3 ms·

Further, to that point, any manager that dislikes a report is likely going to have a very difficult time getting quality work out of that report regardless of h

Further, to that point, any manager that dislikes a report is likely going to have a very difficult time getting quality work out of that report regardless of how talented they may be. Ergo, the report's performance may be suffering, but entirely because they're being poorly managed.

dunpeal 8y ago
Very true. A pattern I've seen when relationship between employee and superior goes south is similar to disfavored step-child: They get less praise for doing well, and more blame for any mistake. This tends to escalate over time, and very often the employee's performance will degrade (since they won't get any credit anyway) which escalates the situation. Often they "patch things up" a few times, but if they really aren't compatible, it's just a tenuous forced balance that will eventually break and plunge the relationship to even deeper depths. Of course in this situation, all performance reviews for the employee are anywhere from slightly to heavily distorted in their disfavor. This will always result in one of them eventually leaving the team, typically the employee.
- halbritt 8y ago
  It sucks that it’s not commonplace for managers to be accountable to their reports. Google has kinda structured things in this way, at least as far as I can tell from the outside. Managers can’t decide who is hired or fired and performance reviews are done by committee. Seems pretty egalitarian but I’m told that even still, politics becomes an issue.
  - toast0 8y ago
    I haven't worked at Google, but from what I've heard, politics becomes an even bigger issue. If you're only worried about your boss (and your boss's boss, presumably), that's like two people to impress. If you're going to get graded by a committee, not only do you have to do good work, you also have to make sure everybody on the committee knows you're doing good work; and you have to fight people on your team to get the opportunities to do visible good works.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- darkerside 8y ago
  This is all true, and usually means the report would do much better in a different management situation. Unfortunately for the report, it's more convenient to reassign (or fire) one report than bring in a new manager (who may have trouble working with all the other reports). Fair? Not traditionally. But in a capitalist sense, yes, it is.

dunpeal 8y ago

Very true. A pattern I've seen when relationship between employee and superior goes south is similar to disfavored step-child: They get less praise for doing well, and more blame for any mistake. This tends to escalate over time, and very often the employee's performance will degrade (since they won't get any credit anyway) which escalates the situation. Often they "patch things up" a few times, but if they really aren't compatible, it's just a tenuous forced balance that will eventually break and plunge the relationship to even deeper depths. Of course in this situation, all performance reviews for the employee are anywhere from slightly to heavily distorted in their disfavor. This will always result in one of them eventually leaving the team, typically the employee.

halbritt 8y ago
It sucks that it’s not commonplace for managers to be accountable to their reports. Google has kinda structured things in this way, at least as far as I can tell from the outside. Managers can’t decide who is hired or fired and performance reviews are done by committee. Seems pretty egalitarian but I’m told that even still, politics becomes an issue.
- toast0 8y ago
  I haven't worked at Google, but from what I've heard, politics becomes an even bigger issue. If you're only worried about your boss (and your boss's boss, presumably), that's like two people to impress. If you're going to get graded by a committee, not only do you have to do good work, you also have to make sure everybody on the committee knows you're doing good work; and you have to fight people on your team to get the opportunities to do visible good works.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
darkerside 8y ago
This is all true, and usually means the report would do much better in a different management situation. Unfortunately for the report, it's more convenient to reassign (or fire) one report than bring in a new manager (who may have trouble working with all the other reports). Fair? Not traditionally. But in a capitalist sense, yes, it is.