5 ms·

> They can offer negative opinions about their co-workers, without worrying that their co-worker will find out and retaliate. In my experience, if everyone on

> They can offer negative opinions about their co-workers, without worrying that their co-worker will find out and retaliate. In my experience, if everyone on the team knows that they're expected to comment on each other in one-on-ones with the manager, that does wonders against team cohesion and morale.

overgard 7y ago
I think you're reading more into the quote than is fair -- he says they can offer opinions, not that they have to. Also you're leaving out that he mentions it gives people an opportunity to praise teammates, whereas in a public context it might be awkward/seen to have ulterior motives. (Maybe I'm weird but I've done this a lot in one-on-ones with managers. Especially if I was mentioning someone that might have been shy/didn't want the spotlight)
- gamesbrainiac 7y ago
  I think you need to look into the intent of that statement, and by doing so understand its consequences.
  - overgard 7y ago
    The intent seems to be to create a safe space for employees to share opinions about the status of the team. Is that not what a manager should do?
    - gamesbrainiac 7y ago
      Or you can see it as a manager getting plenty of ammunition on members of the team to use at his or her whim. You're not creating a safe space, but rather a miasma of fear. Trust will break down in the team.
- sanderjd 7y ago
  Yes please, I would much rather be praised in private than in public.
PretzelFisch 7y ago
If the manager does evaluations based on others opinions. Run don't walk
- sanderjd 7y ago
  Interesting. What is the alternative? That their evaluation is based on their own opinion alone? How would they gather the information to do that? They can't be party to all the work you do, that's not their job.
  - cousin_it 7y ago
    My ideal low-level manager (of a 5 person team or so) would in fact consider it their job. They'd be close enough to actual work to see with their own eyes how Alice is doing without having to ask Bob.
    - sanderjd 7y ago
      I don't want a manager who is micromanaging to the extent that they know more about my work than my peers do. To each their own I guess.
      - cousin_it 7y ago
        I guess we both want managers who know enough about our work to judge it, but I prefer if they get that knowledge by observation instead of hearsay.
        sanderjd 7y ago
        It sounds like you've had bad experiences with peers. That's a bummer. For me, the people I work with, both my direct peers on my team and those I work with on other teams, are the people best positioned and who I most trust to judge my work. I'm really interested in their feedback on my work. It sounds like you'd prefer they just keep their mouths shut about you. That's not how I feel. What I want and expect from my manager is to clue me in to any negative feedback (possibly after converting it to be more tactful, constructive, and actionable) so that I can incorporate it into my work. I honestly don't understand what the setup you're advocating for looks like or how it's an improvement. If you don't trust your peers to evaluate you in good faith, why do you trust your manager? They are also just a person with all the potential for flaws that entails. What does it look like to have a manager who is involved in all your work? Do they do all your code reviews? Do they review all your emails and chats? Do they attend all your meetings? That would be madness. I'd say my manager has direct insight into less than 10% of what I'm up to every day. But pretty much all of that work has some counterpart on some team who can speak to their thoughts on working with me. But I think I'm just missing what you're suggesting. Paint me a picture of what your ideal system looks like in practice.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
Yes this sounds bad, but (a) it absolutely does not say you're expected to comment on each other, much less negatively, just that it's a regular opportunity to do so if needed, and (b) given you have a negative opinion of a coworker, all of the alternatives are worse. Just doing nothing and letting the problem go unaddressed (whether the problem is that your perception is wrong or that the employee is under-performing, both should get fixed), waiting until the next performance review when the damage has been done, assuming the boss will notice the problem anyway. These are all worse than knowing you can bring it to your manager's atention within a few days of deciding it's time to escalate the problem and let him / her deal with it. If you have a problem with someone, speak up and get it addressed. That doesn't mean you have to sit and bitch and gossip about people. But don't let a problem fester. It's worse for the employee who might eventually get fired and have developed a terrible reputation for not fixing their problem, it's worse for the company who may be paying for sub-par work, and it's worse for you for having to compensate for their poor performance without proper recognition. If everyone developed the people skills to give and take this feedback freely from peers that would be great, but in reality that just won't happen at every job and sometimes you need to escalate. When you do, sooner and more direct is better than later and via some 360 review form.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  > given you have a negative opinion of a coworker, all of the alternatives are worse I think the most honest alternative to to talk to the coworker; if that doesn't help, tell them you're going to escalate; and only then escalate. Yes, there are people who will go to the boss right away, behind closed doors and preferably anonymously. But I don't want to be like that.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    Presumably that might be baked into the “bring up on mgr 1:1”
duxup 7y ago
I feel like if you've got problems with people badmouthing each other to the boss .... that's a problem all on its own, an invitation to a meeting doesn't make it a problem. You can do that thing anytime anyway.

overgard 7y ago

I think you're reading more into the quote than is fair -- he says they can offer opinions, not that they have to. Also you're leaving out that he mentions it gives people an opportunity to praise teammates, whereas in a public context it might be awkward/seen to have ulterior motives. (Maybe I'm weird but I've done this a lot in one-on-ones with managers. Especially if I was mentioning someone that might have been shy/didn't want the spotlight)

gamesbrainiac 7y ago
I think you need to look into the intent of that statement, and by doing so understand its consequences.
- overgard 7y ago
  The intent seems to be to create a safe space for employees to share opinions about the status of the team. Is that not what a manager should do?
  - gamesbrainiac 7y ago
    Or you can see it as a manager getting plenty of ammunition on members of the team to use at his or her whim. You're not creating a safe space, but rather a miasma of fear. Trust will break down in the team.
sanderjd 7y ago
Yes please, I would much rather be praised in private than in public.

PretzelFisch 7y ago

If the manager does evaluations based on others opinions. Run don't walk

sanderjd 7y ago
Interesting. What is the alternative? That their evaluation is based on their own opinion alone? How would they gather the information to do that? They can't be party to all the work you do, that's not their job.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  My ideal low-level manager (of a 5 person team or so) would in fact consider it their job. They'd be close enough to actual work to see with their own eyes how Alice is doing without having to ask Bob.
  - sanderjd 7y ago
    I don't want a manager who is micromanaging to the extent that they know more about my work than my peers do. To each their own I guess.
    - cousin_it 7y ago
      I guess we both want managers who know enough about our work to judge it, but I prefer if they get that knowledge by observation instead of hearsay.
      - sanderjd 7y ago
        It sounds like you've had bad experiences with peers. That's a bummer. For me, the people I work with, both my direct peers on my team and those I work with on other teams, are the people best positioned and who I most trust to judge my work. I'm really interested in their feedback on my work. It sounds like you'd prefer they just keep their mouths shut about you. That's not how I feel. What I want and expect from my manager is to clue me in to any negative feedback (possibly after converting it to be more tactful, constructive, and actionable) so that I can incorporate it into my work. I honestly don't understand what the setup you're advocating for looks like or how it's an improvement. If you don't trust your peers to evaluate you in good faith, why do you trust your manager? They are also just a person with all the potential for flaws that entails. What does it look like to have a manager who is involved in all your work? Do they do all your code reviews? Do they review all your emails and chats? Do they attend all your meetings? That would be madness. I'd say my manager has direct insight into less than 10% of what I'm up to every day. But pretty much all of that work has some counterpart on some team who can speak to their thoughts on working with me. But I think I'm just missing what you're suggesting. Paint me a picture of what your ideal system looks like in practice.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

Yes this sounds bad, but (a) it absolutely does not say you're expected to comment on each other, much less negatively, just that it's a regular opportunity to do so if needed, and (b) given you have a negative opinion of a coworker, all of the alternatives are worse. Just doing nothing and letting the problem go unaddressed (whether the problem is that your perception is wrong or that the employee is under-performing, both should get fixed), waiting until the next performance review when the damage has been done, assuming the boss will notice the problem anyway. These are all worse than knowing you can bring it to your manager's atention within a few days of deciding it's time to escalate the problem and let him / her deal with it. If you have a problem with someone, speak up and get it addressed. That doesn't mean you have to sit and bitch and gossip about people. But don't let a problem fester. It's worse for the employee who might eventually get fired and have developed a terrible reputation for not fixing their problem, it's worse for the company who may be paying for sub-par work, and it's worse for you for having to compensate for their poor performance without proper recognition. If everyone developed the people skills to give and take this feedback freely from peers that would be great, but in reality that just won't happen at every job and sometimes you need to escalate. When you do, sooner and more direct is better than later and via some 360 review form.

cousin_it 7y ago
> given you have a negative opinion of a coworker, all of the alternatives are worse I think the most honest alternative to to talk to the coworker; if that doesn't help, tell them you're going to escalate; and only then escalate. Yes, there are people who will go to the boss right away, behind closed doors and preferably anonymously. But I don't want to be like that.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Presumably that might be baked into the “bring up on mgr 1:1”

duxup 7y ago

I feel like if you've got problems with people badmouthing each other to the boss .... that's a problem all on its own, an invitation to a meeting doesn't make it a problem. You can do that thing anytime anyway.