love working with you because it allows them to do what they want
This is incorrect. They actively seek guidance from me regularly. As I mention in another post, three engineers joined the team specifically to work with me. I don't have doubts about this.
> The opinion of your boss towards the "problem engineer" seems quite positive
This is wrong too. He's called him an asshole.
> Nobody respect your leadership. Your staff doesn't and your manager doesn't.
This is also wrong. I was promoted recently. My reviews are strong in a tough, calibrated org. My team is widely trusted, a complete 180 from the state before I joined when it was falling apart.
Again, if you're already dead-set on reading the worst, you'll be able to do so. But I came here for actionable advice. You gave judgment, but not advice. What's the point?
If you read the discussion below there is one aspect I didn't bring up in this post. What does the rest of the team do when you get challenged? Do they stand up for you and defend your decision and your right to make the decision?
You brought up the post mortem. That was your decision to make, not only did you get challenged, but you also had to bring in your manager. What did the rest of the Team do? I have a hard time imagining a scenario, where you make a decision, where everyone but one guy goes against you and you still need a manager involved.
>This is incorrect. They actively seek guidance from me regularly. As I mention in another post, three engineers joined the team specifically to work with me. I don't have doubts about this.
I don't doubt any of that. And they may very well respect you, but that does not automatically translate into them respecting you as a leader.
>What's the point?
I gave you an outsiders perspective. Even if I am wrong about everything, the one thing I am absolutely certain about is that this one engineer sees you as a failure in leadership. And if he sees you as a failure in leadership (and has at least some positive opinions about his teammates, if he doesn't you are in far deeper trouble with him) then he must believe that the rest of your team does not believe in your leadership either. If I am wrong and the rest of the team stands firmly behind you, then you only need to show him that.