In your opinion, in 100% of the cases its the leader fault? I think you are right that leaders tend to reflect the blame too often, but how do you understand if its indeed your fault?
In my opinion, if you go for it being fixable in 100% of the cases, you might create a mediocre company.
It's definitely not fixable in 100% of the cases, my parting thought is exactly about this — if you identify cases where it's a clear performance issue, besides managing that, think about how you got there as there might be systemic issues at play, too.
It's not about who's at fault :) There are two kinds of situations I'm referring to:
1. You think your direct reports / org are lazy and/or incompetent, but you're actually wrong
2. You really have underperforming reports
How to check if you're right in case 1? You should have objective measures at hand already for performance evaluations, e.g. your level expectations. Just as you require your employees to provide proof of their performance (e.g. examples of fulfilling the traits of the level definition), you should think about relevant examples where they didn't hit the mark. Often, what happens is that you don't see the desired outcome on the group/org level instead, yet if you look close on the individual level, you actually see that everyone's performance is, in fact, OK. On top of this, talk to people, don't neglect skip levels and 1:1s. Go in with a curious mindset, probe if they also see the same problem (lack of progress) in the org - and why do they think it's happening? Misaligned incentives? Unclear goals? Goals changing every month? Newly built team who need to onboard/form more? Lots of tech debt?
I had a difficulty with handling a case where a direct was really trying, but was just not good enough - didn't catch things fast, and took a lot of time to do things, but worked tons of hours and really wanted to improve.
In this case you have clear proof of the performance, but it's still very hard to draw the line.
In my experience, some people tend to be on the other end of the scale - forgiving mediocre performance, and having a lot of trouble firing unsuitable developers. So you have on the one hand managers who blame direct reports, while having systemic issues, and on the other hand managers that can't provide direct and negative feedback and take hard decisions.
I totally agree, and what makes the situation you described even worse is when both of them are happening at the same time! Then, a senior leader who's more on the first side come in and immediately see 1-2 proof points for their theory, then apply it as a blanket statement for the whole group.
I believe leaders need clear guideline and a "community" to be able to find the middle ground.
By guidelines I mean a very clear set of expectations for their reports (leveling system, etc., with actual examples vs. vague, subjective statements like "delivers on time with quality"), a very clear rules of engagement (e.g. what "buffer" the company is willing to have for subpar performance), guidance for doing the performance discussions (no, not the HR-driven type of guidance).
When I say community, I mean a group of leaders who can discuss these matters in a safe, no-consequences environment. There's a reason why we do cross-calibration during the performance cycles, but it shouldn't be a one-off thing. I want my managers to regularly get together and discuss their challenges, ask for advice and companionship.
You got me there with that parting thought :)
In your opinion, in 100% of the cases its the leader fault? I think you are right that leaders tend to reflect the blame too often, but how do you understand if its indeed your fault?
In my opinion, if you go for it being fixable in 100% of the cases, you might create a mediocre company.
It's definitely not fixable in 100% of the cases, my parting thought is exactly about this — if you identify cases where it's a clear performance issue, besides managing that, think about how you got there as there might be systemic issues at play, too.
It's not about who's at fault :) There are two kinds of situations I'm referring to:
1. You think your direct reports / org are lazy and/or incompetent, but you're actually wrong
2. You really have underperforming reports
How to check if you're right in case 1? You should have objective measures at hand already for performance evaluations, e.g. your level expectations. Just as you require your employees to provide proof of their performance (e.g. examples of fulfilling the traits of the level definition), you should think about relevant examples where they didn't hit the mark. Often, what happens is that you don't see the desired outcome on the group/org level instead, yet if you look close on the individual level, you actually see that everyone's performance is, in fact, OK. On top of this, talk to people, don't neglect skip levels and 1:1s. Go in with a curious mindset, probe if they also see the same problem (lack of progress) in the org - and why do they think it's happening? Misaligned incentives? Unclear goals? Goals changing every month? Newly built team who need to onboard/form more? Lots of tech debt?
Thanks for the detailed answer!
I had a difficulty with handling a case where a direct was really trying, but was just not good enough - didn't catch things fast, and took a lot of time to do things, but worked tons of hours and really wanted to improve.
In this case you have clear proof of the performance, but it's still very hard to draw the line.
In my experience, some people tend to be on the other end of the scale - forgiving mediocre performance, and having a lot of trouble firing unsuitable developers. So you have on the one hand managers who blame direct reports, while having systemic issues, and on the other hand managers that can't provide direct and negative feedback and take hard decisions.
It's very hard to find the middle ground :)
I totally agree, and what makes the situation you described even worse is when both of them are happening at the same time! Then, a senior leader who's more on the first side come in and immediately see 1-2 proof points for their theory, then apply it as a blanket statement for the whole group.
I believe leaders need clear guideline and a "community" to be able to find the middle ground.
By guidelines I mean a very clear set of expectations for their reports (leveling system, etc., with actual examples vs. vague, subjective statements like "delivers on time with quality"), a very clear rules of engagement (e.g. what "buffer" the company is willing to have for subpar performance), guidance for doing the performance discussions (no, not the HR-driven type of guidance).
When I say community, I mean a group of leaders who can discuss these matters in a safe, no-consequences environment. There's a reason why we do cross-calibration during the performance cycles, but it shouldn't be a one-off thing. I want my managers to regularly get together and discuss their challenges, ask for advice and companionship.
That sounds perfect, I completely agree. We are aligned now :)
I really appreciate the constructive discussion! You gave me really good ideas about writing more balanced pieces in the future.