8 ms·
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 t
by 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?
- segmondy 6y agoEven if it's not a lengthy process to fire them, as someone in a leadership role I believe it's the duty of leaders to not switch to a firing mindset, but to exactly do what this article suggests. Mentor, Lead, Coach. Set clear expectations especially on how your direct reports can measure their contribution. A fast feedback cycle that any employee can tap into to see their progress is very important. Hiring is not easy, so when I hire, I'm really their biggest cheerleader. I want everyone to succeed, if folks reporting to me succeed, that often means I'm doing my job, makes my life easier, means I made a good hiring decision. I'm not saying that I'm a smart manager, but good managers don't wish to see you fail, they really wish to see you succeed and will do everything possible to make that happen. Just saying this because I know plenty of folks are distrustful of managers.
- lefstathiou 6y agoJust tossing in a different perspective.... Everyone has their own style and this is not mine - nor do I believe it is the duty of the manager to do everything they can to rehabilitate someone. Depending on the context, I would go as far as to say that doing so could potentially border on being an immoral disservice to your company, clients, shareholders and team. Time is the most valuable and scarce of resources. Managers are responsible for executing on their mission (within the legal boundaries of the law and value system of the organization they serve). I have a lot of things on my plate and am responsible for the livelihoods of over 100 people. I want everyone to be successful and we certainly wouldn’t knowingly hire someone we didn’t think would be. If the day comes where it’s clear a person doesn’t get the job, want the job or have the capacity for the job (to borrow from Traction), it’s time to go and go quickly preferably. I would include in this people that would take an inordinate amount of my and the teams time or resources to get there. There are presumably others who get/want/have those things and it’s my duty to serve THEM in an effort to further the mission I was hired to do. Neither of us are right / wrong of course. We just have different styles.
- novok 6y agoI think bothering to make it clear that they are not performing that well is the cheaper and faster thing to do if it works although, right? You don't have to go through an indirect process like this guy did, you can just tell people outright, especially engineering types who tend to appreciate more direct feedback. Because if your going to fire them either way, that is in many ways less confrontational. "Decent but whaffs around a lot" and "started performing once they were shown that, actually, you don't get stuff done" seems a lot easier than: Fire, reduce morale greatly if everyone likes that person, and then go through a long and expensive process to get a back fill who may or may not be any good either. Also as a manager of 100 people, you shouldn't be actually dealing with IC cases like this, your managers should be.
- dpatrick86 6y agoWow, refreshing. To me, the most interesting part here is the incentive. It sounds like they ultimately just wanted to rise to the standard once it was made exhaustively clear. The important part here probably being that, by including peers, they know the feedback is coming from the right place, which is disarming.
- kevsim 6y agoDisarming is an excellent way to describe it. When the people who you feel that you're on par with point out that you're not pulling your weight, there's no place left for self delusion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lacker 6y agoI’m curious, how long does it take in Scandinavia to fire someone? From my experience in large American tech companies, it usually takes around a year of documented underperformance.
- kevsim 6y agoI'd say a year would also be a reasonable estimate here once the person is out of their 6 month probation period. It varies by country how much easier life is during the probation (easier in Sweden, not super much easier in Norway, not sure about Denmark). However, I've heard cases where HR people simply refuse to go through with the actual process because they don't believe the case is strong enough. Interesting you've experienced it taking a year in the US. I would've assumed with employment at will that it was easier, but I guess they want to cover themselves from lawsuits.
- ameliaquining 6y agoLegal risk is nowhere near the limiting factor in how quick big U.S. tech companies are to fire people. There's something of a culture of doing so very gradually and reluctantly. I suppose this is because firing people is unpleasant and requires admitting things we'd rather not acknowledge, and big tech companies can afford to put it off for a long time.
- lacker 6y agoI should have been more specific - I meant a year from the time at which the employee starts performing badly, not from the time a manager decides they want to fire someone. A typical timeline in the US would be something like, someone is performing badly for a 6-12 month period, then the employee's direct manager decides that firing is a possibility, then the employee does a PIP for 1-2 months, then either it is decided that the employee is doing better and should be retained, or the employee is fired.