posted by Anonymous .
Lars Larsen was your first boss at the medical center. You had problems from the outset, because of a clash of personalities.
Then things got worse, and you filed a sexual-harassment complaint. The complaint was not sustained because of lack of specific facts presented by you (no contemporaneous notes), nor was there any corroboration. You were moved from your position to an equal one in another department.
Even though you were earnestly trying to get to know the intricacies of your new job, the manager gave you an inordinate amount of work, with short turn-around times. You subsequently got a poor evaluation, the first you had ever received. Following that poor evaluation, carefully documented, you discovered that your manager was a good friend of Lars.
Over the years, you have been able to put the poor evaluation behind you, and have been promoted up. In fact, you just received a promotion to a position for which you and Lars Larsen both competed. In your new position, you will supervise both Lars and his friend, the manager who gave you the poor evaluation.
Lars comes into your office and states that he does not believe you should be the one to evaluate his performance, because of your personality conflicts of the past, your obvious dislike for him as manifested by the sexual harassment complaint, and your statements made to co-workers some years previous concerning the poor evaluation you received at the instigation—you were then sure—of Lars Larsen.
How would approach the many components of these problems?