I work in Scandinavia where "just fire them if they're not improving" is a lengthy process. So when I got a case like this on one of my teams, it was worth my time to try to help this person improve because with their long tenure, they were going to be very hard to give the boot. This person seemed to be a fairly competent programmer, but just didn't do much actual work. He spent all of his time butterflying around, joining meetings he didn't need to be in, digging into other teams' work that didn't need digging into. I give my teams a ton of autonomy, but he was clearly taking advantage of that in order to seem busy without delivering any value for our users.<p>The single best tool in handling this situation for me was peer feedback. We instituted a system where peer feedback came from a few peers he selected and a few I myself selected. The person in question was shocked when even the peers he selected came back saying that he simply failed to get stuff done.<p>This came as a wakeup call for him, and we were able to work on a very clear development plan that minimized distractions and maximized time for deep work. He ended up being a solid contributor.
Managers are structurally disincented to help underperformers because they serve a more effective role as a scapegoat. Stack ranking culture has created a system in which every team must have at least one person who can be justifiably allocated to the lower end of the bell curve.<p>During review season, every manager's worst nightmare is to not have any evidence that they can label someone a low performer. Once one is identified, it's in the manager's interest to keep them in that low performer state for as long as possible. This makes it easier to reward high performers when raises and promotions are zero sum within a team. It also signals to upper management how keenly they can assess talent. In short, having an underperformer on the team is a wonderful asset for a manager.
The article misses one possibility, which I suspect is actually the most likely: The underperformer knows they're underperforming, but it's in their best interests never to admit it.<p>I know because I've been there. I was underperforming and I'm also naturally very self-critical. So in reviews etc I'd be very open about my weaknesses and the need to improve.<p>In corporate culture there is <i>nothing</i> to gain from self-awareness. You've just handed your manager an invitation to use you as a scapegoat (see @czep's comment), to leave you out of pay rises and give you crappy tasks.<p>There's everything to gain from being permanently confident and upbeat about your abilities. Then your manager may A) be fooled by the act and think you're a great performer or B) figure out that you're struggling - but then you're in no worse a position than you would've been by being downbeat in the first place.
> But letting the praise stand alone can encourage them to think that everything they do is outstanding. Connect your positive comments to other things you want them to address. For example, you could say, “Now that you’ve done so well with the ABC presentation, for the next one, I’d like you to also [do the next thing they need to improve].<p>If I haven’t heard that a thousand times. Nothing kills my productivity more than a insincere “good job” while also being handed more work.
I've faced this problem numerous times and there are two key parts:<p>1. Some people just have zero clue. They just don't have self awareness of a good set of internal metrics on how to perform. These are almost always people that had flags when we hired them but we were hiring fast for a role and brought them in.<p>2. As a manager I didn't give hard feedback early on. It is difficult, especially with people with potential to give that hard feedback (you're moving too slowly, this isn't up to snuff). I've had to do hard corrections later on that could have been solved if I had stepped up and spent the time early on to say hey this needs to be better and how.<p>Also, underinvesting in promising talent is a huge problem at startups. You often have first time managers or execs who are managing way too many people. So potential leaders don't get the mentorship they need. Given that attracting new, good talent can cost tens of thousands of $s in time and recruiting costs, it is a smart move to put money into leveling up and retaining people! Find them mentors outside the company (YC has a great community for this, as do other VC funds and industry groups), pay for coaching, or find a mentor in the company that has more time. It really pays off.
It's always interesting to imagine what kind of articles people in different economic systems would write about managing performance problems. I wonder what strategies a feudal lord would have for managing an underperforming serf if they had a magazine where they published that kind of stuff.
Honestly, in engineering, it's usually a lot more likely that the manager doesn't understand the value of individual employees, and only sees an underling who has a strong sense of self-worth, but not enough knowledge to understand why.
> Assess whether they’ll accept help<p>This is the big one for me.<p>Previously I had such an under performer on my team. When presented with concrete examples of where he was falling short of expectations he simply would not accept that he wasn't doing a great job.<p>I and another very experienced and well regarded manager tried to break through to him and help him but all three times it ended with him getting angry and making crazy excuses.<p>It seemed he simply could not admit that he needed to improve in some key areas and in the end I had to replace him.
90% of the time "Managing an underperformer" = you're a bad manager.<p>"Managing an underperformer who thinks they're doing great" = you really suck at managing but have no idea, and you're missing out on the irony.<p>This is up there with teachers who cant teach and tell their students "50% will fail the class".
I have someone like this on my team. The guy is a really good engineer and consultant, he is unorganized as hell and takes forever to log his billable time in the system. This causes billing problems regularly, requiring multiple hours of manual correction by myself (his manager) and has also resulted in clients receiving inaccurate invoices.<p>I haven't been able to figure out how to handle it. I really don't want to have to micromanage him, because I feel like that would cut into his confidence. But he's also pretty terrible when it comes to an important aspect of the job.
This seems like a very passive management style. If there's a problem, discuss it directly with them. Don't faff about, it could just be that they don't know they're missing expectations<p>Sounds like the hypothetical manager in this scenario is underperforming and thinking they're doing great too. Managers need spines.<p>e: for a bit of context I was an underperformer that thought they were doing well.<p>Also admittedly this is a kneejerk response to a skim read while I'm on a coffee break so I've probably just focused on the passive parts that used to wind me up from management
I think I have been one of these employees before. However, management basically did the opposite of what was suggested here. Goals were so vague and corporate-speak and abstract that they were indecipherable. Expectations were kept vague. I was routinely praised for average work and ignored for good work. Managers canceled 1 on 1s and never renewed them. It was a constant uphill battle to get managers to actually talk to team members because they also wore other hats like project manager, product owner, etc.
I got another perspective.
I was/am someone who is labelled as an underperformer by my boss.
I work at a electronics production firm, where I did some programming work. During feedback season, I was moved departments. Now I just do soldering, all days long.<p>What do I do in my situation? I feel like being in despair.
I feel like I don't have any other options.
Clearly, this situation feels like suicide for my career.<p>I was recently diagnosed with ASD, bipolar disorder type 2 and depression, for what it's worth.
Sometimes, people are burned out. First thing what manager should do, is to check if the underperformer took some time off. Burnout is a huge productivity killer.
> the leader will appear to condone substandard work<p>That lazy S.O.B. almost never works unpaid overtime, is often unavailable for conference calls at 10 PM, and sometimes leaves the office at 5 PM to spend time with his family!