24 ms·

I had a young dev in my team many years ago. We agreed it wasn't working out, so I helped find him a totally different type of role in another part of the same

I had a young dev in my team many years ago. We agreed it wasn't working out, so I helped find him a totally different type of role in another part of the same company. It worked out great. I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company.

paulojreis 10y ago
Just my two cents, as someone completely oblivious about management: maybe because previous performance, while not great a indicator, is the best predictor of future performance? To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?
- tikhonj 10y ago
  I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest of the team. What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault. Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
  - paulojreis 10y ago
    I agree with you. But the "question" of the parent post was "I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company", and I was just trying to give a possible answer. While it's really not a good indicator, there'll eventually be some correlation. Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.
- rglullis 10y ago
  Failed at that job, and within that particular combination of people, job requirements and roles to be fulfilled. Both Lebron James and Cristiano Ronaldo are top players at their sports, and known for their high athleticism. You wouldn't expect them to switch and still be performing at the level they do. Heck, you wouldn't even expect them to be performing at a high capacity if you just switched positions inside their own team!.
  - xxxxxxxx 10y ago
    This is a good summary of what happened. He struggled technically as a developer (aptitude?), but was awesome with our customers - very well liked. It wasn't hard to find a role more suited to his talents.
    - zpharer 10y ago
      This happened to me actually.
  - paulojreis 10y ago
    I'm not really a fan of such comparisons, and I don't think yours fares well, mostly because you are talking "top of the top" performance when you talk about those two. :) That's not the reality in most jobs and positions. We're certainly not talking about the Cristiano Ronaldo of software development most of the times. As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.
    - eitally 10y ago
      In my experience as a leader, in any role that requires specialized skills, rglullis is correct. And that is completely separate from external variables that affect worker satisfaction/health/security and hence performance.
- vangale 10y ago
  If the company is big enough to have "other parts" it probably means those other parts have different missions and different tasks/skills to carry out the mission. But, having said that, it takes some rare managerial skills to pull it off. I've worked with someone who had those skills and it was fascinating to watch it happen. It took an ability to be bluntly honest to the "problem" employee without tearing them down, an ability to figure out their strengths, and then knowledge of where those strengths could be applied elsewhere in the company.
- bane 10y ago
  I work at a large enough company that we do this type of job movement fairly often. It's often desirable to find right fit for somebody once they're hired rather than get rid of them and find somebody else. For example, an existing employee already knows about the corporate culture, how to do their timesheets, etc. and doesn't need that ramp up time. Often, especially with early career employees, what they're good at doing, and what they went to school for are wildly different. And they don't yet know their own competencies and aptitudes until they hit a job. I've had a few employees who were spectacularly unable to do the job we hired them for, but blossomed in other positions.
shanecleveland 10y ago
Good point. And beyond "solving the problem," there's long-term benefits: You retain a knowledgable employee (there are real costs, both financially and production-wise, to firing and hiring). There is now some built-in loyalty and trust. Not only have they kept their job, but their situation may be improved. That will likely be remembered and respected. There's times when firing is the only course of action, but investing in people also pays off. If a manager is just another cog in the machinery who is only concerned about their tail, then they may care less about the long-term benefits to the company and the individual. But it could also work to their advantage to resolve matters this way.

paulojreis 10y ago

Just my two cents, as someone completely oblivious about management: maybe because previous performance, while not great a indicator, is the best predictor of future performance? To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?

tikhonj 10y ago
I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest of the team. What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault. Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
- paulojreis 10y ago
  I agree with you. But the "question" of the parent post was "I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company", and I was just trying to give a possible answer. While it's really not a good indicator, there'll eventually be some correlation. Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.
rglullis 10y ago
Failed at that job, and within that particular combination of people, job requirements and roles to be fulfilled. Both Lebron James and Cristiano Ronaldo are top players at their sports, and known for their high athleticism. You wouldn't expect them to switch and still be performing at the level they do. Heck, you wouldn't even expect them to be performing at a high capacity if you just switched positions inside their own team!.
- xxxxxxxx 10y ago
  This is a good summary of what happened. He struggled technically as a developer (aptitude?), but was awesome with our customers - very well liked. It wasn't hard to find a role more suited to his talents.
  - zpharer 10y ago
    This happened to me actually.
- paulojreis 10y ago
  I'm not really a fan of such comparisons, and I don't think yours fares well, mostly because you are talking "top of the top" performance when you talk about those two. :) That's not the reality in most jobs and positions. We're certainly not talking about the Cristiano Ronaldo of software development most of the times. As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.
  - eitally 10y ago
    In my experience as a leader, in any role that requires specialized skills, rglullis is correct. And that is completely separate from external variables that affect worker satisfaction/health/security and hence performance.
vangale 10y ago
If the company is big enough to have "other parts" it probably means those other parts have different missions and different tasks/skills to carry out the mission. But, having said that, it takes some rare managerial skills to pull it off. I've worked with someone who had those skills and it was fascinating to watch it happen. It took an ability to be bluntly honest to the "problem" employee without tearing them down, an ability to figure out their strengths, and then knowledge of where those strengths could be applied elsewhere in the company.
bane 10y ago
I work at a large enough company that we do this type of job movement fairly often. It's often desirable to find right fit for somebody once they're hired rather than get rid of them and find somebody else. For example, an existing employee already knows about the corporate culture, how to do their timesheets, etc. and doesn't need that ramp up time. Often, especially with early career employees, what they're good at doing, and what they went to school for are wildly different. And they don't yet know their own competencies and aptitudes until they hit a job. I've had a few employees who were spectacularly unable to do the job we hired them for, but blossomed in other positions.

shanecleveland 10y ago

Good point. And beyond "solving the problem," there's long-term benefits: You retain a knowledgable employee (there are real costs, both financially and production-wise, to firing and hiring). There is now some built-in loyalty and trust. Not only have they kept their job, but their situation may be improved. That will likely be remembered and respected. There's times when firing is the only course of action, but investing in people also pays off. If a manager is just another cog in the machinery who is only concerned about their tail, then they may care less about the long-term benefits to the company and the individual. But it could also work to their advantage to resolve matters this way.