15 ms·

Here’s what I’ve observed as a senior manager: First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. If a manager retains low performers beca

Here’s what I’ve observed as a senior manager: First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. If a manager retains low performers because “they’re friends”, over time they’ll find themselves with a low performing team and it will be visible in their results. At that stage they are now at the bottom of their manager’s stack-ranking process. Retain and promote your low-performing friends at your peril. Of course, if you believe your entire management chain to be incompetent, perhaps those managers will never be held to account. But if you hold that view there’s no reason to believe anything is functional, let alone promotions, and I’d explore other employment opportunities if you can.

choppaface 4y ago
Have never seen a low manager get fired for having low performers inside of 2 years. I’ve seen stack ranking invented to push out non-senior managers, but never the feedback cycle you claim exists. “there’s no reason to believe anything is functional” should be “you don’t believe in your manager.” Good managers divorce moral edict from feelings. Good managers know they don’t get to define what functional means.
- bentlegen 4y ago
  They may not get fired, but they’ll certainly struggle to get promoted or get assigned the best projects. Avoid these managers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
throwawaysleep 4y ago
I don't view the management chain to be incompetent. I think they have the same bad incentives to game things we employees do.
cletus 4y ago
> First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. Respectfully, I disagree. First, let me point out that when I say "popularity" I don't mean friends necessarily in the nepotism sense (in response to your later point). "Popularity" is a reductive term but still a relatively accurate one. What's really going on here is the intangible factors lead other around you to interpret the same set of facts charitably or not almost arbitrarily. A big factor here is similarity in terms of demographic factors and background. This so often gets wrapped up "culture fit", which itself can be a euphemism for more problematic biases. The example I like to give is this: a person may work on a project for a half that never ships. It may not even produce an MVP. Given this set of facts you will people who will say "we learned a lot and will take those learnings into future projects" all the way to "this team failed to deliver a prototype and as such we canned the project". What's driving this are social factors. Managers are subject to the same social forces that drive this interpretation. A given manager may get credit for dealing with reports that aren't necessarily bad enough to be exited but would otherwise be a headache for someone else in the org. Or that manager may be blamed for their team being perceived as low-performing even though they're given projects doomed to fail (eg under-resourced). It's also worth noting that with any form of stack ranking or performance quotas, another factor that comes into play is horse-trading. That is, different managers are competing for a limited pool of ratings. You will find that a manager has decided someone should be promoted and that report will find themselves high on stack ranking as a result. There's an implicit quid pro quo here because other managers can get your support (as a manager) when one of their reports gets put up for promotion. > Of course, if you believe your entire management chain to be incompetent It's not competence. It's biases masquerading as objective determinations and an implicit over-reliance on social cues and factors all while managers have incentives that may come at the expense of those of their reports.
- rendall 4y ago
  Interesting. Sounds plausible. Also, and I mean this respectfully, it also could be a plausible-sounding just-so story. How could this be fixed? If true, what would we expect to see, versus its not being true?

choppaface 4y ago

Have never seen a low manager get fired for having low performers inside of 2 years. I’ve seen stack ranking invented to push out non-senior managers, but never the feedback cycle you claim exists. “there’s no reason to believe anything is functional” should be “you don’t believe in your manager.” Good managers divorce moral edict from feelings. Good managers know they don’t get to define what functional means.

bentlegen 4y ago
They may not get fired, but they’ll certainly struggle to get promoted or get assigned the best projects. Avoid these managers.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

throwawaysleep 4y ago

I don't view the management chain to be incompetent. I think they have the same bad incentives to game things we employees do.

cletus 4y ago

> First, it’s important to understand that managers are held to outcomes. Respectfully, I disagree. First, let me point out that when I say "popularity" I don't mean friends necessarily in the nepotism sense (in response to your later point). "Popularity" is a reductive term but still a relatively accurate one. What's really going on here is the intangible factors lead other around you to interpret the same set of facts charitably or not almost arbitrarily. A big factor here is similarity in terms of demographic factors and background. This so often gets wrapped up "culture fit", which itself can be a euphemism for more problematic biases. The example I like to give is this: a person may work on a project for a half that never ships. It may not even produce an MVP. Given this set of facts you will people who will say "we learned a lot and will take those learnings into future projects" all the way to "this team failed to deliver a prototype and as such we canned the project". What's driving this are social factors. Managers are subject to the same social forces that drive this interpretation. A given manager may get credit for dealing with reports that aren't necessarily bad enough to be exited but would otherwise be a headache for someone else in the org. Or that manager may be blamed for their team being perceived as low-performing even though they're given projects doomed to fail (eg under-resourced). It's also worth noting that with any form of stack ranking or performance quotas, another factor that comes into play is horse-trading. That is, different managers are competing for a limited pool of ratings. You will find that a manager has decided someone should be promoted and that report will find themselves high on stack ranking as a result. There's an implicit quid pro quo here because other managers can get your support (as a manager) when one of their reports gets put up for promotion. > Of course, if you believe your entire management chain to be incompetent It's not competence. It's biases masquerading as objective determinations and an implicit over-reliance on social cues and factors all while managers have incentives that may come at the expense of those of their reports.

rendall 4y ago
Interesting. Sounds plausible. Also, and I mean this respectfully, it also could be a plausible-sounding just-so story. How could this be fixed? If true, what would we expect to see, versus its not being true?