Being respected as a manager: regaining control of your legitimacy
In this article I tell you why authority cannot be decreed—and how to rebuild it.
This is a recurring complaint I hear from operational managers: "I am competent, I am fair, I take responsibility... but I am not respected. Even when I am right."
You could say that this is sentimentalism, but I believe it reflects a harsher reality: in an organization, being right is not enough to be listened to, followed, or legitimized. And the cornerstone is often informal authority, which is not a matter of truth but of architecture.
As a manager, if you want to fulfill your role, you need to build on solid foundations:
a clear framework,
a consistent stance,
consistent decisions.
Conversely, if you allow these elements to deteriorate, you will gradually become inaudible, even when you are objectively right.
In this article, I propose an interpretation of this loss of respect: not as an inevitable consequence of relationships, but as a symptom of structural weakness that can be reversed.
Provided that the right causes are addressed, of course.
1. Respect is not based on the validity of what is said, but on the status of the person saying it.
Keep in mind that in a team, exchanges are not academic debates. No one is questioning whether what you say is true. They are only assessing whether what you say fits within a recognized, regular, and accepted framework. Sad, but true.
When your legitimacy/informal authority is not obvious, your words are given the same weight as those of any other employee. You then have to deal with a situation that is extremely difficult for a manager: everyone defends their point of view, and you find yourself arguing as if you had to convince them.
2. As long as your decisions remain negotiable, your authority is theoretical.
Another factor contributing to a loss of respect lies in day-to-day operations. Some managers, in an effort to be responsive, allow a form of loose governance to take hold: decisions can be challenged, instructions are flexible, and decisions are postponed.
This mechanism, which is often unconscious, creates a system where employees learn to circumvent rather than follow. It cannot be called insubordination in the strict sense, but let's say it is a rational adjustment to a changing environment.
In this context, being right will not help you: if you set a direction but do not structure the movement, the team will not get moving.
Regaining authority therefore means narrowing the scope of negotiable decisions. Not by excluding discussion, but by setting the conditions for it.
3. Managerial permissiveness automatically fuels mistrust.
Many managers believe they are doing the right thing by "letting things slide." They turn a blind eye to inappropriate comments, tolerate tardiness, and accept deviations from the norm in order to avoid "making things worse." In reality, every instance of silence reinforces a negative trend.
Without necessarily assuming that employees, like children, will seek to test boundaries, keep in mind that if there are no boundaries, your employees will automatically assume that there are none.
Do you find that simplistic? I would say it is realistic and fundamental.
Your managerial consistency depends precisely on constantly maintaining the framework. Not through dramatic punishments, but through sober, immediate, and regular reprimands. Ultimately, it is not the content of the reprimand that establishes your authority, but its predictability. The fact that, with this manager, any deviation always elicits a response.
4. Rebuilding authority requires methodical action, not a one-off demonstration.
One of the common mistakes I see my clients make when they want to regain control is to "raise their voice" or "make a point" by losing their temper in a more or less controlled manner. Be careful, because this is often the ultimate manifestation of your loss of control.
Instead, focus on rebuilding what I call an "ecosystem of clarity," in which your role is identifiable, your speech is structured, and your reactions are predictable.
Here are the three basic steps:
Restore complete managerial clarity: roles, objectives, and internal rules must be explicit, accepted, and documented. Nothing should be left to implication, which is the source of interpretation.
Reestablish a decision-making timeline: feedback must be provided at regular intervals, decisions must be made within a maximum timeframe, and approvals must follow a fixed process. Everything must be designed to avoid management based on mood swings.
Adopt a consistent stance, not an authoritarian one: it's not about taking a harder line. It's about appearing as a fixed point in an unstable environment. That's where respect comes from.
5. Managerial strength is based on invisible but essential foundations.
For more than ten years, I have been supporting managers facing this type of burnout. They all have one thing in common: almost always, the fundamentals are sound, the skills are there (as is good faith, for that matter), but the framework is missing.
In other words, the manager is involved in the action, but not in the architecture. They deal with emergencies, manage cases, absorb tensions... but no longer clearly define their area of authority. However, it is precisely this absence that creates uncertainty, not personality or the quality of the work performed.
In summary
The respect of your teams is earned when the managerial framework is clear, accepted, and rigorously maintained.
If you find that your words no longer carry weight, even when you are right, the problem may not be in what you say but in how you say it. And this approach can be reworked, consolidated, made clear, and stable.
It is a technical task. Structuring. Transformative.
To your Solidity,
Olivier KAMEL