7 ms·

My first leadership lesson looked like this: as a junior engineer I had an abysmal quarter or two. My manager asked me what was going on. After I gave them an a

• orzig 5y ago
  Seniority matters here - of course a junior is going to have weaknesses, and a poor fit could easily result in two abysmal quarters. But I believe seniority comes with a responsibility to proactively raise any higher level issues blocking performance, and move on if they can't be fixed.
• jollybean 5y ago
  That's an important lesson, but as devs mature they probably shouldn't react like that. Ideally you want to be able to keep your head on straight and obviously it's easier to work harder for someone who 'believes in you' ... but that's a bit emotive. Just do a good job, be professional, expect the same knowing you're not always going to get it and that's that. Instead of someone 'going to bat' you really want someone who's just communicating and helping you create the outcomes necessary.
  • quercusa 5y ago
    Maybe they don't need to go to bat for you; maybe they just don't jump on the chance to throw you under the bus.
  • chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Just do a good job Easy as that, huh? I think the comment was about what to do when you aren't able to 'just' do a good job for whatever reason, which could happen to anyone. They posted about how to handle a problem and your response was 'just don't have problems'.
    • simulate-me 5y ago
      I don’t think GP was saying “just don’t have problems.” Rather, they were saying that as an experienced professional, having someone believe in you shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether or not you do a good job. You should believe in yourself and your experience.
      • XorNot 5y ago
        "As an practioner of IT, the domain of pure logic, I don't have emotions like other people" There's a reason this profession has the issues it does because the most drama heavy people are always those who think they're perfectly rational automatons.
        • simulate-me 5y ago
          This is more about building sufficient experience in something rather than being perfectly rational. For instance, think of the color green. You know green when you see it. Why? Because of the numerous experiences you’ve had that have reinforced your knowledge of the color green. Such reinforcement applies to all your other experiences as well, including engineering. After some time, you should know whether or not you’re a good engineer without external validation.
• PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  This is a fantastic example because your manager did essentially the opposite of what this author would have wanted. The author wants managers to have no tolerance for people who perform poorly, moving to do something to get the poor performers off the teams of the high performers. Yet that's short-sighted. Teams and expertise are built over time. It may not be ideal for people like the author of this article who believe themselves to be high performers who shouldn't have to ever put up with low performers. However, the real high performers are the ones who can accept that no team is perfect and nobody starts out as a superstar. They make the effort to work with people, mentor, and lead by example.
  • nunez 5y ago
    It is much easier to think "we should fire that person" instead of "how can we improve this person."
    • convolvatron 5y ago
      you have to do both. seriously do your best to help them improve. but if they are causing problems for other people, you have to give up after some time and get them out of the way
      • vanillax 5y ago
        this.
      • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
        > but if they are causing problems for other people, This is the crux of the issue: The definition of "causing problems for other people" isn't as well defined as it may seem. Someone who is constantly driving the team further apart than together, struggling to work with other members of the team, and being openly dismissive of others would fit the definition of "causing problems for other people". From another perspective, it would also fit the definition of the "hard to work with" person in this article. That's the point: Even when someone is falling behind, as an employee you must find a way to at least try to work with them and lead by example.
• jddil 5y ago
  I remember the loyalty I felt as a junior engineer to that first manager that actually showed empathy and helped me. I stayed in that role longer than I should have and cost myself a lot of growth and money by not switching jobs every 2 to 3 years like I do now.
  • wetpaws 5y ago
    Loyalty to your the manager and loyalty to yourself are not mutually exclusive things.
    • jddil 5y ago
      True. And I do think it taught me a valuable lesson that needed to be learned so I wouldn't say it was a bad thing all together staying longer, just expensive.
  • koof 5y ago
    Totally get that. I want more money and growth too, but this taught me I need a good boss.
    • jddil 5y ago
      And honestly if the whole company was like your manager an argument could be made you still made the right choice. Just wanted to share my experience :)
  • xupybd 5y ago
    Switching every two years? I just start to get going 1 year in. That's when I've learned enough to start having instincts for what is going on. How do companies survive with that sort of turn over?
    • dijit 5y ago
      > How do companies survive with that sort of turn over? Unsure, but it's a conscious and calculated decision not to pay market rate for current employees. I don't like it, but it's the case that if you're not moving every couple of years then your wage will deflate compared to peers, and I've never worked anywhere that gave more than a 2% pay increase (and that's with good performance) without a promotion.
• trinovantes 5y ago
  As the saying goes: We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior You were quite fortunate to have a manager that believed in you and it's good that you're paying it forward
  • mooreds 5y ago
    > We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior This is so true! If only we were consistent and picked one or the other all the time! The world would be a better place.
• mooreds 5y ago
  > I immediately became fiercely loyal to that manager and the organization, and I wanted to work harder for them. Did you improve? Did you provide the results needed by the organization? Did you work better (not simply harder)? Forgive me if this seems like an overly familiar set of questions, I'm not quite sure how else to frame them. It's great to be loyal; it helps both parties make long term investments, engenders trust, and ensures stability. But loyalty to a bad manager is no good. Similarly, loyalty to a report who is over their head and continues to be unable to improve at the speed needed is not good. Source: I have both been over my head and had reports in over their head.
  • edmundsauto 5y ago
    Regardless of the outcome, I believe this trust is a necessary precondition for someone to turn it around. So this relationship doesn’t guarantee success, but lacking it does guarantee failure.
    • mooreds 5y ago
      Agreed you need to have trust for it to work out. Unfortunately, sometimes you can trust and it still doesn't work out. It took me a long time to realize I wasn't a great fit for every job. Now I try to lean into my strengths and acknowledge my weaknesses. For instance, please never hire me for my design sense (see my personal blog at https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/ https://www.mooreds.com/wordpress/ for proof of that). It's really hard to acknowledge weaknesses, especially when employment/$$$ are at stake. But it is important to do so.
  • koof 5y ago
    I think if my meeting with my manager went another way I think I might have spent more time looking for an escape route rather than focusing on the tasks at hand. Someone who thinks they're going to be fired can sometimes cause a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    • mooreds 5y ago
      Thanks for the reply, totally get that the manager averted a self fulfilling prophecy of losing a valued employee. Did you end up succeeding at the job because of the trust offered by your manager?
• wanderingmind 5y ago
  The problem is someone else pulled your weight as well for those two quarters and probably got burned and bitter. As a pure numbers game, its worse for an organisation to have a top performing employee going sour than letting go of an under performing employee.
• worldsayshi 5y ago
  One possible take from this is that having faith in your subordinates builds loyalty and loyalty is the currency of advancing in an organisation. At some point that might also mean giving leeway to those that might not deserve it to start in the game yourself.