7 ms·

Set Up to Fail: How Bosses Create Their Own Poor Performers (1998) [pdf]

187 points by deathtrader666 12y ago

dsplatonov 12y ago
nice article, why don't bosses read it?
- tonteldoos 12y ago
  Bosses don't like their own 'lower performance' pointed out to them...
  - jib 12y ago
    This isnt a boss problem though, right? It's a problem of interaction between two people, where neither is expressing clearly what their real opinion is. There's a bit more responsibility on the person acting as boss to resolve it, as presumably he has a bit more experience with that kind of situation, but it's a two-way street. As a manager, it is normal to be more directive with someone who is underperforming due to (perceived) lack of knowledge. You do need to be clear about you doing so though, and be clear about the path away from it. I had a manager a long time ago who did it in a nice way. Our office was underperforming compared to the other offices he was managing, so he explained to everyone in an all hands meeting that he would be spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so once we were hitting delivery targets once more. No-one took offense to that, it was more "Ok, we are not performing at the level we need to be, and that means we will spend more time on control activities for a while, but to get out of that and back to our normal more laid back approach we need to do X, Y, Z." The harmful situation is when you start spending more time on control activities without expressing why you are doing it and without explaining what the path out is. The responsibility for that is for sure on the boss, but also on the employee. If you are not asking "Ok, I have noticed this, why is that?" as an employee as well, then you are contributing to the situation and the downward spiral.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so The latter half of this is the real big deal. Relaxed control as a reward for doing the "right" thing. Too often, especially in the public sector, the control measures are ever-tightening.
    - shubb 12y ago
      Also, you can't lose sight of the fact that some people can do some things (like work independently) better than others. Ability to work independently isn't the same thing as good performance either - comparing myself and a co-worker: I work best when given an outline of a 'business' problem and asked to create a technical solution, he works better when given explicit requirements with frequent checks that what he is making will solve the problem. But he writes faster, better code than me, and can quickly solve technical problems I'd find very difficult because he really knows his stuff. My perception is, a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher because it is closer to what they understand and value in themselves. But yeah, some under performance is to do with relationships, but other under performance is due to people doing work that doesn't suit them, or just not being very good.
      - tixocloud 12y ago
        The reason why a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher is primarily because the business demands it. The managers' own performance is being judged by the delivery of the technical solution and his boss is likely to be driven by the success of the technical solution in addressing the business problem.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      I have long believed that true communication is only possible between equals in a venue that everyone considers safe. If you have the ability to significantly change someone else's life, they will produce submissive and defensive behavior just as though you had them actually pinned to the ground while baring your teeth. In the end, a manager is just a skilled laborer with a different set of skills. There is no particular reason why the ability to organize a labor force should automatically result in authority over it. The manager does not always need to be the boss. I imagine that some business decisions would turn out differently if they had to be backed up with evidence and argument rather than authority and the threat of job loss.
- tdullien 12y ago
  Bosses do, but the article does not necessarily provide any real solutions. The only clear thing to take away is "be aware that you may be causing a vicious cycle, and try to look out for that/get out of it" - which is a level of self-awareness that any semi-decent manager should have and keep in mind. Management is a fundamentally messy and error-prone process, and dealing with differences in abilities is always hard and complicated :-/ The other thing about running organisations seems to be the "Anna Karenina principle" - all organisations that function really well are similar, but almost each organisation that fails fails in a different way.
  - lifebeyondfife 12y ago
    > the two parties have to "sit down and talk" [quote from the article] As the paper is addressing a social problem rather than a technical one, the definition of what a 'real solution' may be is debatable. I definitely think the paper provides suggestions about how to reverse such a cycle.
    - tdullien 12y ago
      Agreed; I guess my complaint could be best phrased as "the paper does not sufficiently address the complexities of determining whether you are in such a cycle, and the fact that many people that struggle actively search for more concrete guidance". This doesn't detract from the fact that it was a good read.
- ReaperOfCode 12y ago
  I agree, I'm sending this to my bosses as soon as I finish reading it myself.
  - JabavuAdams 12y ago
    Uh, you may want to think some more about that. If your bosses are real humans, then some proportion of them will see this as criticism, which may hurt your position.
    - freejack 12y ago
      There's a management view that one should never try to manage their manager's performance. I agree and you've offered good advice ;-)
      - seestheday 12y ago
        My opinion is that you should never try to obviously and directly manage your manager like this, but I am a strong advocate of "managing up". It's much more subtle, and it can work wonders for your career.
        freejack 12y ago
        Do you make a distinction between "managing up" and "managing expectations"? I've always chosen to do the latter and view it as the same as "managing up" and your comment makes me realize that this might not be the only perspective.
        seestheday 12y ago
        I think of managing expectations to be only tangentially related to managing up. I try to get into my manager's head. What are they worried about, what do they not care about, when is it best to present a solution, when is it best to avoid them. Things as simple as planning on when to meet them is beneficial. E.g. if you want to get their actual feedback on something - schedule it early in the day (earlier in the week is a secondary consideration). If you want them to just agree with you, schedule it later the day, preferably on a Friday. Want to work on a cool project with a cool technology that will advance your career? Plan for it. Research who the decision makers are, find out how to best influence them, build a polished presentation (could be a slide deck, or something else it depends on your company culture), learn the best way to "close" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_%28sales%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_%28sales%29). I could go on and on, but I hope that this helps. It's up to you to manage your career. Nobody else is going to do it for you. Setting expectations is what you do for things that are asked of you. Of all of the things that I have done and gotten "credit" for that have had an impact on my career, very few were things that I was asked to do. Setting expectations is about making sure the orders you are given are reasonable. I treat it as a tool I can use to ensure I have time to work on stuff that is actually important and will have a long lasting impact(not just to me, but also the company, I'm not a complete sociopath).
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  It is not universal, but I generally start from the assumption that a manager is an adversarial colleague, not a friendly one. They see their purpose as to protect their own position and move up the management chain. This article would be completely meaningless to such a manager.
somehnreader 12y ago
The paper looks more anecdotal than scientific to me. No tables, no graphs, where is the data coming from?
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  It's not going to be popular in an environment that prefers the quantitative "big data" approach, but qualitative research is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Qualitative reasoning was also a fairly active area in AI research for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning
- norswap 12y ago
  Data is hardly ever reliable/reproducible anyway I think it's more useful to look at this like a potential pattern that one could identify in practice (and act upon) rather than an objective truth or untruth.
  - hderms 12y ago
    Software has a ton of examples of things we believe in without ever having conducted some rigorous scientific study. There are lots of opportunities for intelligent people to come up with ideas or methods strictly from analyzing anecdotal information they've accumulated. Science is probably the most effect method of understanding the natural world, but people are notoriously difficult to characterize in that type of manner.
michaelochurch 12y ago
This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the micromanagement death spiral well. It also explains why about a third to a half of people in closed-allocation companies, no matter how talented they would be in a better context, are going to fail. Open allocation gives the individuals multiple opportunities to roll the dice and takes that failure rate down to about 2%. For all our noise about "meritocracy", the truth is that social status matters a great deal in the workplace. I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other... In addition to what's described in the paper, and very relevant to the sorts of ultra-hard-working people you find in tech, high status is right-to-care. If you have low status and care a lot about your work and doing things the right way, you're "pushy" and "entitled". If you're of high status, you're dedicated and creative. Working hard from a position of low social status does absolutely nothing. In fact, it makes your situation worse because it lowers your status even further. A low-status person who puts in long hours is seen as compensating for inability, and if that person stops putting in long hours, the relative drop ("downward trend in performance") is what will be noted. This paper doesn't discuss the real way out. It's not to work harder. It's also not "communication" (even though "communication breakdown" is the polite term for this scenario) because the communication between the manager and low-status subordinate is destined to be one-way. The best odds are with escape: transfer to another group under someone who likes you. However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team (the high-status people don't want to be associated with the low-status ones) so you need to gain the approval of someone of equal or higher status (formal and informal) to your boss and to have your boss know. Of course, this can be dangerous (you appear to be a flight risk) and if you're caught or you fail, it'll be interpreted in the worst possible way, but it's the only reliable way out of the bottom on this one, and it's surprisingly quick when the "magic" of social proof works.
- arethuza 12y ago
  There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track: The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence. http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
Shivetya 12y ago
Hell, now we just have HR departments to create poor performers and then select them as the next leaders and managers.
menriquez 12y ago
it's called "office politics" in a nutshell, and its constantly hovering around all workplaces. i don't think it's possible to eliminate these sort of biases from group interactions...i personally think there will always be a bell curve of dislikes/likes among managers who see over a large group of individuals. that's why it often pays, esp. in this day and age, to keep your employment options open.
- calinet6 12y ago
  It can be eliminated, and it's extremely simple to lay out exactly how to do so. Getting there is not so simple, but the analysis is. This type of office politics are a direct result of a specific set of ingrained beliefs about people, and a lack of scientific understanding of three areas: psychology and behavioral theory, statistics, and systems theory. In sum, they produce Quality. Lacking, you get the problems we see in the original article. Knowledge of these three areas, and fundamentally the recognition that the solution lies in this knowledge, is pivotal. 1. Psychology. Knowledge of human behavior and motivation. The article does a good job of identifying the individual breakdown of motivation, but it doesn't go further. The now-famous Dan Pink TED talk is a good start: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. 2. Statistics. Knowledge that in a complex production line, whether it be software or widget making, all performance is fundamentally a statistical process highly influenced by a myriad of confounding variables. Even individuals are bound to this model, and strings of good performance or a string of bad performance are probabilistically likely. This brings a new level of understanding to employee performance and an attitude that's wholly beneficial to all employees. http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-mathematical-probability-or-individual-merit/ http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-mathema... 3. Systems Theory. Knowledge that most of the performance deficit able to be optimized in any production is within the systems surrounding it, not the individuals themselves. Even the best individuals are often doing their best in the context of extremely poor conditions. The best company improves the process of production continuously, focusing on the system and not the individuals. This type of thinking is also supported by the knowledge of statistics and psychology above. “A bad system, will defeat a good person, every time.” -- Deming If everyone has even a basic knowledge of these three concepts, then the entire organization improves. And more importantly, the beliefs about people that stem from a lack of knowledge of these important concepts begin to dissipate. The belief that individuals are fully responsible for their own success and performance, the idea that bad performers can't be improved or utilized effectively, the belief that individuals are best motivated by carrots and sticks; all of this flies out the window in the face of solid scientific fact. The challenge is getting everyone in the company to adopt this new philosophy. For that reason, it must come in the vessel of leadership from the top. Start with the 14 points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
snorkel 12y ago
Unfortunately I was one of those bosses. I was not trained in the art of managing a team with asymmetric talents, so this paper read exactly how my team and I were acting. Eventually I figured out that each person on the team can shine if they're given independent projects that they themselves had spec'd out rather than having everyone tugging on the same rope and fighting over who is pulling the most. This is one of the unfortunate fallacies of the scrum teams that everyone is equally capable to take any story and the point size will be the for everyone, that just sets up the false expectation of everyone can do every story just as fast. I essentially dropped the everyone is a talented clone aspect of scrum and just let some people drive hard on their own project, and they delivered good stuff. The manager also has to stop and applaud each accomplishment, make sure everyone's effort is recognized, it's easy to forget that in a busy environment.
- vosper 12y ago
  You're absolutely right about the fungible teams / Scrum fallacy, and it's one of reasons I always ask the person who's doing the story to re-point it if they feel the point allocation was wrong. This also corrects for the peer-pressure people feel in planning to give stories fewer points [1]. This way at the end of the sprint you get a better idea for how much work was really done. There's an opportunity for abuse - if someone wants to slack off, they can make a 2 point story into an 8 pointer, but that's going to get noticed by everyone, and it hasn't been an issue in practice. [1] "That's not 4 points, it's definitely 2, it's really not that much work ...", etc. EDIT: Fixed typo
  - michaelochurch 12y ago
    "Scrum" is often an attempt to take micromanagement, or the low-status programmer culture, and institutionalize it in a way that seems impersonal and policy-based. Hence, the haggling over story points (a low-status behavior, because it refuses to recognize the meaninglessness of the involved currency and the way the team has been pitted against itself). But high-status programmers just ignore that sort of process and work the way they want to.
    - 12y ago
theologic 12y ago
In large part the article describe Leadership-Member Exchange interaction. Wikipedia has summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_.... The classic criticism of the LMX model is that "it isn't fair." Generally those of LMX say "it isn't about fair, it is about reality." The best advice probably goes to the worker that understands LMX, "Get on the inside track immediately."
mathattack 12y ago
Very true. This can play itself out different in different organizations. At a large consumer products company I worked at, the solution was trying to fit square pegs in round holes. People could only "perform" their way into new good positions. At a consulting firm with an up-or-out policy, we had rigorous micromanagement of poor performers. Surprisingly it actually worked half the time, though it took a lot of managerial attention. At a software firm that I worked at, the boss fired people as soon as there was a hint of misperformance. "People just don't turn around, and you waste a lot of time of managers." Unfortunately after the first two experiences, I began to have sympathy with #3. It would be great to find an environment where everyone is allowed to find their niche to shine. Office politics make this difficult. The reality is MOST people can thrive somewhere, but there is still a small subset that is in the wrong place and spot. It is important to note where the hiring mistakes happened too.
- arethuza 12y ago
  "the boss fired people as soon as there was a hint of misperformance" Not everyone is good at everything and if you put someone in a role where they aren't likely to perform and fire them immediately then that you are missing the opportunity of employing them to do the things they are good at. For example, I can remember a developer who used to report to me years ago who was an absolute genius at fixing complex bugs and adding new features to an existing code-base - I remember "rewarding" him by getting him to do the design and implementation of a new module in the product. He failed - he literally couldn't do it and he was utterly miserable during that time. So I let him go back to what he was good at he went on to work with us for years and probably be one of our valuable employees.
- mahyarm 12y ago
  So if they had a sickness spell or similar for a few weeks and performed at %70, he would fire them!?
  - mathattack 12y ago
    Mayharm - He was quick to pull the trigger on most anything. I can't get into too many more specifics without identifying people, other than to say he gave people good cause to get lawyers.
KeepTalking 12y ago
People management is one of the poorly understood and performed roles in a corporate hierarchy. Most middle management ( in technical organizations ) is promoted either due to 'Technical competence' or 'In-the-club'. Unfortunately either of these 2 selection criteria are not necessary functions for good people mgmt skills. Ace people managers are strategic physiologists. They understand emotion and motivation while developing a great understanding of their employees. Each employee has a profile that determines what motivates them and these managers have a good holding of this. All this while knowing that their employees are humans and not robotic machines.
jrs235 12y ago
Yikes. I have read First, Break All the Rules ( affiliate link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0684852861&linkCode=as2&tag=j02-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... ) which argues for the behavior of playing favorites. This would/could cause the exact problem his paper examines... Different treatment. Now what do I do?

187 points by deathtrader666 12y ago

dsplatonov 12y ago

nice article, why don't bosses read it?

tonteldoos 12y ago
Bosses don't like their own 'lower performance' pointed out to them...
- jib 12y ago
  This isnt a boss problem though, right? It's a problem of interaction between two people, where neither is expressing clearly what their real opinion is. There's a bit more responsibility on the person acting as boss to resolve it, as presumably he has a bit more experience with that kind of situation, but it's a two-way street. As a manager, it is normal to be more directive with someone who is underperforming due to (perceived) lack of knowledge. You do need to be clear about you doing so though, and be clear about the path away from it. I had a manager a long time ago who did it in a nice way. Our office was underperforming compared to the other offices he was managing, so he explained to everyone in an all hands meeting that he would be spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so once we were hitting delivery targets once more. No-one took offense to that, it was more "Ok, we are not performing at the level we need to be, and that means we will spend more time on control activities for a while, but to get out of that and back to our normal more laid back approach we need to do X, Y, Z." The harmful situation is when you start spending more time on control activities without expressing why you are doing it and without explaining what the path out is. The responsibility for that is for sure on the boss, but also on the employee. If you are not asking "Ok, I have noticed this, why is that?" as an employee as well, then you are contributing to the situation and the downward spiral.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so The latter half of this is the real big deal. Relaxed control as a reward for doing the "right" thing. Too often, especially in the public sector, the control measures are ever-tightening.
  - shubb 12y ago
    Also, you can't lose sight of the fact that some people can do some things (like work independently) better than others. Ability to work independently isn't the same thing as good performance either - comparing myself and a co-worker: I work best when given an outline of a 'business' problem and asked to create a technical solution, he works better when given explicit requirements with frequent checks that what he is making will solve the problem. But he writes faster, better code than me, and can quickly solve technical problems I'd find very difficult because he really knows his stuff. My perception is, a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher because it is closer to what they understand and value in themselves. But yeah, some under performance is to do with relationships, but other under performance is due to people doing work that doesn't suit them, or just not being very good.
    - tixocloud 12y ago
      The reason why a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher is primarily because the business demands it. The managers' own performance is being judged by the delivery of the technical solution and his boss is likely to be driven by the success of the technical solution in addressing the business problem.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    I have long believed that true communication is only possible between equals in a venue that everyone considers safe. If you have the ability to significantly change someone else's life, they will produce submissive and defensive behavior just as though you had them actually pinned to the ground while baring your teeth. In the end, a manager is just a skilled laborer with a different set of skills. There is no particular reason why the ability to organize a labor force should automatically result in authority over it. The manager does not always need to be the boss. I imagine that some business decisions would turn out differently if they had to be backed up with evidence and argument rather than authority and the threat of job loss.
tdullien 12y ago
Bosses do, but the article does not necessarily provide any real solutions. The only clear thing to take away is "be aware that you may be causing a vicious cycle, and try to look out for that/get out of it" - which is a level of self-awareness that any semi-decent manager should have and keep in mind. Management is a fundamentally messy and error-prone process, and dealing with differences in abilities is always hard and complicated :-/ The other thing about running organisations seems to be the "Anna Karenina principle" - all organisations that function really well are similar, but almost each organisation that fails fails in a different way.
- lifebeyondfife 12y ago
  > the two parties have to "sit down and talk" [quote from the article] As the paper is addressing a social problem rather than a technical one, the definition of what a 'real solution' may be is debatable. I definitely think the paper provides suggestions about how to reverse such a cycle.
  - tdullien 12y ago
    Agreed; I guess my complaint could be best phrased as "the paper does not sufficiently address the complexities of determining whether you are in such a cycle, and the fact that many people that struggle actively search for more concrete guidance". This doesn't detract from the fact that it was a good read.
ReaperOfCode 12y ago
I agree, I'm sending this to my bosses as soon as I finish reading it myself.
- JabavuAdams 12y ago
  Uh, you may want to think some more about that. If your bosses are real humans, then some proportion of them will see this as criticism, which may hurt your position.
  - freejack 12y ago
    There's a management view that one should never try to manage their manager's performance. I agree and you've offered good advice ;-)
    - seestheday 12y ago
      My opinion is that you should never try to obviously and directly manage your manager like this, but I am a strong advocate of "managing up". It's much more subtle, and it can work wonders for your career.
      - freejack 12y ago
        Do you make a distinction between "managing up" and "managing expectations"? I've always chosen to do the latter and view it as the same as "managing up" and your comment makes me realize that this might not be the only perspective.
        seestheday 12y ago
        I think of managing expectations to be only tangentially related to managing up. I try to get into my manager's head. What are they worried about, what do they not care about, when is it best to present a solution, when is it best to avoid them. Things as simple as planning on when to meet them is beneficial. E.g. if you want to get their actual feedback on something - schedule it early in the day (earlier in the week is a secondary consideration). If you want them to just agree with you, schedule it later the day, preferably on a Friday. Want to work on a cool project with a cool technology that will advance your career? Plan for it. Research who the decision makers are, find out how to best influence them, build a polished presentation (could be a slide deck, or something else it depends on your company culture), learn the best way to "close" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_%28sales%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_%28sales%29). I could go on and on, but I hope that this helps. It's up to you to manage your career. Nobody else is going to do it for you. Setting expectations is what you do for things that are asked of you. Of all of the things that I have done and gotten "credit" for that have had an impact on my career, very few were things that I was asked to do. Setting expectations is about making sure the orders you are given are reasonable. I treat it as a tool I can use to ensure I have time to work on stuff that is actually important and will have a long lasting impact(not just to me, but also the company, I'm not a complete sociopath).
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
It is not universal, but I generally start from the assumption that a manager is an adversarial colleague, not a friendly one. They see their purpose as to protect their own position and move up the management chain. This article would be completely meaningless to such a manager.

somehnreader 12y ago

The paper looks more anecdotal than scientific to me. No tables, no graphs, where is the data coming from?

pgeorgi 12y ago
It's not going to be popular in an environment that prefers the quantitative "big data" approach, but qualitative research is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research
- arethuza 12y ago
  Qualitative reasoning was also a fairly active area in AI research for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning
norswap 12y ago
Data is hardly ever reliable/reproducible anyway I think it's more useful to look at this like a potential pattern that one could identify in practice (and act upon) rather than an objective truth or untruth.
- hderms 12y ago
  Software has a ton of examples of things we believe in without ever having conducted some rigorous scientific study. There are lots of opportunities for intelligent people to come up with ideas or methods strictly from analyzing anecdotal information they've accumulated. Science is probably the most effect method of understanding the natural world, but people are notoriously difficult to characterize in that type of manner.

michaelochurch 12y ago

This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the micromanagement death spiral well. It also explains why about a third to a half of people in closed-allocation companies, no matter how talented they would be in a better context, are going to fail. Open allocation gives the individuals multiple opportunities to roll the dice and takes that failure rate down to about 2%. For all our noise about "meritocracy", the truth is that social status matters a great deal in the workplace. I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other... In addition to what's described in the paper, and very relevant to the sorts of ultra-hard-working people you find in tech, high status is right-to-care. If you have low status and care a lot about your work and doing things the right way, you're "pushy" and "entitled". If you're of high status, you're dedicated and creative. Working hard from a position of low social status does absolutely nothing. In fact, it makes your situation worse because it lowers your status even further. A low-status person who puts in long hours is seen as compensating for inability, and if that person stops putting in long hours, the relative drop ("downward trend in performance") is what will be noted. This paper doesn't discuss the real way out. It's not to work harder. It's also not "communication" (even though "communication breakdown" is the polite term for this scenario) because the communication between the manager and low-status subordinate is destined to be one-way. The best odds are with escape: transfer to another group under someone who likes you. However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team (the high-status people don't want to be associated with the low-status ones) so you need to gain the approval of someone of equal or higher status (formal and informal) to your boss and to have your boss know. Of course, this can be dangerous (you appear to be a flight risk) and if you're caught or you fail, it'll be interpreted in the worst possible way, but it's the only reliable way out of the bottom on this one, and it's surprisingly quick when the "magic" of social proof works.

arethuza 12y ago
There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track: The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence. http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...

Shivetya 12y ago

Hell, now we just have HR departments to create poor performers and then select them as the next leaders and managers.

menriquez 12y ago

it's called "office politics" in a nutshell, and its constantly hovering around all workplaces. i don't think it's possible to eliminate these sort of biases from group interactions...i personally think there will always be a bell curve of dislikes/likes among managers who see over a large group of individuals. that's why it often pays, esp. in this day and age, to keep your employment options open.

calinet6 12y ago
It can be eliminated, and it's extremely simple to lay out exactly how to do so. Getting there is not so simple, but the analysis is. This type of office politics are a direct result of a specific set of ingrained beliefs about people, and a lack of scientific understanding of three areas: psychology and behavioral theory, statistics, and systems theory. In sum, they produce Quality. Lacking, you get the problems we see in the original article. Knowledge of these three areas, and fundamentally the recognition that the solution lies in this knowledge, is pivotal. 1. Psychology. Knowledge of human behavior and motivation. The article does a good job of identifying the individual breakdown of motivation, but it doesn't go further. The now-famous Dan Pink TED talk is a good start: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. 2. Statistics. Knowledge that in a complex production line, whether it be software or widget making, all performance is fundamentally a statistical process highly influenced by a myriad of confounding variables. Even individuals are bound to this model, and strings of good performance or a string of bad performance are probabilistically likely. This brings a new level of understanding to employee performance and an attitude that's wholly beneficial to all employees. http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-mathematical-probability-or-individual-merit/ http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-mathema... 3. Systems Theory. Knowledge that most of the performance deficit able to be optimized in any production is within the systems surrounding it, not the individuals themselves. Even the best individuals are often doing their best in the context of extremely poor conditions. The best company improves the process of production continuously, focusing on the system and not the individuals. This type of thinking is also supported by the knowledge of statistics and psychology above. “A bad system, will defeat a good person, every time.” -- Deming If everyone has even a basic knowledge of these three concepts, then the entire organization improves. And more importantly, the beliefs about people that stem from a lack of knowledge of these important concepts begin to dissipate. The belief that individuals are fully responsible for their own success and performance, the idea that bad performers can't be improved or utilized effectively, the belief that individuals are best motivated by carrots and sticks; all of this flies out the window in the face of solid scientific fact. The challenge is getting everyone in the company to adopt this new philosophy. For that reason, it must come in the vessel of leadership from the top. Start with the 14 points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

snorkel 12y ago

Unfortunately I was one of those bosses. I was not trained in the art of managing a team with asymmetric talents, so this paper read exactly how my team and I were acting. Eventually I figured out that each person on the team can shine if they're given independent projects that they themselves had spec'd out rather than having everyone tugging on the same rope and fighting over who is pulling the most. This is one of the unfortunate fallacies of the scrum teams that everyone is equally capable to take any story and the point size will be the for everyone, that just sets up the false expectation of everyone can do every story just as fast. I essentially dropped the everyone is a talented clone aspect of scrum and just let some people drive hard on their own project, and they delivered good stuff. The manager also has to stop and applaud each accomplishment, make sure everyone's effort is recognized, it's easy to forget that in a busy environment.

vosper 12y ago
You're absolutely right about the fungible teams / Scrum fallacy, and it's one of reasons I always ask the person who's doing the story to re-point it if they feel the point allocation was wrong. This also corrects for the peer-pressure people feel in planning to give stories fewer points [1]. This way at the end of the sprint you get a better idea for how much work was really done. There's an opportunity for abuse - if someone wants to slack off, they can make a 2 point story into an 8 pointer, but that's going to get noticed by everyone, and it hasn't been an issue in practice. [1] "That's not 4 points, it's definitely 2, it's really not that much work ...", etc. EDIT: Fixed typo
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  "Scrum" is often an attempt to take micromanagement, or the low-status programmer culture, and institutionalize it in a way that seems impersonal and policy-based. Hence, the haggling over story points (a low-status behavior, because it refuses to recognize the meaninglessness of the involved currency and the way the team has been pitted against itself). But high-status programmers just ignore that sort of process and work the way they want to.
  - 12y ago

theologic 12y ago

In large part the article describe Leadership-Member Exchange interaction. Wikipedia has summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_.... The classic criticism of the LMX model is that "it isn't fair." Generally those of LMX say "it isn't about fair, it is about reality." The best advice probably goes to the worker that understands LMX, "Get on the inside track immediately."

mathattack 12y ago

Very true. This can play itself out different in different organizations. At a large consumer products company I worked at, the solution was trying to fit square pegs in round holes. People could only "perform" their way into new good positions. At a consulting firm with an up-or-out policy, we had rigorous micromanagement of poor performers. Surprisingly it actually worked half the time, though it took a lot of managerial attention. At a software firm that I worked at, the boss fired people as soon as there was a hint of misperformance. "People just don't turn around, and you waste a lot of time of managers." Unfortunately after the first two experiences, I began to have sympathy with #3. It would be great to find an environment where everyone is allowed to find their niche to shine. Office politics make this difficult. The reality is MOST people can thrive somewhere, but there is still a small subset that is in the wrong place and spot. It is important to note where the hiring mistakes happened too.

arethuza 12y ago
"the boss fired people as soon as there was a hint of misperformance" Not everyone is good at everything and if you put someone in a role where they aren't likely to perform and fire them immediately then that you are missing the opportunity of employing them to do the things they are good at. For example, I can remember a developer who used to report to me years ago who was an absolute genius at fixing complex bugs and adding new features to an existing code-base - I remember "rewarding" him by getting him to do the design and implementation of a new module in the product. He failed - he literally couldn't do it and he was utterly miserable during that time. So I let him go back to what he was good at he went on to work with us for years and probably be one of our valuable employees.
mahyarm 12y ago
So if they had a sickness spell or similar for a few weeks and performed at %70, he would fire them!?
- mathattack 12y ago
  Mayharm - He was quick to pull the trigger on most anything. I can't get into too many more specifics without identifying people, other than to say he gave people good cause to get lawyers.

KeepTalking 12y ago

People management is one of the poorly understood and performed roles in a corporate hierarchy. Most middle management ( in technical organizations ) is promoted either due to 'Technical competence' or 'In-the-club'. Unfortunately either of these 2 selection criteria are not necessary functions for good people mgmt skills. Ace people managers are strategic physiologists. They understand emotion and motivation while developing a great understanding of their employees. Each employee has a profile that determines what motivates them and these managers have a good holding of this. All this while knowing that their employees are humans and not robotic machines.

jrs235 12y ago

Yikes. I have read First, Break All the Rules ( affiliate link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0684852861&linkCode=as2&tag=j02-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... ) which argues for the behavior of playing favorites. This would/could cause the exact problem his paper examines... Different treatment. Now what do I do?