3 ms·
In my opinion, these problems and situations should always be put down to failures of management and leadership. Even if the team is low-performing, why did man
by draw_down 10y ago
In my opinion, these problems and situations should always be put down to failures of management and leadership. Even if the team is low-performing, why did management give an unrealistic deadline for something to be finished by a low-performing team? Why are they putting together low-performing teams in the first place? Is it because high-performing people take one look at the putzes in charge and get a new job? Going the route of looking into the hearts of team members without looking outside the team is a bad idea.
- im_down_w_otp 10y agoI agree with the general sentiment here. Every time I've ever had to let anyone go I always preface with something along the lines of, "First of all, this situation started out as a failure of management." However, if you're not in the management tier, and you don't have reason to believe management will get any better at hiring and aligning people, and you subsequently end up being in way over your head (even though the situation is ultimately someone else's originating problem). You're not helping yourself or anybody else by just sticking with the situation and pointing the finger upward. If you extricate yourself from it, then you get to give a useful signal to the hiring manager that they didn't do a very good job hiring, and you get to find a hiring manager who is good at hiring.