4 ms·

Two things to look at are (1) are they being paid as a junior? And (2) don't look at their performance at any specific point in time, but look for improvements

Two things to look at are (1) are they being paid as a junior? And (2) don't look at their performance at any specific point in time, but look for improvements. It's also possible for and employee to get stuck in a rut at a job, and nothing can get them out of it except a change of scenery. This is because everyone's expectations of them being a low performer or troublemaker or whatever are already set, and that perception will not change. So it ends up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, because any small improvements the employee makes don't move the needle on how people perceive them.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Great points. I would also add that you should look at their trajectory and momentum. An underperformer who is improving fast enough that they might catch up in a year is worth stick with. An underperformer who has become comfortable with low expectations is best removed from the company so they have a chance to recalibrate and reset in a new job. Keep a close eye on how their underperformance is affecting other team members. If the rest of the team has to make up for the person's underperformance or rewrite their code, they could be subtracting rather than adding value to the team. Engineers are rarely islands of productivity. Consider your headcount. If you can only hire 5 people and 1 of them isn't really contributing, you're giving up a full 20% of your team's potential. Replacing that one person with a performer on par with the other 4 people on the team will instantly boost their performance by 25%. Withholding that kind of advantage from your team isn't good.