14 ms·

Managing an underperformer who thinks they’re doing great

102 points by apress 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 6y ago
I have someone like this on my team. The guy is a really good engineer and consultant, he is unorganized as hell and takes forever to log his billable time in the system. This causes billing problems regularly, requiring multiple hours of manual correction by myself (his manager) and has also resulted in clients receiving inaccurate invoices. I haven't been able to figure out how to handle it. I really don't want to have to micromanage him, because I feel like that would cut into his confidence. But he's also pretty terrible when it comes to an important aspect of the job.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  If he's that good of an engineer, have you considered hiring someone to sit down with him every so often to help him log the data?
  - ptaffs 6y ago
    totally agree with this comment, help the person; we all bring different skills. Also, the person might just need a prompt or remind, someone telling them mid afternoon on Friday that a form is due before going home.
  - anonfornoreason 6y ago
    Have a very similar problem in our organization, and our project manager stepped in to be that helpful friendly reminder for high performing engineers that often fail at the organizational side of things. Works out well, but you do need a person to play the role that could be called “babysitter” if you were a pessimistic person, and it takes a friendly work relationship and self recognition of (perfectly normal and common) deficiencies in organizational skills by the engineer. In our org, everyone is friendly and respects each other for the most part so these things are taken positively rather than negatively.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      > it takes a friendly work relationship and self recognition of (perfectly normal and common) deficiencies in organizational skills by the engineer. Yes, if done poorly it can be shaming. Ultimately it comes down to "yes you suck at organization. However you are so good at X that the company will make more money doing it this way than by firing you; that's a win-win." Specialization isn't just for insects
- Loughla 6y ago
  This one feels like the article actually addresses it perfectly. I have had an issue with this literal problem. I had a 'consultant' we would farm out to other organizations. She was phenomenal with work quality, but her organization was garbage, and her billing was always late/inaccurate. Here's what I did (and what the article seems to agree with): 1. Be clear about your expectations. Have standardized forms, and clear deadlines the two of you discuss. Also discuss and agree to consequences for not meeting expectations for timeline and accuracy. You WILL have to explain why this is important; to most of these folks who are rockstars, the work is important, not the follow-up. 2. Work through the documentation process, and find the pinch points. How can you help with that (provide resources). 3. If you have set consequences, follow through on them, or change the process to suit the person if they are valuable enough. In my experience, being bad at ancillary things isn't malicious. It's either not a priority, or it has never been called out. Super high performers won't understand why it matters (especially in the tech sector where 'the work' is all that matters). It's up to you to translate why it's important, and what the impact is for the team. Be open to solutions you hadn't though of. Good luck.
  - jasonpeacock 6y ago
    This is so true for many things in life, including relationships and parenting :)
    - gnat 6y ago
      I found that the things that worked for me as a parent also worked for me as a manager: treat them as adults, ask questions rather than assume/provide answers, include them in finding solutions to problem rather than dictate, and so on.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    He understands why it matters because he used to run his own one-man show before we "acqui-hired" him. But whenever I notice that he doesn't have his time logged in the system, he says "yeah I've been slammed all day" or something similar and promises to get it done soon... and then doesn't. And he genuinely is getting a lot of work done so there's no foul play or anything. The issue isn't just logging his time either - he's also not great at taking detailed notes, writing accurate scope of work documents, etc. He's very good with clients, has a lot of knowledge and experience with the tech stack, but is a "cowboy engineer" if that makes sense. The way I'm thinking about this is that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, but for this one person, said weaknesses are directly affecting the company bottom line so they are impossible to ignore. :)
- BariumBlue 6y ago
  Don't be afraid of feedback, and don't be afraid to criticize. Just ask for a certain time to do feedback, prepare a list of things to talk about, and then in a private space candidly talk about them. It's one of the things that the Air Force expects its leaders to do, and I've always liked that. I've found people to generally be surprisingly willing to discuss topics on both sides of a feedback session. Usual things to talk about would be expectations of what they'll do at work and all the related tasks, their work performance & what's helping and hindering it, how they fit in to their work-center both professionally and emotionally (do they feel detached, are they getting along with folks?), if there are recommendations from them for the work-center and how to improve the system. Depending, it can take 20 min or go on for hours. I've found feedback sessions like these to be very useful and productive though, and less awkward than some people assume.
- phaedrus 6y ago
  I could be projecting, but it sounds like your team member has ADHD. My work set up an automated system that emails people between 9-10am if they forgot to log their time the day before. You get dinged if and only if it gets to the second reminder at 11. As someone with ADHD I only distinguish two times: now and not now. Having a reminder that means "do it now" took me overnight from terrible timesheet compliance to near perfect. It's not an automated reminder that happens every day at that time like an alarm clock. That would get tuned out / filtered out very quickly. The key is it's a novel message that I only see if I screwed up by forgetting the day before. And it's easy to forget because the ADHD brain is like a CPU with only one register, and the register spill circuit for service interrupt / return from interrupt is faulty. In order to impersonate a functioning human being I tie certain things I need to do each day (like filling out my timesheet) to certain other events during the day. But if the routine gets broken or I get interrupted in the midst of doing the thing - the mind state that held what I was supposed to be doing is just gone.
  - kayodelycaon 6y ago
    It’s also important to mention ADHD is considered a disability in the US.
- efficax 6y ago
  When I worked as a consultant tracking billable hours was the hardest part of my job, far harder than any engineering problem, and the thing I hated even more than bad clients who couldn't make up their minds about requirements. For the last year I just started making up the hours and nobody seemed to notice! Thankfully I moved on to a salaried position at a product company and I don't have to micromanage myself anymore. I don't have a point here: time tracking sucks, that's all
  - toyg 6y ago
    I agree tremendously, same experience. It’s depressing that it’s 2020 and what seems like a trivial problem is still fundamentally unresolved. It’s the sort of thing Siri or Assistant should be designed for, but are not.
- mobjack 6y ago
  As someone with a similar personality, I doubt the employee has any delusions about their organization abilities. They probably just don't like that aspect of their job and don't think it is that important. Approach it by saying I know you don't like doing it, but it is important to do. Mention the consequences of not doing it and how you spent hours fixing them. You might need to micromanage that one part of the job. Sometimes people need reminders on what to do. Also mention that they a strong engineer otherwise and this is just one thing they need to work on. Don't expect them to be super organized, but they need to do the minimum when it comes to logging time.
- kayodelycaon 6y ago
  Having been on the receiving end of this, my manager and I sat down to work on the problem together. “More diligence” is not a good solution to recurring problems especially one as fundamental as organization. (Especially mine, as I have a disability in this area.) There are various solutions to for organization. One I’ve used is taking the beginning of each day to write down what I did the day before. (End of the day failed horribly.) It gets me thoughts in order so I deal with high friction tasks like paperwork. The issue could also be the perceived difficulty of software used to log hours. My brain hates using ticketing software because it’s a hassle to get everything entered properly. Most software systems I’ve used fight the way my brain works. It forces me to categorize things before I’m ready to categorize them. As a result, those tasks make me anxious, which means I tend to avoid them. If I “just do it”, it takes all of my energy for the day. This is why I have a system for getting the organization done outside the system before tackling a poor UI.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  That also means you have a overly complex and crufty time recording system
- poulsbohemian 6y ago
  Can you get him a scribe? I've done projects over the years where I'm the "expert", and on those projects there are a lot of organizational details (like tracking billable hours) where I have brought in or asked for a project manager to be brought in, not to "manage" me or the project per se, but to take care of details like that so that I can focus on the work itself instead. Has worked well for me.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> the leader will appear to condone substandard work That lazy S.O.B. almost never works unpaid overtime, is often unavailable for conference calls at 10 PM, and sometimes leaves the office at 5 PM to spend time with his family!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- tuckerpo 6y ago
  Sounds like you need to shop around.
kayodelycaon 6y ago
> But letting the praise stand alone can encourage them to think that everything they do is outstanding. Connect your positive comments to other things you want them to address. For example, you could say, “Now that you’ve done so well with the ABC presentation, for the next one, I’d like you to also [do the next thing they need to improve]. If I haven’t heard that a thousand times. Nothing kills my productivity more than a insincere “good job” while also being handed more work.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  Don't forget the shit sandwich: many management books suggest putting criticism between two positive comments.
  - ketzo 6y ago
    This isn't just a business thing, either. Artistic critiques, either in the visual arts or elsewhere, also tend to follow a "shit sandwich" plan. The way I heard it explained once (which totally makes sense to me) is not that you're idly flattering the person to make them feel better, because god knows that feels gross; rather, if you can deliver a thoughtful positive comment (that the person knows or can see is true of their own work), it shows that you're making a good faith effort to really evaluate their work. That way, a criticism comes off less like an insult and more like a place to build from.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      1. Thoughtful praise is always good. 2. Leading with thoughtful praise is probably necessary when making a negative comment if you don't already have a trusting relationship. If it is reasonable for the other person to think you are just armchair-quarterbacking and don't actually understand their problem, you need to demonstrate otherwise first, and voicing appreciation for things that they have done is one way to do so. 3. If a manager hasn't already established this relationship with their direct reports, then there are probably other problems (unless it's someone new on the team) 4. Having to do this every time will eventually lead to idle flattery or non-sequitur comments just because things don't always happen in a nice 2:1 ratio of good to bad.
johnyzee 6y ago
Honestly, in engineering, it's usually a lot more likely that the manager doesn't understand the value of individual employees, and only sees an underling who has a strong sense of self-worth, but not enough knowledge to understand why.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  The article was giving examples more along the lines of employees that had been promoted beyond their capacities (often the middle management), rather than someone at the bottom of the hierarchy who was misunderstood by middle management.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  "I keep asking this guy to do things that he doesn't have enough information or authority to do and that nobody else could have done, and it still takes him weeks to get it done, he's incompetent!"
  - watermelon59 6y ago
    Going through that right now and the anxiety is awful. I’m glad I have a therapist.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  This sounds like something an underperformer who thinks they are doing great would say :) I am kidding but my perspective (as someone who spent lots of time in both management and senior IC roles) is that thinking like this is harmful. Sure, there are terrible managers out there but 95% of the time, if your manager and you disagree on your performance, they are looking at it from a perspective that you're missing. I'll give you a few examples: - "My manager doesn't appreciate good engineering, just rushes me to get features in." - "No, your manager sees that you over-engineer non-critical parts of the system so you take way longer and your code is more complex than need be. He's been trying to help you make more pragmatic decisions but you're dug in on insisting he doesn't understand you, so you can't see that you can do something much better." - "My manager is upset that I deliver extra features for our business. I think he's a control freak and he doesn't understand how much I do." - "No, your manager sees that you keep doing one off favors for whoever asks, at the expense of slowing down the critical work that the team has committed to. Your manager works very hard to push back on the business and keep your roadmap clear, and you keep sabotaging it for the team." - "My manager doesn't appreciate how many bugs I fix in our system. He keeps saying something that I don't think high level enough but I just think he's an asshole." - "No, your manager recognizes that if all you do is fix bugs you will never rise in your level, and as someone who's considered a senior engineer, he needs you to step up and help the team figure out why they have so many bugs to begin with, and then work to solve those at root level. Also, your boss has a hard time fighting for a raise for you every year because his boss just says 'oh that guy just fixes bugs, no growth'" These situations are super common. In each one, the employee is better off trying to understand what the manager is seeing and why they are suggesting something different. But when the employee has their head up their ass and starts from the point of view "everything I am doing is right and my boss just doesn't understand" they are screwing themselves, likely the team, and are way more in the "oblivious underperformer" category than they realize.
corobo 6y ago
This seems like a very passive management style. If there's a problem, discuss it directly with them. Don't faff about, it could just be that they don't know they're missing expectations Sounds like the hypothetical manager in this scenario is underperforming and thinking they're doing great too. Managers need spines. e: for a bit of context I was an underperformer that thought they were doing well. Also admittedly this is a kneejerk response to a skim read while I'm on a coffee break so I've probably just focused on the passive parts that used to wind me up from management
- Loughla 6y ago
  Management is about knowing what people need. Hammering someone who doesn't see a problem is the best way to make a problem. It's not about being passive. It's about identifying the problem, explaining the problem, and coming to a mutual solution if possible. Or, in other words, treating humans like humans.
  - corobo 6y ago
    Yes but I'm extending that to be treating adult humans like adult humans. Have a discussion, grab a coffee. Make it known. No hammering, discourse. "It’s emotionally draining to keep faking success or status that’s not legitimate." I'm saying get this sort of thing out of your playbook entirely. Of course someone's going to think they're doing well if you tell them they are!
    - ptaffs 6y ago
      In this situation the other person believes they are correct and a high performer and you, the manager and your advice, is wrong. Your advice is wrong and your expectations are wrong. You can't have the conversation until you've done the work to identify the likely cause of an underperformer’s lack of self-awareness.
      - corobo 6y ago
        That's where the spine requirement comes in. Tell them the next step. Performance improvement plans and/or warnings. If there's nothing that can be done due to the lack of give and take from the employee then your only recourse is to get shot of them, whether through transferring them to some other dept where they'd be better suited or letting them go
kevsim 6y ago
I work in Scandinavia where "just fire them if they're not improving" is a lengthy process. So when I got a case like this on one of my teams, it was worth my time to try to help this person improve because with their long tenure, they were going to be very hard to give the boot. This person seemed to be a fairly competent programmer, but just didn't do much actual work. He spent all of his time butterflying around, joining meetings he didn't need to be in, digging into other teams' work that didn't need digging into. I give my teams a ton of autonomy, but he was clearly taking advantage of that in order to seem busy without delivering any value for our users. The single best tool in handling this situation for me was peer feedback. We instituted a system where peer feedback came from a few peers he selected and a few I myself selected. The person in question was shocked when even the peers he selected came back saying that he simply failed to get stuff done. This came as a wakeup call for him, and we were able to work on a very clear development plan that minimized distractions and maximized time for deep work. He ended up being a solid contributor.
- mottosso 6y ago
  > He ended up being a sold contributor. A gold contributor?
  - Invictus0 6y ago
    I think the parent meant solid.
  - danaris 6y ago
    I'd guess "solid"?
    - natchy 6y ago
      No I think they sold him for parts.
      - mottosso 6y ago
        My bets are on this one.
fooblat 6y ago
> Assess whether they’ll accept help This is the big one for me. Previously I had such an under performer on my team. When presented with concrete examples of where he was falling short of expectations he simply would not accept that he wasn't doing a great job. I and another very experienced and well regarded manager tried to break through to him and help him but all three times it ended with him getting angry and making crazy excuses. It seemed he simply could not admit that he needed to improve in some key areas and in the end I had to replace him.
qntty 6y ago
It's always interesting to imagine what kind of articles people in different economic systems would write about managing performance problems. I wonder what strategies a feudal lord would have for managing an underperforming serf if they had a magazine where they published that kind of stuff.
czep 6y ago
Managers are structurally disincented to help underperformers because they serve a more effective role as a scapegoat. Stack ranking culture has created a system in which every team must have at least one person who can be justifiably allocated to the lower end of the bell curve. During review season, every manager's worst nightmare is to not have any evidence that they can label someone a low performer. Once one is identified, it's in the manager's interest to keep them in that low performer state for as long as possible. This makes it easier to reward high performers when raises and promotions are zero sum within a team. It also signals to upper management how keenly they can assess talent. In short, having an underperformer on the team is a wonderful asset for a manager.
- smcg 6y ago
  this is so anti-social and screwed up. but it's the reality of capitalism.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    This sort of finger-pointing is actually endemic to communist and socialist economies - the only thing you can trade on is your reputation. Capitalism tempers it somewhat because at the end of the day you do still need to make money.
  - J-dawg 6y ago
    It's the reality of bureaucracies, not capitalism. You really think this couldn't happen outside of capitalism?
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    Nothing to do specifically with capitalism. Most bureaucratic politics can be boiled down to game theory, and it doesn't take much imagination to conceive how this same phenomenon can occur in an identical way in a command structure absent of financial incentives.
    - chillingeffect 6y ago
smcg 6y ago
I think I have been one of these employees before. However, management basically did the opposite of what was suggested here. Goals were so vague and corporate-speak and abstract that they were indecipherable. Expectations were kept vague. I was routinely praised for average work and ignored for good work. Managers canceled 1 on 1s and never renewed them. It was a constant uphill battle to get managers to actually talk to team members because they also wore other hats like project manager, product owner, etc.
J-dawg 6y ago
The article misses one possibility, which I suspect is actually the most likely: The underperformer knows they're underperforming, but it's in their best interests never to admit it. I know because I've been there. I was underperforming and I'm also naturally very self-critical. So in reviews etc I'd be very open about my weaknesses and the need to improve. In corporate culture there is nothing to gain from self-awareness. You've just handed your manager an invitation to use you as a scapegoat (see @czep's comment), to leave you out of pay rises and give you crappy tasks. There's everything to gain from being permanently confident and upbeat about your abilities. Then your manager may A) be fooled by the act and think you're a great performer or B) figure out that you're struggling - but then you're in no worse a position than you would've been by being downbeat in the first place.
- zcw100 6y ago
  You should read the "Gervais Principle" https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - soniman 6y ago
    I've tried to read this about 3 times and can't understand it. Could you ELI5 it?
    - throwaway889900 6y ago
      There are 3 kinds of people: Sociopaths, Clueless, and Losers. Sociopaths are the higher level managers, generally, Clueless are the middle managers, and Losers are the low level workers. Clueless want to be higher level managers, but lack the ability to act like a high level manager and only imitate. These people are generally picked out for promotions by Sociopaths because of their willingness to do what they want, but also because they are promoted to their level of incompetence. Losers on the other hand know the gig or don't care, so are passed on by and stay where they are, basically "losing" the corporate game. That's basically the gist of it.
zcw100 6y ago
The employee isn't responsible for self-awareness about their performance. That's your job as a manager and a leader.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/xuT19 https://archive.is/xuT19
amai 6y ago
Promote the underperformer to become your boss. This will give you a lot of freedom and raise the performance of your team.
- jandrese 6y ago
  In this case the underperformer thinks they are an expert, that's one of the worst kinds of bosses to have. That's exactly the sort of person who will steer you to ruin. General Kurt von Hammerstein warned of this almost 90 years ago: I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
nof1 6y ago
I've faced this problem numerous times and there are two key parts: 1. Some people just have zero clue. They just don't have self awareness of a good set of internal metrics on how to perform. These are almost always people that had flags when we hired them but we were hiring fast for a role and brought them in. 2. As a manager I didn't give hard feedback early on. It is difficult, especially with people with potential to give that hard feedback (you're moving too slowly, this isn't up to snuff). I've had to do hard corrections later on that could have been solved if I had stepped up and spent the time early on to say hey this needs to be better and how. Also, underinvesting in promising talent is a huge problem at startups. You often have first time managers or execs who are managing way too many people. So potential leaders don't get the mentorship they need. Given that attracting new, good talent can cost tens of thousands of $s in time and recruiting costs, it is a smart move to put money into leveling up and retaining people! Find them mentors outside the company (YC has a great community for this, as do other VC funds and industry groups), pay for coaching, or find a mentor in the company that has more time. It really pays off.
- novok 6y ago
  Managers can be uncomfortable giving feedback / advice on what your short on! I remember asking a manager to give me tips on what I could improve on or what I'm short on in a 1:1 and he was visibly uncomfortable when I did. He did give me pretty good reviews in general although.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
markhollis 6y ago
I got another perspective. I was/am someone who is labelled as an underperformer by my boss. I work at a electronics production firm, where I did some programming work. During feedback season, I was moved departments. Now I just do soldering, all days long. What do I do in my situation? I feel like being in despair. I feel like I don't have any other options. Clearly, this situation feels like suicide for my career. I was recently diagnosed with ASD, bipolar disorder type 2 and depression, for what it's worth.
- novok 6y ago
  Learn how to handle your mental illnesses and your job performance will probably improve. Once you have a handle on that, move jobs?
- frongpik 6y ago
  Switch jobs. You can't escape this hole by doing more work. In fact, doing more work will solidify your managers opinion that the new role is better for you. Do exactly what's told in the gervais principle book: slack off to the barely sustainable perf to release energy you need to prepare an exit. I've been labelled an underperformer in past. I switched jobs, doubled my pay and got a stellar perf review at the new place. I've learned that perf doesn't assess your ability, but rather your relationships with peers and managers, and your adherence to the ingroup activities, i.e. some orgs value above else the amount of code you write, some value how loud you're in meetings, some value shipping features or writing feature designs. Poor perf review is a sign that your mental model of the organization is wrong. Once you get it right, it's entirely possible to have stellar perf on paper while doing laughably mediocre work.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tpoacher 6y ago
90% of the time "Managing an underperformer" = you're a bad manager. "Managing an underperformer who thinks they're doing great" = you really suck at managing but have no idea, and you're missing out on the irony. This is up there with teachers who cant teach and tell their students "50% will fail the class".
yeneek 6y ago
Sometimes, people are burned out. First thing what manager should do, is to check if the underperformer took some time off. Burnout is a huge productivity killer.

102 points by apress 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

I have someone like this on my team. The guy is a really good engineer and consultant, he is unorganized as hell and takes forever to log his billable time in the system. This causes billing problems regularly, requiring multiple hours of manual correction by myself (his manager) and has also resulted in clients receiving inaccurate invoices. I haven't been able to figure out how to handle it. I really don't want to have to micromanage him, because I feel like that would cut into his confidence. But he's also pretty terrible when it comes to an important aspect of the job.

aidenn0 6y ago
If he's that good of an engineer, have you considered hiring someone to sit down with him every so often to help him log the data?
- ptaffs 6y ago
  totally agree with this comment, help the person; we all bring different skills. Also, the person might just need a prompt or remind, someone telling them mid afternoon on Friday that a form is due before going home.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  Have a very similar problem in our organization, and our project manager stepped in to be that helpful friendly reminder for high performing engineers that often fail at the organizational side of things. Works out well, but you do need a person to play the role that could be called “babysitter” if you were a pessimistic person, and it takes a friendly work relationship and self recognition of (perfectly normal and common) deficiencies in organizational skills by the engineer. In our org, everyone is friendly and respects each other for the most part so these things are taken positively rather than negatively.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    > it takes a friendly work relationship and self recognition of (perfectly normal and common) deficiencies in organizational skills by the engineer. Yes, if done poorly it can be shaming. Ultimately it comes down to "yes you suck at organization. However you are so good at X that the company will make more money doing it this way than by firing you; that's a win-win." Specialization isn't just for insects
Loughla 6y ago
This one feels like the article actually addresses it perfectly. I have had an issue with this literal problem. I had a 'consultant' we would farm out to other organizations. She was phenomenal with work quality, but her organization was garbage, and her billing was always late/inaccurate. Here's what I did (and what the article seems to agree with): 1. Be clear about your expectations. Have standardized forms, and clear deadlines the two of you discuss. Also discuss and agree to consequences for not meeting expectations for timeline and accuracy. You WILL have to explain why this is important; to most of these folks who are rockstars, the work is important, not the follow-up. 2. Work through the documentation process, and find the pinch points. How can you help with that (provide resources). 3. If you have set consequences, follow through on them, or change the process to suit the person if they are valuable enough. In my experience, being bad at ancillary things isn't malicious. It's either not a priority, or it has never been called out. Super high performers won't understand why it matters (especially in the tech sector where 'the work' is all that matters). It's up to you to translate why it's important, and what the impact is for the team. Be open to solutions you hadn't though of. Good luck.
- jasonpeacock 6y ago
  This is so true for many things in life, including relationships and parenting :)
  - gnat 6y ago
    I found that the things that worked for me as a parent also worked for me as a manager: treat them as adults, ask questions rather than assume/provide answers, include them in finding solutions to problem rather than dictate, and so on.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  He understands why it matters because he used to run his own one-man show before we "acqui-hired" him. But whenever I notice that he doesn't have his time logged in the system, he says "yeah I've been slammed all day" or something similar and promises to get it done soon... and then doesn't. And he genuinely is getting a lot of work done so there's no foul play or anything. The issue isn't just logging his time either - he's also not great at taking detailed notes, writing accurate scope of work documents, etc. He's very good with clients, has a lot of knowledge and experience with the tech stack, but is a "cowboy engineer" if that makes sense. The way I'm thinking about this is that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, but for this one person, said weaknesses are directly affecting the company bottom line so they are impossible to ignore. :)
BariumBlue 6y ago
Don't be afraid of feedback, and don't be afraid to criticize. Just ask for a certain time to do feedback, prepare a list of things to talk about, and then in a private space candidly talk about them. It's one of the things that the Air Force expects its leaders to do, and I've always liked that. I've found people to generally be surprisingly willing to discuss topics on both sides of a feedback session. Usual things to talk about would be expectations of what they'll do at work and all the related tasks, their work performance & what's helping and hindering it, how they fit in to their work-center both professionally and emotionally (do they feel detached, are they getting along with folks?), if there are recommendations from them for the work-center and how to improve the system. Depending, it can take 20 min or go on for hours. I've found feedback sessions like these to be very useful and productive though, and less awkward than some people assume.
phaedrus 6y ago
I could be projecting, but it sounds like your team member has ADHD. My work set up an automated system that emails people between 9-10am if they forgot to log their time the day before. You get dinged if and only if it gets to the second reminder at 11. As someone with ADHD I only distinguish two times: now and not now. Having a reminder that means "do it now" took me overnight from terrible timesheet compliance to near perfect. It's not an automated reminder that happens every day at that time like an alarm clock. That would get tuned out / filtered out very quickly. The key is it's a novel message that I only see if I screwed up by forgetting the day before. And it's easy to forget because the ADHD brain is like a CPU with only one register, and the register spill circuit for service interrupt / return from interrupt is faulty. In order to impersonate a functioning human being I tie certain things I need to do each day (like filling out my timesheet) to certain other events during the day. But if the routine gets broken or I get interrupted in the midst of doing the thing - the mind state that held what I was supposed to be doing is just gone.
- kayodelycaon 6y ago
  It’s also important to mention ADHD is considered a disability in the US.
efficax 6y ago
When I worked as a consultant tracking billable hours was the hardest part of my job, far harder than any engineering problem, and the thing I hated even more than bad clients who couldn't make up their minds about requirements. For the last year I just started making up the hours and nobody seemed to notice! Thankfully I moved on to a salaried position at a product company and I don't have to micromanage myself anymore. I don't have a point here: time tracking sucks, that's all
- toyg 6y ago
  I agree tremendously, same experience. It’s depressing that it’s 2020 and what seems like a trivial problem is still fundamentally unresolved. It’s the sort of thing Siri or Assistant should be designed for, but are not.
mobjack 6y ago
As someone with a similar personality, I doubt the employee has any delusions about their organization abilities. They probably just don't like that aspect of their job and don't think it is that important. Approach it by saying I know you don't like doing it, but it is important to do. Mention the consequences of not doing it and how you spent hours fixing them. You might need to micromanage that one part of the job. Sometimes people need reminders on what to do. Also mention that they a strong engineer otherwise and this is just one thing they need to work on. Don't expect them to be super organized, but they need to do the minimum when it comes to logging time.
kayodelycaon 6y ago
Having been on the receiving end of this, my manager and I sat down to work on the problem together. “More diligence” is not a good solution to recurring problems especially one as fundamental as organization. (Especially mine, as I have a disability in this area.) There are various solutions to for organization. One I’ve used is taking the beginning of each day to write down what I did the day before. (End of the day failed horribly.) It gets me thoughts in order so I deal with high friction tasks like paperwork. The issue could also be the perceived difficulty of software used to log hours. My brain hates using ticketing software because it’s a hassle to get everything entered properly. Most software systems I’ve used fight the way my brain works. It forces me to categorize things before I’m ready to categorize them. As a result, those tasks make me anxious, which means I tend to avoid them. If I “just do it”, it takes all of my energy for the day. This is why I have a system for getting the organization done outside the system before tackling a poor UI.
Mauricebranagh 6y ago
That also means you have a overly complex and crufty time recording system
poulsbohemian 6y ago
Can you get him a scribe? I've done projects over the years where I'm the "expert", and on those projects there are a lot of organizational details (like tracking billable hours) where I have brought in or asked for a project manager to be brought in, not to "manage" me or the project per se, but to take care of details like that so that I can focus on the work itself instead. Has worked well for me.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> the leader will appear to condone substandard work That lazy S.O.B. almost never works unpaid overtime, is often unavailable for conference calls at 10 PM, and sometimes leaves the office at 5 PM to spend time with his family!

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tuckerpo 6y ago
Sounds like you need to shop around.

kayodelycaon 6y ago

> But letting the praise stand alone can encourage them to think that everything they do is outstanding. Connect your positive comments to other things you want them to address. For example, you could say, “Now that you’ve done so well with the ABC presentation, for the next one, I’d like you to also [do the next thing they need to improve]. If I haven’t heard that a thousand times. Nothing kills my productivity more than a insincere “good job” while also being handed more work.

aidenn0 6y ago
Don't forget the shit sandwich: many management books suggest putting criticism between two positive comments.
- ketzo 6y ago
  This isn't just a business thing, either. Artistic critiques, either in the visual arts or elsewhere, also tend to follow a "shit sandwich" plan. The way I heard it explained once (which totally makes sense to me) is not that you're idly flattering the person to make them feel better, because god knows that feels gross; rather, if you can deliver a thoughtful positive comment (that the person knows or can see is true of their own work), it shows that you're making a good faith effort to really evaluate their work. That way, a criticism comes off less like an insult and more like a place to build from.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    1. Thoughtful praise is always good. 2. Leading with thoughtful praise is probably necessary when making a negative comment if you don't already have a trusting relationship. If it is reasonable for the other person to think you are just armchair-quarterbacking and don't actually understand their problem, you need to demonstrate otherwise first, and voicing appreciation for things that they have done is one way to do so. 3. If a manager hasn't already established this relationship with their direct reports, then there are probably other problems (unless it's someone new on the team) 4. Having to do this every time will eventually lead to idle flattery or non-sequitur comments just because things don't always happen in a nice 2:1 ratio of good to bad.

johnyzee 6y ago

Honestly, in engineering, it's usually a lot more likely that the manager doesn't understand the value of individual employees, and only sees an underling who has a strong sense of self-worth, but not enough knowledge to understand why.

h0l0cube 6y ago
The article was giving examples more along the lines of employees that had been promoted beyond their capacities (often the middle management), rather than someone at the bottom of the hierarchy who was misunderstood by middle management.
commandlinefan 6y ago
"I keep asking this guy to do things that he doesn't have enough information or authority to do and that nobody else could have done, and it still takes him weeks to get it done, he's incompetent!"
- watermelon59 6y ago
  Going through that right now and the anxiety is awful. I’m glad I have a therapist.
xyzelement 6y ago
This sounds like something an underperformer who thinks they are doing great would say :) I am kidding but my perspective (as someone who spent lots of time in both management and senior IC roles) is that thinking like this is harmful. Sure, there are terrible managers out there but 95% of the time, if your manager and you disagree on your performance, they are looking at it from a perspective that you're missing. I'll give you a few examples: - "My manager doesn't appreciate good engineering, just rushes me to get features in." - "No, your manager sees that you over-engineer non-critical parts of the system so you take way longer and your code is more complex than need be. He's been trying to help you make more pragmatic decisions but you're dug in on insisting he doesn't understand you, so you can't see that you can do something much better." - "My manager is upset that I deliver extra features for our business. I think he's a control freak and he doesn't understand how much I do." - "No, your manager sees that you keep doing one off favors for whoever asks, at the expense of slowing down the critical work that the team has committed to. Your manager works very hard to push back on the business and keep your roadmap clear, and you keep sabotaging it for the team." - "My manager doesn't appreciate how many bugs I fix in our system. He keeps saying something that I don't think high level enough but I just think he's an asshole." - "No, your manager recognizes that if all you do is fix bugs you will never rise in your level, and as someone who's considered a senior engineer, he needs you to step up and help the team figure out why they have so many bugs to begin with, and then work to solve those at root level. Also, your boss has a hard time fighting for a raise for you every year because his boss just says 'oh that guy just fixes bugs, no growth'" These situations are super common. In each one, the employee is better off trying to understand what the manager is seeing and why they are suggesting something different. But when the employee has their head up their ass and starts from the point of view "everything I am doing is right and my boss just doesn't understand" they are screwing themselves, likely the team, and are way more in the "oblivious underperformer" category than they realize.

corobo 6y ago

This seems like a very passive management style. If there's a problem, discuss it directly with them. Don't faff about, it could just be that they don't know they're missing expectations Sounds like the hypothetical manager in this scenario is underperforming and thinking they're doing great too. Managers need spines. e: for a bit of context I was an underperformer that thought they were doing well. Also admittedly this is a kneejerk response to a skim read while I'm on a coffee break so I've probably just focused on the passive parts that used to wind me up from management

Loughla 6y ago
Management is about knowing what people need. Hammering someone who doesn't see a problem is the best way to make a problem. It's not about being passive. It's about identifying the problem, explaining the problem, and coming to a mutual solution if possible. Or, in other words, treating humans like humans.
- corobo 6y ago
  Yes but I'm extending that to be treating adult humans like adult humans. Have a discussion, grab a coffee. Make it known. No hammering, discourse. "It’s emotionally draining to keep faking success or status that’s not legitimate." I'm saying get this sort of thing out of your playbook entirely. Of course someone's going to think they're doing well if you tell them they are!
  - ptaffs 6y ago
    In this situation the other person believes they are correct and a high performer and you, the manager and your advice, is wrong. Your advice is wrong and your expectations are wrong. You can't have the conversation until you've done the work to identify the likely cause of an underperformer’s lack of self-awareness.
    - corobo 6y ago
      That's where the spine requirement comes in. Tell them the next step. Performance improvement plans and/or warnings. If there's nothing that can be done due to the lack of give and take from the employee then your only recourse is to get shot of them, whether through transferring them to some other dept where they'd be better suited or letting them go

kevsim 6y ago

I work in Scandinavia where "just fire them if they're not improving" is a lengthy process. So when I got a case like this on one of my teams, it was worth my time to try to help this person improve because with their long tenure, they were going to be very hard to give the boot. This person seemed to be a fairly competent programmer, but just didn't do much actual work. He spent all of his time butterflying around, joining meetings he didn't need to be in, digging into other teams' work that didn't need digging into. I give my teams a ton of autonomy, but he was clearly taking advantage of that in order to seem busy without delivering any value for our users. The single best tool in handling this situation for me was peer feedback. We instituted a system where peer feedback came from a few peers he selected and a few I myself selected. The person in question was shocked when even the peers he selected came back saying that he simply failed to get stuff done. This came as a wakeup call for him, and we were able to work on a very clear development plan that minimized distractions and maximized time for deep work. He ended up being a solid contributor.

mottosso 6y ago
> He ended up being a sold contributor. A gold contributor?
- Invictus0 6y ago
  I think the parent meant solid.
- danaris 6y ago
  I'd guess "solid"?
  - natchy 6y ago
    No I think they sold him for parts.
    - mottosso 6y ago
      My bets are on this one.

fooblat 6y ago

> Assess whether they’ll accept help This is the big one for me. Previously I had such an under performer on my team. When presented with concrete examples of where he was falling short of expectations he simply would not accept that he wasn't doing a great job. I and another very experienced and well regarded manager tried to break through to him and help him but all three times it ended with him getting angry and making crazy excuses. It seemed he simply could not admit that he needed to improve in some key areas and in the end I had to replace him.

qntty 6y ago

It's always interesting to imagine what kind of articles people in different economic systems would write about managing performance problems. I wonder what strategies a feudal lord would have for managing an underperforming serf if they had a magazine where they published that kind of stuff.

czep 6y ago

Managers are structurally disincented to help underperformers because they serve a more effective role as a scapegoat. Stack ranking culture has created a system in which every team must have at least one person who can be justifiably allocated to the lower end of the bell curve. During review season, every manager's worst nightmare is to not have any evidence that they can label someone a low performer. Once one is identified, it's in the manager's interest to keep them in that low performer state for as long as possible. This makes it easier to reward high performers when raises and promotions are zero sum within a team. It also signals to upper management how keenly they can assess talent. In short, having an underperformer on the team is a wonderful asset for a manager.

smcg 6y ago
this is so anti-social and screwed up. but it's the reality of capitalism.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  This sort of finger-pointing is actually endemic to communist and socialist economies - the only thing you can trade on is your reputation. Capitalism tempers it somewhat because at the end of the day you do still need to make money.
- J-dawg 6y ago
  It's the reality of bureaucracies, not capitalism. You really think this couldn't happen outside of capitalism?
- ravenstine 6y ago
  Nothing to do specifically with capitalism. Most bureaucratic politics can be boiled down to game theory, and it doesn't take much imagination to conceive how this same phenomenon can occur in an identical way in a command structure absent of financial incentives.
  - chillingeffect 6y ago

smcg 6y ago

I think I have been one of these employees before. However, management basically did the opposite of what was suggested here. Goals were so vague and corporate-speak and abstract that they were indecipherable. Expectations were kept vague. I was routinely praised for average work and ignored for good work. Managers canceled 1 on 1s and never renewed them. It was a constant uphill battle to get managers to actually talk to team members because they also wore other hats like project manager, product owner, etc.

J-dawg 6y ago

The article misses one possibility, which I suspect is actually the most likely: The underperformer knows they're underperforming, but it's in their best interests never to admit it. I know because I've been there. I was underperforming and I'm also naturally very self-critical. So in reviews etc I'd be very open about my weaknesses and the need to improve. In corporate culture there is nothing to gain from self-awareness. You've just handed your manager an invitation to use you as a scapegoat (see @czep's comment), to leave you out of pay rises and give you crappy tasks. There's everything to gain from being permanently confident and upbeat about your abilities. Then your manager may A) be fooled by the act and think you're a great performer or B) figure out that you're struggling - but then you're in no worse a position than you would've been by being downbeat in the first place.

zcw100 6y ago
You should read the "Gervais Principle" https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- soniman 6y ago
  I've tried to read this about 3 times and can't understand it. Could you ELI5 it?
  - throwaway889900 6y ago
    There are 3 kinds of people: Sociopaths, Clueless, and Losers. Sociopaths are the higher level managers, generally, Clueless are the middle managers, and Losers are the low level workers. Clueless want to be higher level managers, but lack the ability to act like a high level manager and only imitate. These people are generally picked out for promotions by Sociopaths because of their willingness to do what they want, but also because they are promoted to their level of incompetence. Losers on the other hand know the gig or don't care, so are passed on by and stay where they are, basically "losing" the corporate game. That's basically the gist of it.

zcw100 6y ago

The employee isn't responsible for self-awareness about their performance. That's your job as a manager and a leader.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/xuT19 https://archive.is/xuT19

amai 6y ago

Promote the underperformer to become your boss. This will give you a lot of freedom and raise the performance of your team.

jandrese 6y ago
In this case the underperformer thinks they are an expert, that's one of the worst kinds of bosses to have. That's exactly the sort of person who will steer you to ruin. General Kurt von Hammerstein warned of this almost 90 years ago: I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.

nof1 6y ago

I've faced this problem numerous times and there are two key parts: 1. Some people just have zero clue. They just don't have self awareness of a good set of internal metrics on how to perform. These are almost always people that had flags when we hired them but we were hiring fast for a role and brought them in. 2. As a manager I didn't give hard feedback early on. It is difficult, especially with people with potential to give that hard feedback (you're moving too slowly, this isn't up to snuff). I've had to do hard corrections later on that could have been solved if I had stepped up and spent the time early on to say hey this needs to be better and how. Also, underinvesting in promising talent is a huge problem at startups. You often have first time managers or execs who are managing way too many people. So potential leaders don't get the mentorship they need. Given that attracting new, good talent can cost tens of thousands of $s in time and recruiting costs, it is a smart move to put money into leveling up and retaining people! Find them mentors outside the company (YC has a great community for this, as do other VC funds and industry groups), pay for coaching, or find a mentor in the company that has more time. It really pays off.

novok 6y ago
Managers can be uncomfortable giving feedback / advice on what your short on! I remember asking a manager to give me tips on what I could improve on or what I'm short on in a 1:1 and he was visibly uncomfortable when I did. He did give me pretty good reviews in general although.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

markhollis 6y ago

I got another perspective. I was/am someone who is labelled as an underperformer by my boss. I work at a electronics production firm, where I did some programming work. During feedback season, I was moved departments. Now I just do soldering, all days long. What do I do in my situation? I feel like being in despair. I feel like I don't have any other options. Clearly, this situation feels like suicide for my career. I was recently diagnosed with ASD, bipolar disorder type 2 and depression, for what it's worth.

novok 6y ago
Learn how to handle your mental illnesses and your job performance will probably improve. Once you have a handle on that, move jobs?
frongpik 6y ago
Switch jobs. You can't escape this hole by doing more work. In fact, doing more work will solidify your managers opinion that the new role is better for you. Do exactly what's told in the gervais principle book: slack off to the barely sustainable perf to release energy you need to prepare an exit. I've been labelled an underperformer in past. I switched jobs, doubled my pay and got a stellar perf review at the new place. I've learned that perf doesn't assess your ability, but rather your relationships with peers and managers, and your adherence to the ingroup activities, i.e. some orgs value above else the amount of code you write, some value how loud you're in meetings, some value shipping features or writing feature designs. Poor perf review is a sign that your mental model of the organization is wrong. Once you get it right, it's entirely possible to have stellar perf on paper while doing laughably mediocre work.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

tpoacher 6y ago

90% of the time "Managing an underperformer" = you're a bad manager. "Managing an underperformer who thinks they're doing great" = you really suck at managing but have no idea, and you're missing out on the irony. This is up there with teachers who cant teach and tell their students "50% will fail the class".

yeneek 6y ago

Sometimes, people are burned out. First thing what manager should do, is to check if the underperformer took some time off. Burnout is a huge productivity killer.