6 ms·

It is much easier to think "we should fire that person" instead of "how can we improve this person."

by nunez 5y ago

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.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    I've seen a lot of examples of this, having been parachuted into a few failing teams. The most effective means I found of getting "hard to work with" people who genuinely wanted to be better, is to give them some freedom. One pattern that I saw quite a bit was one team member being a bit more technical (rather than business focused), so they tended to cop a lot of the internal questions that caused them to context switch a lot. It increases their frustration levels and drops their performance. One effective way to solve that is to acknowledge what is happening, and put in some boundaries so the other team members know that (for example) Tuesdays-Thursdays you need to really be stuck before you bug XXX about your problem. It makes XXX feel better about the situation because not only has it been acknowledged they are a key team member, it also makes sure they get some quiet time to really get stuff done at their own pace without having to switch jobs all the time. The other team members, knowing there are a few boundaries now, tend to become more self sufficient so you end up with a better performing team overall, and one that isn't so dependent on a single person. Obviously there are other patterns that end up creating "hard to work with" people, but the example came up so often I think it's worth writing about.
  - msrenee 5y ago
    That's a good point. You can have a person who is amazing at their task, but doesn't communicate and doesn't get documents and info to others that need it. Even if you're the best in the world at writing code, that's not worth a damn if you're withholding the materials and knowledge about a project that other people need to do their work. If you're too busy thinking what an amazing worker you are and everyone else is dragging you down, there's a good chance you feel vindicated in behaving in a way that makes your coworkers' jobs harder. Why should you help them out? They're not even trying to do things right and they're making you look bad.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  Change the people, or change the people.
andrewflnr 5y ago
I'm not sure this is true in practice. Thinking about firing people is already kind of hard, so a lot of people think about and do other stuff they hope will improve the person. What's actually hard is doing something effective to improve the person's performance.
EnKopVand 5y ago
In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? Because in any sort or management I’ve been involved with here in Denmark it’s always the exact opposite. When you fire someone. You tax HR and yourself with the process both of letting someone go and finding their replacement. You have to pay their salary 3-6 months going forward as well as all the paid vacation they may have saved up. Most importantly you tax your team with the added resource drain of covering the tasks as well as integrating the replacement. You also risk damaging morale, and worse, you risk increasing employee anxiety as even the best employee can have inferiority issues. That being said, the basic mantra in management should always be that you can get rid of anyone, it’s just a matter of cost. So if you need to fire someone, then you need to fire someone. Personally I prefer building people to the point where they will leave you themselves, but, that’s a style or management that isn’t present in a lot of companies because it takes a corporate culture that is very hard to maintain in large organisations and require quite a lot of management talent in small organisations. It’s also something that is incredibly hard to do as a single manager if the culture is against you.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? In the U.S - where you generally don't have to pay as long a severance pay if at all. on edit: as in most things 'in the U.S' this varies on state by state basis.
  - conanbatt 5y ago
    Not really true, it is actually a constant lesson that you need to fire more because the bias is always to do nothing.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? You clearly haven't met Austrian management. It's nearly at will employment (in theory it's not, but in some domains many companies know and do skirt around the law to get rid of employees quickly without getting sued). Once the management decides they don't like you anymore, you're given your standard one to three months notice, then you're gone. I asked a lawyer, and they said the employer can fire your without any reason as long as they give you your contractual notice period. My favorite example is them using Jira velocity charts to fire the one with the slowest curve. You get a warning (p.i.p.) telling you your velocity needs to catch up, then after two sprints you get your notice handed to you. OTOH, there are other EU countries where firing people is really difficult. Here it's just a rubber stamp thanks to decades of pro-business politicians elected in power who eroded workers' rghts.
mprovost 5y ago
Unless you're a sociopath, as a manager it's never easy to think of firing a person (where the alternative is improving them - sometimes people do things that make it easy). It's usually sleepless nights, stress, alcohol, sometimes counselling or therapy.

It is much easier to think "we should fire that person" instead of "how can we improve this person."

by nunez 5y ago

It is much easier to think "we should fire that person" instead of "how can we improve this person."

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.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  I've seen a lot of examples of this, having been parachuted into a few failing teams. The most effective means I found of getting "hard to work with" people who genuinely wanted to be better, is to give them some freedom. One pattern that I saw quite a bit was one team member being a bit more technical (rather than business focused), so they tended to cop a lot of the internal questions that caused them to context switch a lot. It increases their frustration levels and drops their performance. One effective way to solve that is to acknowledge what is happening, and put in some boundaries so the other team members know that (for example) Tuesdays-Thursdays you need to really be stuck before you bug XXX about your problem. It makes XXX feel better about the situation because not only has it been acknowledged they are a key team member, it also makes sure they get some quiet time to really get stuff done at their own pace without having to switch jobs all the time. The other team members, knowing there are a few boundaries now, tend to become more self sufficient so you end up with a better performing team overall, and one that isn't so dependent on a single person. Obviously there are other patterns that end up creating "hard to work with" people, but the example came up so often I think it's worth writing about.
- msrenee 5y ago
  That's a good point. You can have a person who is amazing at their task, but doesn't communicate and doesn't get documents and info to others that need it. Even if you're the best in the world at writing code, that's not worth a damn if you're withholding the materials and knowledge about a project that other people need to do their work. If you're too busy thinking what an amazing worker you are and everyone else is dragging you down, there's a good chance you feel vindicated in behaving in a way that makes your coworkers' jobs harder. Why should you help them out? They're not even trying to do things right and they're making you look bad.
rodgerd 5y ago
Change the people, or change the people.

andrewflnr 5y ago

I'm not sure this is true in practice. Thinking about firing people is already kind of hard, so a lot of people think about and do other stuff they hope will improve the person. What's actually hard is doing something effective to improve the person's performance.

EnKopVand 5y ago

In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? Because in any sort or management I’ve been involved with here in Denmark it’s always the exact opposite. When you fire someone. You tax HR and yourself with the process both of letting someone go and finding their replacement. You have to pay their salary 3-6 months going forward as well as all the paid vacation they may have saved up. Most importantly you tax your team with the added resource drain of covering the tasks as well as integrating the replacement. You also risk damaging morale, and worse, you risk increasing employee anxiety as even the best employee can have inferiority issues. That being said, the basic mantra in management should always be that you can get rid of anyone, it’s just a matter of cost. So if you need to fire someone, then you need to fire someone. Personally I prefer building people to the point where they will leave you themselves, but, that’s a style or management that isn’t present in a lot of companies because it takes a corporate culture that is very hard to maintain in large organisations and require quite a lot of management talent in small organisations. It’s also something that is incredibly hard to do as a single manager if the culture is against you.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? In the U.S - where you generally don't have to pay as long a severance pay if at all. on edit: as in most things 'in the U.S' this varies on state by state basis.
- conanbatt 5y ago
  Not really true, it is actually a constant lesson that you need to fire more because the bias is always to do nothing.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>In what world is it easier to fire someone than to fix them? You clearly haven't met Austrian management. It's nearly at will employment (in theory it's not, but in some domains many companies know and do skirt around the law to get rid of employees quickly without getting sued). Once the management decides they don't like you anymore, you're given your standard one to three months notice, then you're gone. I asked a lawyer, and they said the employer can fire your without any reason as long as they give you your contractual notice period. My favorite example is them using Jira velocity charts to fire the one with the slowest curve. You get a warning (p.i.p.) telling you your velocity needs to catch up, then after two sprints you get your notice handed to you. OTOH, there are other EU countries where firing people is really difficult. Here it's just a rubber stamp thanks to decades of pro-business politicians elected in power who eroded workers' rghts.

mprovost 5y ago

Unless you're a sociopath, as a manager it's never easy to think of firing a person (where the alternative is improving them - sometimes people do things that make it easy). It's usually sleepless nights, stress, alcohol, sometimes counselling or therapy.