Hacker News Reader

This is the first writing I've seen in a while that posits something specific that works better in office than remote.

It doesn't match my experience though. The person I hired during WFH consistently works on the right things and has great judgment, while the other team members who predate it are either neutral or struggling in the same way they did before the pandemic.

Why do you believe seeing a person live makes it easier for you to instruct them on what is worth spending time on? What's your evidence?

WFH separates good and bad performers but management is too lazy to take the signal.

I'm a manager. What should I be doing to help elevate my under performing team member?

(There is of course a lot of nuance in my specific situation but would love to hear general thoughts on what makes a manager good.)

Feedback as to their performance gaps

Training materials and “what good looks like” references for self guided study

Mentoring from yourself or good performance seniors on team

Specific goals and projects to aid in development

But emphatically the solution is not to force the rest of the team back to office as some sort of punitive measure.

I can't help but read that list as "criticize and micromanage them".

But I was never a good manager, and I don't know how to do better.

In the context of underperformers, better early and explicit than let it fester & ambush with a PIP when it’s basically too late to fix, no?

Like I said, I wasn't a good manager, so my opinion doesn't mean much, but no - I don't agree with you.

I've seen two strategies that seemed to work for teams. A) foster a healthy culture of people who want to do a good job and let their interactions increase the standards. B) Have a ton of process.

Option A flows top down and requires the people to interact. In-person friendly nudges to bring the new kid up to speed are effective and not taken as criticism. Nudging over email or chat, it's hard to convey that we're all on the same team, and I think it leads to resentment.

Option B is unpleasant and achieves maybe 10% efficiency, but progress keeps moving. People tend not to squabble because nobody cares enough to put the energy into it. I hated these environments.

There really is a difference between communicating in person vs online. For instance, you'll probably lock your heals in response to what I wrote in this post, whereas in-person we'd probably exchange some smiles and body language and we'd both know it's just a friendly conversation. :-)

I get your points and not disagreeing that top down process and micromanagement suck.

I guess I’m trying to say that a lot of managers are afraid to give the negative feedback they hold privately and even lament to their peers about.

So some underperformers have no idea they are on thin ice until it is far too late. By being nice this type of management isn’t actually helping the person grow.

Sometimes a blunt conversation works wonders for that one person on the team that everyone knows is a problem child. Sometimes the conversation uncovers the person is unhappy due to something outside work and needs a little time/space. Sometimes it turns out the person doesn’t like their current role and you can help carve out a better fit for them.

Waiting for the annual review process to mark someone down or to start a PIP once forced to do so doesn’t help them.

Anyway I doubt I was a good manager either and am glad to be a high paid IC instead.

The few times I tried to be blunt it didn't work out at all. Hurt feelings, trust and motivation squashed. But I've got crap people skills, so it's easy to believe the problem is me, not that it couldn't be done better.

If someone wasn't working out, I tended to sideline them and try to move them to some other group. It was certainly better for me, and honestly I think it was better for (most of) those people too. I was happy to see several of them find a better fit away from me.

Being retired now, it's easy to think back on all the mistakes I made. I much prefer working on solo projects for fun.

Personally I've also tried to be more direct (ish) and yet not getting any change.

And sometimes that happens. Some people don’t want to change. You give them the opportunity to do so, and if they choose not to, you part ways.

Just like if there’s something at a company I work for is unacceptable, first I see if it can be changed, and if not find another job.

I try to treat people who report to me as I’d want to be treated. And that’s tough truths, delivered gently and with compassion, along with the path out.

It’s like finding someone who’s lost, but doesn’t know it. Letting them continue on unaided is callous. Calling them an idiot for getting lost is unhelpful. Giving them a map and checking in with them is the decent thing to do.

You'd be surprised how people can actually turn it around when told - hey you're performance isn't meeting expectations for this role, here are some things you can do to improve, here are some specific examples where you've fallen short, and then let them give any feedback they have and then take some time to digest the conversation.

I've found a lot of managers don't really give feedback in a way that is clear & actionable. Some assume that bad performers are either 1) aware they are performing badly or 2) just unable to perform any differently. So either 1) resentment at the bad performer for "gaming the system" or 2) "soft bigotry of low expectations" that the idiot can't help themselves. A lot of these managers put aside their low performers as a lost cause and spend all their time trying to make their A player perform A+. The ROI of making an D player into even a C+/B- is much higher!!

My attitude for management is “I hire adults to do an adult job, and if they can’t do that (even with assistance), it’s time to part ways.”

I have never had to sideline anyone. Either they perform, respond to constructive feedback, or they’re gone. I don’t have the time or mental energy to do anything else.

Yes. This. If you've experienced a "career reset", then you should have at the very least learned this outline. This is where the rubber meets the road: feedback, training, tools, expectations, and I would add consequences. When these fail, its time to part ways (and in this nominal form, the same could be said for the employee or manager).

Exactly, I responded to the context of "What should I be doing to help elevate my under performing team member?"

If you are not giving timely candid feedback as to the what/why/when/how to that team member as to their performance issues, you are doing them a disservice. The sooner they have an opportunity to course correct, give their feedback to you, or ask for a role change.. the better. Coasting along without agency for a year or two until PIP season is not fair to them.

100% agree here.

With Remote, many things have to be put in writing, organized, and referenced back to.

Way less room for misinterpretation than the occasional drive-by chat.

And as it turns out many people are incapable of putting things in writing because they can’t organize their own thoughts.

culpability might be a detriment to multiple managers.

> When people ask questions like "Why does it take X engineers to run twitter?", well that is the reason.

What drives (drove) most of it is that as a product matures and the user base grows, polishing smaller features and chasing 0.1% wins can meaningfully drive metrics to a point that having a team focus just on a single user flow is a net positive. Enabling this often means a more modular codebase and system architecture so people aren't stepping on each other's toes. There are also exploratory features that are unlikely to pan out, but at the scale of 500M users, if they do, it's huge. A lot of this work might be wrong, but some of it isn't, and you won't know what's what until you try.

At 500M users, you also need more spam detection, account protection, content moderation, etc.

You can run status quo Twitter with fewer engineers, but don't expect incremental growth, and expect more issues like the recent SEC mishap.

And yet X has launched major new features even after eliminating the majority of engineers. So, at least in that one case it's pretty clear that most employees were just goofing around (regardless of work location).

How have those new features faired? From what I've heard UX and reliability has degraded. Moderation is non-existent and harassment is increasing. They can't even live stream Elon's own guests to a few million people.

Exactly. Launching is easy. Launching something stable and making incremental improvements is hard.

Twitter doesnt seem to be doing the latter.

The Community Notes feature is working great. It's better than the moderation on any other social networks that I use.

You then look at something like Spotify who, from the outside, has too much staff, so the platform gets reworked regularly.

> I believe that management is about 300% more efficient in an in-person environment.

I'm going to be a bit blunt but most of management in reality is useless, if not actively harming people under them. 300% of 0 in those cases still remains 0.

Your post conflates WFH with good management, which makes no sense. Good managers can still prevent people from working on the wrong thing at home

I’ve worked in person on a project, for over a year, for it to get canned.

Having ICs in the office doesn’t suddenly cause managers, product owners, or business people to figure out what the true direction is. And ICs typically only work on what’s assigned to them.

It turned out not nearly as many people were needed to run Twitter. They are all in office though.

It's a smaller company now, so that's obvious.

“Running Twitter” is more then just keeping the website up and running