4 ms·
They are conspiring to replace an existing employee. That says enough. If the organization were "healthy" they would be upfront with the existing manager and
by grandalf 10y ago
They are conspiring to replace an existing employee. That says enough. If the organization were "healthy" they would be upfront with the existing manager and allow him/her to gracefully exit.
That they won't do this suggests that there is a lot of mistrust going on, or possibly optics with the investors around turnover -- not sure which is worse.
By taking the role, you will be viewed as having taken sides with the people recruiting you, but if anyone else on the team thinks it was done unfairly, you'll be dealing with the morale consequences, which you may paradoxically also be blamed for.
Look at it this way, the people recruiting you are one or more of the following:
- Afraid to have a grown up conversation with the manager they want to replace.
- Afraid that if they are upfront with the problem manager he/she will leave and it will take them a long time to find a replacement, during which time things may deteriorate. If you think this is the case, be sure to increase your salary/equity requirements substantially.
- Trying to sneakily get the upper hand on the problem manager by recruiting you behind his/her back. Anyone on the team you'd inherit who respected the former manager will likely assume you are part of the problem.
Also, sometimes when a manager is viewed negatively it's because someone on the team has the ear of higher-ups and is badmouthing the manager. So while it's possible that you would be getting a role that was inhabited by someone who couldn't quite pull it off, it's also possible that you're stepping into a situation with a lot of politics and a mutinous atmosphere. Perhaps ask if they are considering anyone on the problem manager's team for the role. If they are that might be a tell.
I'd approach it with caution, especially if considering leaving a role that you enjoy. At the very least, there are enough warning signs that you should only accept if you are ready to re-enter the job market if the culture is truly broken.
- partisan 10y agoThat is incredible insight. I hope the OP listens to this advice as there are several signs of a toxic organizations and is probably ignoring them on the hope that it not.
- mud_dauber 10y agoI'm told the manager in question knows of his/her shortcomings. I need to learn whether an improvement plan was ever installed & the results (thus far) of that plan. To be clear - I haven't detected any really toxic behavior. It just seems like a good-faith hire didn't work out.
- xapata 10y agoKnows of shortcomings or knows of the upcoming replacement? There's a big difference. If the manager was "let go" and offered to stick around until a replacement could be found, that's a much better situation.
- spinlock 10y agowhy not ask to see the performance improvement plan and results? They should have documented the issues as they were unfolding specifically for a retrospective like this.
- tptacek 10y agoThis is twice in a week where me and 'grandalf are in enthusiastic agreement. Something strange is going on.
- sootzoo 10y ago> They are conspiring to replace an existing employee. That says enough. If the organization were "healthy" they would be upfront with the existing manager and allow him/her to gracefully exit. You seem to start from this very distrustful premise and never look back. Would you say the same of someone who gives significant notice of their departure (say, a retirement or medical situation) to the relevant supervisors but doesn't inform subordinates until a replacement is on board? What if that person were a fairly high ranking one in the organizational structure, as it sounds this one is? Confidential replacement is pretty typical when the outgoing leader has no apparent (temporary) replacement and transitioning duties twice would be difficult/disruptive. It's not broken culture to ensure the wheels keep turning despite a pending high-profile departure. Not to mention, if a manager and two tech leads are involved, it's pretty likely the outgoing manager is at least peripherally aware of the situation. You could very well be right about this employer, but the presumption that the nature of the search is somehow underhanded or deceitful is pretty one-sided.
- dieterrams 10y agoAgree. That is far too strong a conclusion from the information provided, though a good potential scenario to be on watch for.
- grandalf 10y ago> You seem to start from this very distrustful premise and never look back. The OP writes "they want to replace the existing manager". Chances are this would have been phrased "the existing manager is moving on" if no deceit was involved. > Would you say the same of someone who gives significant notice of their departure When to make the information known to the rest of the team should be a management team decision. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer. > What if that person were a fairly high ranking one in the organizational structure Finding a replacement before announcing the departure to the team makes sense. It sounds like in the OP's situation the outgoing manager is not aware of his/her status. > Confidential replacement is pretty typical when the outgoing leader has no apparent (temporary) replacement and transitioning duties twice would be difficult/disruptive. It's not broken culture to ensure the wheels keep turning despite a pending high-profile departure. Not sure if you are referring to keeping it confidential from the employee being replaced or from the rest of the team. > ...the presumption that the nature of the search is somehow underhanded or deceitful is pretty one-sided I think you are suggesting that it is appropriate (not deceitful) to attempt to hire the replacement before informing the current manager. Ideally in situations where something isn't working out, both parties can collaborate to phase things out in a mutually respectful way, especially in a startup. Yes, in big companies there is an HR department and all sorts of reasons why "typical" HR practices make sense. But a person joining a startup should feel that the team he/she is joining is not typical and has the sort of integrity to act cooperative (in a game theoretic sense) in these sorts of scenarios. FWIW these sorts of scenarios are inevitable. Sometimes employment arrangements don't work out. How they are handled offers an indication of the character of the management team.
- collyw 10y agoHow would you deal with someone who wasn't performing well, but not badly enough to sack? (Like a previous manager of mine).
- grandalf 10y agoThat's a tough one. Ideally there would be a role that would be more appropriate. Some people end up in a manager role but would be better suited for a different role with elevated status but perhaps not leading a team. Manager roles often have pretty vaguely defined success metrics, and people manage (and prefer to be managed) in quite different ways, so perhaps someone like you describe would perform better in a role with a much more narrowly defined criterion for success.
- djkrudy 10y agoGrandalf are you suggesting in your first point that the company allow the previous employee to leave, then put that facet of their business on hold for 1-12 months while they find a replacement?
- grandalf 10y ago> allow the previous employee to leave Ideally the previous employee would feel an obligation (or incentive) to finish as strong as possible, and to help with the recruiting effort for the new hire (and to maximize knowledge transfer). Mature people understand that sometimes work styles can differ and talented people are not always a good culture fit. So unless the outbound manager is truly immature or unfit to be in the position at all, much is to be gained by being respectful and transparent.