3 ms·

Specifically one use case always bothers me. I don’t understand why someone who seems like a low performer who is clearly doing his best is a big deal. You’re

Specifically one use case always bothers me. I don’t understand why someone who seems like a low performer who is clearly doing his best is a big deal. You’re all part of a corporation which prioritises profit. Loyalty and many other factors are far more important to maintain than simply a performance metric. Also how do you know it’s not just others forcing him to have the hardest issues to resolve issues or that his performance is not being hampered by problems elsewhere in the chain? If I were ever to manage again performance metrics would be the least of my concerns when trying to deliver a product. A focus on removing a candidate I think is just a failure of a system. Either in the hiring or in the fixing. I disagree with your attitude but I admit you are more experienced in the matter and I may missing things.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
> Specifically one use case always bothers me. I don’t understand why someone who seems like a low performer who is clearly doing his best is a big deal. If the rest of the team constantly has to clean-up after the person or handhold, then the team becomes less effective. A smart company will try to manage the person into the right role or demote someone, as long as they would be effective. > Loyalty and many other factors are far more important to maintain than simply a performance metric. Maybe in politics or if you’re in a politically charged environment. Performance metrics are flawed, but poor engineering and lack of foresight has consequences that no amount of loyalty can make up for (see Boeing). There’s a set of competence required and if the person can’t grow into that set then it’s a manager’s job to get them out.