5 ms·

Just 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

Just 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 ago
I 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.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lazyasciiart 6y ago
Managers are literally responsible for managing people who report to them. If you don't have time for that, maybe you just don't get the job.
- ozim 6y ago
  What parent wrote - he has time and is responsible for managing people. What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively. Spending time on pulling someone up is taking time from solving issues of others. Where their issues are probably more tied to job at hand and delivering value to the customers. So what he means is that yes, one should help someone who falls behind but it is not fair to put too much effort that will be taken away from others. It is also not fair for the customers. How can you judge what is fair share of time to help someone? It depends on a situation of course but mentoring someone 1 on 1 for months or making day a week only for such person is just too much.
  - blub 6y ago
    "What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively." So a manager only has to manage people that are good performers and easy to manage, but those that are hard to manage should be just fired? That sounds a bit too convenient for the manager. If someone's underperforming then it is absolutely the manager's duty to correct that through coaching and leadership before they reach for drastic measures. Btw, let's not bother to use the customers as an argument. They don't give a crap that Bob from accounting is underperforming. This is normal in any company and par for the course
- bsder 6y ago
  And sometimes "managing" is firing an individual. When I was brought in, I had one employee who somehow got hired way above his competency level. Everybody liked him, but he was too high in the technical chain. We had a long conversation because I simply couldn't take the time to teach him--it was a startup in which we simply didn't have time (we died about 6 months later). Either he had to go down a level (including salary) or he had to start looking for a new job. I was even happy to give him a decent referral ... but for a lower level. He left for a new company--I think he managed to keep most of his salary, but I know he had a downleveled title. He did quite well. Had I been in a big company with runway, I could have taken the time to teach him. And it would have likely been better than trying to hire someone new since everybody actually liked him. Managing is about balancing conflicting goals. If you think managing is easy, please stay away from it--your team will be better for it.
blub 6y ago
Maybe this is why laws like those in Scandinavia or France, etc. were invented: to motivate managers to try harder to do their job of managing people.

novok 6y ago

I 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.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lazyasciiart 6y ago

Managers are literally responsible for managing people who report to them. If you don't have time for that, maybe you just don't get the job.

ozim 6y ago
What parent wrote - he has time and is responsible for managing people. What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively. Spending time on pulling someone up is taking time from solving issues of others. Where their issues are probably more tied to job at hand and delivering value to the customers. So what he means is that yes, one should help someone who falls behind but it is not fair to put too much effort that will be taken away from others. It is also not fair for the customers. How can you judge what is fair share of time to help someone? It depends on a situation of course but mentoring someone 1 on 1 for months or making day a week only for such person is just too much.
- blub 6y ago
  "What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively." So a manager only has to manage people that are good performers and easy to manage, but those that are hard to manage should be just fired? That sounds a bit too convenient for the manager. If someone's underperforming then it is absolutely the manager's duty to correct that through coaching and leadership before they reach for drastic measures. Btw, let's not bother to use the customers as an argument. They don't give a crap that Bob from accounting is underperforming. This is normal in any company and par for the course
bsder 6y ago
And sometimes "managing" is firing an individual. When I was brought in, I had one employee who somehow got hired way above his competency level. Everybody liked him, but he was too high in the technical chain. We had a long conversation because I simply couldn't take the time to teach him--it was a startup in which we simply didn't have time (we died about 6 months later). Either he had to go down a level (including salary) or he had to start looking for a new job. I was even happy to give him a decent referral ... but for a lower level. He left for a new company--I think he managed to keep most of his salary, but I know he had a downleveled title. He did quite well. Had I been in a big company with runway, I could have taken the time to teach him. And it would have likely been better than trying to hire someone new since everybody actually liked him. Managing is about balancing conflicting goals. If you think managing is easy, please stay away from it--your team will be better for it.

blub 6y ago

Maybe this is why laws like those in Scandinavia or France, etc. were invented: to motivate managers to try harder to do their job of managing people.