3 ms·

If you're the boss then "what you perceive" as poor performance and "what is" poor performance are effectively the same thing. Companies aren't democracies were

If you're the boss then "what you perceive" as poor performance and "what is" poor performance are effectively the same thing. Companies aren't democracies were the team decides on what the bar is. The role of the lead / manager / owner is to set that bar and help the team to reach it.

foldr 4y ago
It's certainly possible for the boss to base their evaluation on mistaken beliefs. For example, they might think Employee A is largely responsible for a delay in releasing Feature X when in fact it was Employee B. I have to say though, this whole discussion is a fascinating insight into what appears to be the thought process of many managers and/or founders.
- scott_w 4y ago
  Who was responsible for a delay isn't what's being asked at all. What's being asked is: "I have an employee who isn't producing the outputs requested of them in a timely manner, what should I do?" This has nothing to do with Feature X or Feature Y. They also highlighted behavioural issues. These are all within the scope of a leader to determine.
  - foldr 4y ago
    I understand that. The point is just that a boss isn't infallible in evaluating the performance of their employees. I wasn't expecting that to be a controversial statement, but you seemed to be challenging it. As to whether or not the person who asked the question is right, it's obviously impossible for us to know.
    - scott_w 4y ago
      My response was in the context of "what your team members perceive" to be performance. My response was quite simply: "you get what you measure." Your team will respond to your perception by focusing on improving in areas that you perceive to be markers of good performance.
      - foldr 4y ago
        That certainly can happen. However, it depends on at least the following assumptions: * Your perception of your employees' performance is consistent and predictable over time. Not all bosses evaluate based on consistent and predictable criteria. * Your perception isn't significantly distorted by false beliefs about who has done (or not done) what. (Needless to say, that's generic 'you', not you specifically.) If you want, you can say "I hereby define 'good performance' to be any performance that I, the boss, think is good" – but that's just a semantic game.
        scott_w 4y ago
        None of that is relevant to my point. "I hereby define 'good performance' to be any performance that I, the boss, think is good" At its most basic level, that's _exactly_ what we as leadership do. All you're now saying is "some bosses suck." Well... yes, news at 11.

foldr 4y ago

It's certainly possible for the boss to base their evaluation on mistaken beliefs. For example, they might think Employee A is largely responsible for a delay in releasing Feature X when in fact it was Employee B. I have to say though, this whole discussion is a fascinating insight into what appears to be the thought process of many managers and/or founders.

scott_w 4y ago
Who was responsible for a delay isn't what's being asked at all. What's being asked is: "I have an employee who isn't producing the outputs requested of them in a timely manner, what should I do?" This has nothing to do with Feature X or Feature Y. They also highlighted behavioural issues. These are all within the scope of a leader to determine.
- foldr 4y ago
  I understand that. The point is just that a boss isn't infallible in evaluating the performance of their employees. I wasn't expecting that to be a controversial statement, but you seemed to be challenging it. As to whether or not the person who asked the question is right, it's obviously impossible for us to know.
  - scott_w 4y ago
    My response was in the context of "what your team members perceive" to be performance. My response was quite simply: "you get what you measure." Your team will respond to your perception by focusing on improving in areas that you perceive to be markers of good performance.
    - foldr 4y ago
      That certainly can happen. However, it depends on at least the following assumptions: * Your perception of your employees' performance is consistent and predictable over time. Not all bosses evaluate based on consistent and predictable criteria. * Your perception isn't significantly distorted by false beliefs about who has done (or not done) what. (Needless to say, that's generic 'you', not you specifically.) If you want, you can say "I hereby define 'good performance' to be any performance that I, the boss, think is good" – but that's just a semantic game.
      - scott_w 4y ago
        None of that is relevant to my point. "I hereby define 'good performance' to be any performance that I, the boss, think is good" At its most basic level, that's _exactly_ what we as leadership do. All you're now saying is "some bosses suck." Well... yes, news at 11.