4 ms·

I’m a remote team manager and I’ve considered putting tracking software on low performers computers, and have not gone through with it yet. I’m super happy to p

I’m a remote team manager and I’ve considered putting tracking software on low performers computers, and have not gone through with it yet. I’m super happy to put in the time to coach someone who is trying to make it work but if they’re putting in 2 hrs/day on a remote job and not making the cut it’s not worth my effort to try to coach them out of that.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
Why do you need the tracking software to tell you what you already know? Have you considered talking to them and asking them? If you're looking to catch people in a lie, there are easier ways than installing spyware.
black_13 5y ago
That you would consider this. Maybe you are the problem?
smabie 5y ago
Then just find someone better? I kinda doubt monitoring low performers will suddenly turn them into high performers
- _zzaw 5y ago
  And it’ll encourage the high performers to look elsewhere as soon as they learn their boss is doing creepy stuff like installing spyware on their machines. I think a lot of these “solutions” are rooted in the fact that managers—like the spyware-considering person above—are genuinely not good at interacting with other people. This person already knows who’s not getting work done, but for some reason isn’t comfortable having a direct conversation about it. “You’re not meeting your goals, and you don’t seem to be improving, so I think you should find another job” is a more mature, professional way of addressing the problem than surreptitiously collecting statistics on how much time your employees spend in the toilet. Keeping in mind who I’m talking to here, I think a far better approach would be to step away from the tools and data-mining for a moment and deal with people like people, not machines.
teeray 5y ago
Have them pair with people instead. It will become quickly apparent during pairing if they’re not pulling their weight, and what the problems may be.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lostcolony 5y ago
You're thinking of this back to front. You're saying "I'd rather do the easy, invasive thing first; based on that, I'll decide whether I want to try and coach them". No. Talk to them, say "Hey, it feels like you aren't performing as highly as I'd expect. Anything up?" and make it clear -you're paying attention to them-. You've now spent time you -should- already be spending (on a 1-on-1), and actually did something to try and solve the problem, rather than to try and make it "easy" to just let them go. If their performance starts to improve now that you're engaging them, great, no privacy encroachment (and if they -were- only putting 2 hours in, and now are putting in more, even better! You avoided the pain of termination and replacement). If their performance doesn't improve, also great; now you can let them go -knowing you did everything you could-. Why the hell would you want a half-assed outcome that, at best, will still require the same effort from you, and at worst will save you no time (again, you should already be having regular 1-on-1s), and leave you wondering if there was more you could have done, and in either case cause a morale hit to your team who now knows you're willing to electronically track them?
- lostcolony 5y ago
  (I will also hypothesize that the time the person is working is actually irrelevant to you. If you have a high performer, and you found out they managed that level of performance only working 2 hours, as tracked by whatever software, would you fire them? If not, quit creating bullshit metrics - address the one you actually care about, the person's performance).
vanusa 5y ago
If they’re putting in 2 hrs/day on a remote job and not making the cut it’s not worth my effort to try to coach them out of that. Right, but it's your job to treat them like adults, not babies. And the first rule of dealing with adults is: how they spend their time is up to them. Granted, if they were working onsite ... you could at least require that they be on site during certain times. And then there would be the implicit surveillance that comes from just being the same room with other people and all that. But sorry, the situation has changed and that luxury is no longer available to you. Accordingly, your recourse should be: tell them what deliverables you expect, and by when. If they don't meet these goals -- sure you can offer coaching -- but it's not up to you to "diagnose" them (never mind whether this involves invasive techniques or not). Just tell them what you want, and leave it up to them to manage their own time and resources to deliver. If you can't that -- that is, articulate your expectations, offer support and treat them like adults -- then as a manger, you're the one not "making the cut".
corobo 5y ago
Do you put creep software on your own computer for not doing your job? Have a 1:1 lmao
lawn 5y ago
This will have two effects: 1. The low performer will stay a low performer. 2. Other people will leave, including high performers. You will gain nothing, but lose something.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

Why do you need the tracking software to tell you what you already know? Have you considered talking to them and asking them? If you're looking to catch people in a lie, there are easier ways than installing spyware.

black_13 5y ago

That you would consider this. Maybe you are the problem?

smabie 5y ago

Then just find someone better? I kinda doubt monitoring low performers will suddenly turn them into high performers

_zzaw 5y ago
And it’ll encourage the high performers to look elsewhere as soon as they learn their boss is doing creepy stuff like installing spyware on their machines. I think a lot of these “solutions” are rooted in the fact that managers—like the spyware-considering person above—are genuinely not good at interacting with other people. This person already knows who’s not getting work done, but for some reason isn’t comfortable having a direct conversation about it. “You’re not meeting your goals, and you don’t seem to be improving, so I think you should find another job” is a more mature, professional way of addressing the problem than surreptitiously collecting statistics on how much time your employees spend in the toilet. Keeping in mind who I’m talking to here, I think a far better approach would be to step away from the tools and data-mining for a moment and deal with people like people, not machines.

teeray 5y ago

Have them pair with people instead. It will become quickly apparent during pairing if they’re not pulling their weight, and what the problems may be.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lostcolony 5y ago

You're thinking of this back to front. You're saying "I'd rather do the easy, invasive thing first; based on that, I'll decide whether I want to try and coach them". No. Talk to them, say "Hey, it feels like you aren't performing as highly as I'd expect. Anything up?" and make it clear -you're paying attention to them-. You've now spent time you -should- already be spending (on a 1-on-1), and actually did something to try and solve the problem, rather than to try and make it "easy" to just let them go. If their performance starts to improve now that you're engaging them, great, no privacy encroachment (and if they -were- only putting 2 hours in, and now are putting in more, even better! You avoided the pain of termination and replacement). If their performance doesn't improve, also great; now you can let them go -knowing you did everything you could-. Why the hell would you want a half-assed outcome that, at best, will still require the same effort from you, and at worst will save you no time (again, you should already be having regular 1-on-1s), and leave you wondering if there was more you could have done, and in either case cause a morale hit to your team who now knows you're willing to electronically track them?

lostcolony 5y ago
(I will also hypothesize that the time the person is working is actually irrelevant to you. If you have a high performer, and you found out they managed that level of performance only working 2 hours, as tracked by whatever software, would you fire them? If not, quit creating bullshit metrics - address the one you actually care about, the person's performance).

vanusa 5y ago

If they’re putting in 2 hrs/day on a remote job and not making the cut it’s not worth my effort to try to coach them out of that. Right, but it's your job to treat them like adults, not babies. And the first rule of dealing with adults is: how they spend their time is up to them. Granted, if they were working onsite ... you could at least require that they be on site during certain times. And then there would be the implicit surveillance that comes from just being the same room with other people and all that. But sorry, the situation has changed and that luxury is no longer available to you. Accordingly, your recourse should be: tell them what deliverables you expect, and by when. If they don't meet these goals -- sure you can offer coaching -- but it's not up to you to "diagnose" them (never mind whether this involves invasive techniques or not). Just tell them what you want, and leave it up to them to manage their own time and resources to deliver. If you can't that -- that is, articulate your expectations, offer support and treat them like adults -- then as a manger, you're the one not "making the cut".

corobo 5y ago

Do you put creep software on your own computer for not doing your job? Have a 1:1 lmao

lawn 5y ago

This will have two effects: 1. The low performer will stay a low performer. 2. Other people will leave, including high performers. You will gain nothing, but lose something.