You wanted the promotion. You earned it. You knew the people, understood the work, and believed you were ready to supervise. Then you discovered something nobody had adequately prepared you for. The job isn’t simply about knowing the work anymore. Now you are responsible for getting other people to do the work, dealing with problems you didn’t create, answering for decisions you didn’t make, and trying to satisfy people above you and below you at the same time.
After decades of working with supervisors and leaders in organizations of all kinds, I’ve learned that being a first-line supervisor can be one of the most frustrating jobs in an organization. The supervisor is caught in the middle. You are responsible for what happens below you, while depending on what happens above you. When that relationship works well, supervision can be enormously rewarding. When it doesn’t, the supervisor can feel as though everybody has expectations of you and nobody has given you what you need to meet them.
One of the first frustrations many newly promoted supervisors encounter is the reaction of the people they used to work beside. Yesterday you were one of them. Today you are responsible for their performance. That change can alter relationships almost overnight. Most former peers will accept the change and support you, but some will see your promotion as a betrayal of the group. You may hear that you’ve “gone over to management,” or discover that conversations that once included you no longer do. The most difficult situation occurs when you have to hold someone accountable who was previously your friend or coworker.
The solution isn’t to try to prove that you are still one of the group. In fact, that can make the problem worse. Your responsibility has changed, and the sooner you accept that reality, the easier the transition becomes. You can still be respectful, approachable and fair, but you now have to establish a professional relationship with your former peers based on the responsibilities of your position. Be clear about what you expect, apply those expectations consistently, and don’t make exceptions simply because someone used to be your coworker. Over time, people are more likely to accept your authority when they see that you are predictable, fair, and willing to make the same decision regardless of who is standing in front of you.
Then there is the person you report to.
A supervisor needs supervision, too, and one of the most frustrating experiences I’ve seen is a first-line supervisor who is genuinely trying to do the right thing while receiving poor or inconsistent guidance from above. Priorities change without explanation. One employee is expected to follow a rule while another is allowed to ignore it. You’re told to hold people accountable, but when you do, your own supervisor backs away from the decision. You’re told to take ownership, but when you make a decision, you’re criticized for not asking first. Before long, you aren’t sure whether you’re supposed to exercise judgment or simply wait for permission.
The solution begins with getting expectations out of the gray area. When your supervisor gives you direction, make sure you understand the desired result, the priorities, the boundaries of your authority, and how success will be measured. If priorities change, ask which previous priority should move down the list. If you receive contradictory instructions, don’t simply complain about the inconsistency. Go back to your supervisor and ask for clarification. A good question can be more productive than a good complaint. “Which result do you want me to prioritize?” can accomplish much more than “You keep changing your mind.”
It is also important to learn to lead upward without becoming adversarial. Your supervisor may not realize how much confusion an inconsistent direction is creating below. A professional supervisor can point that out without making it personal. Your objective isn’t to win an argument with your supervisor. Your objective is to obtain enough clarity to lead your team effectively.
Then comes one of the most maddening situations of all: being held accountable without having the authority to make anything happen.
I’ve talked with supervisors who were told they were responsible for staffing, performance, customer service, productivity, or some other organizational result, only to discover that they couldn’t hire anyone, couldn’t change the schedule, couldn’t alter a procedure, couldn’t obtain additional resources, and couldn’t make decisions that directly affected the result they were being held accountable for. At some point, the question has to be asked: How can you reasonably hold someone accountable for a result when you haven’t given that person the authority or resources necessary to produce it?
The solution is to make the accountability-authority relationship explicit. When you are given responsibility for a result, ask what authority comes with that responsibility. Ask what decisions you can make without further approval and what circumstances require you to go higher. Ask what resources are available and what you should do when those resources aren’t sufficient. If you encounter a problem that genuinely exceeds your authority, don’t simply carry it around and become frustrated. Document the issue, explain the effect it is having on the desired result, and take it to the person who has the authority to address it. That’s not avoiding accountability. That’s exercising accountability intelligently.
There is another frustration that can consume an otherwise capable supervisor: the occasional toxic personality.
Most employees are not toxic. Most people come to work, do their jobs and want to be treated fairly. But occasionally there is a person whose behavior creates an extraordinary amount of disruption. The person may constantly challenge direction, undermine decisions, create conflict with coworkers, manipulate situations, or position themselves as the victim whenever they are held accountable. The supervisor can become so focused on that one person that the rest of the team begins to receive less attention.
The solution is to stop trying to manage the person’s personality and start managing observable behavior. You don’t need to decide whether someone is narcissistic, toxic or difficult. You need to identify what the person is doing, determine what expectation or standard applies, and address the behavior directly. If the person repeatedly violates an established expectation, follow the organization’s performance-management process. If the behavior changes, recognize the change. If it doesn’t, document what happened and move the issue through the appropriate process. The supervisor’s job isn’t to win a psychological battle with a difficult employee. The job is to manage the work and the behavior that affects the work. (Learn more about this in my article, “Moving Beyond The Parent-Child Dynamic In The Workplace.”
Communication creates another layer of frustration. Sometimes supervisors don’t receive enough information from above. Sometimes employees don’t receive enough information from the supervisor. Sometimes everyone is talking and nobody is actually listening. A change is announced without enough explanation; the supervisor receives a partial version of the story and then is expected to explain it to everyone else. The supervisor becomes the transmission system for information that may already be incomplete.
The solution is to make clarification a normal part of supervision rather than something you do only after a problem develops. When you receive important information, make sure you understand what is changing, why it is changing, when it takes effect, and what people are expected to do differently. Then communicate that information to your employees in terms they can use. If you don’t know the answer to an employee’s question, don’t make one up. Tell them you will find out and then follow through. Credibility doesn’t come from pretending to know everything. It comes from being reliable.
And what happens when the person above you is the toxic personality?
That’s a different problem.
A difficult employee is at least someone over whom you may have some legitimate supervisory authority. When your own supervisor is the source of the problem, your options are different. You still have a job to do. You still have people depending on you. You still have to show up tomorrow and work with the same person.
The solution begins with refusing to become part of the dysfunction. You cannot control another person’s personality, and you cannot make a toxic supervisor reasonable simply because you have explained how their behavior affects you. You can control your own professionalism. You can clarify expectations, keep important directions and decisions documented when appropriate, ask questions when instructions are unclear, and avoid turning your frustration into a personal campaign against the person above you. If the behavior is genuinely abusive, unethical, or otherwise violates organizational standards, use the appropriate organizational process rather than trying to fight the battle yourself. There is a big difference between having a supervisor you don’t like and having a “boss” whose conduct requires intervention.
Sometimes the frustration isn’t one dramatic problem at all. It is the accumulation of everything. The supervisor who is still expected to do much of the work they performed before the promotion now has employees to supervise, reports to complete, meetings to attend, problems to solve and expectations coming from above. The organization promotes a good worker into supervision and then continues using that person as the person who fills the vacancy, fixes the problem and picks up whatever work isn’t getting done.
Then someone asks why the supervisor isn’t spending more time leading people.
The solution may require the organization to redefine the job. A supervisor cannot effectively supervise if the position has been designed around doing the work of everyone else. The supervisor and the supervisor’s manager need to identify the actual objectives and results expected from the position and determine which responsibilities belong to the supervisor and which should remain with the employees being supervised. If everything is important, nothing is prioritized. A rational position description can provide the starting point. It establishes what the supervisor is actually there to accomplish and gives both the supervisor and the organization something against which performance can be evaluated.
There is another source of frustration that deserves attention because it often goes unnoticed. A supervisor may be trying to do everything right and still feel that nothing is ever enough. One problem gets solved and another appears. An employee improves, but staffing becomes an issue. Staffing improves, but a new procedure creates confusion. The supervisor begins carrying the organization’s problems home at night and continues thinking about them long after the workday has ended.
The solution is learning the difference between responsibility and control. You are responsible for how you perform your role. You are responsible for communicating, making reasonable decisions, addressing performance and raising problems that exceed your authority. You are not responsible for controlling every outcome. There will always be things in an organization that you cannot change. Continuing to fight against those things mentally and emotionally can consume an enormous amount of energy without changing the result.
This is where supervision and personal resilience intersect. Continuing to be frustrated while trying to control that which cannot be controlled is a significant driver of burnout, both at work and in private life. The question isn’t whether you care about the problem. You should care. The question is whether the problem is actually within your control. If it isn’t, your responsibility is to determine what you can reasonably influence, take the appropriate action, and then let go of the part you cannot control.
If you’re a first-line supervisor and you’ve discovered that the job is frustrating, don’t automatically conclude that you’re failing. You may simply be experiencing the realities of the position. The first-line supervisor is where organizational expectations meet operational reality. That’s not an easy place to stand.
Your job isn’t to make everyone happy. It isn’t to have all the answers, and it certainly isn’t to control everything. Your job is to help create the conditions in which people understand what is expected, know what success looks like, have the support and authority reasonably necessary to perform their work and are held accountable for their part of the job.
And if those conditions don’t exist, part of your job is to say so.
That’s not complaining. That’s supervision.
I’ve spent a good part of my career helping supervisors and leaders work through these kinds of problems. The answers usually aren’t found in another inspirational leadership quote. They begin with something much more practical: What, exactly, are we asking this supervisor to accomplish … what authority have we given them to accomplish it … and what happens when the two don’t match?
Those are questions worth answering before we blame the supervisor for being frustrated.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
