Set Up to Fail: How Bosses Create Their Own Poor Performers (1998) [pdf]
insead.edu
insead.edu
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.
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
Ultimately I think Scrum needs to be for the team, and the process should be defined by the team. If pointing stories isn't working then the team can stop doing it (we pay it lip service, but that's about it). But you do need some way to agree on what's to be done and who's going to do it.
If somebody with high status doesn't meet expectations we tend to think the problem is with the expectations; if they are low status we tend to think the problem is with the person.
In the same way the high status employee has a lot more say over the way story points are allocated and how the work is allocated.
I've been low-status before despite being just as good as everyone else in the team and I've also been high-status despite being one of the worst in the team.
When you are low status people focus on your mistakes. When you are high status people look at your successes and overall contribution.
OK, having the right people manage might be better. Can you point me to an institution that's managed to consistently pull that one off?
Sure, hoards of shops founded and run by developers with PM's who have actually done the grunt (coding) work in the past.
I've noticed that this problem usually pops up when the PMP certified suits end up managing technical staff.
People who feel like they are doing great work and motivated to do great work.
Yes, this is (verifiably) true. One must be aware, however, that positive feedback is usually going to be ineffective, thanks to natural "regression to the mean" effects, elucidated wonderfully in this Veritasium video[1].
(The point, in the end though, is that performance is going to statistically improve if people do worse than average, and do worse if they do really well, regardless of the feedback you give them", which is called "regression to the mean". The net effect is that you might get a false positive for negative feedback, and a false negative for positive feedback if you don't account for the natural tension that brings everything back to average.)
One of the best ways I've ever seen is simply asking the right questions (What did they think of the <recent event>? How could it have been handled better? How could it have been prevented?) People get very defensive and find excuses if you tell them they fucked up, but if they can admit it themselves they tend to correct their own behavior.
Be careful about that. It can fail disastrously if they end up flailing around without making progress; you need to keep an eye on (a) what they're trying to do, and (b) what kind of progress they're making.
I'm working with a group fond of independent projects and the failure mode seems fairly popular.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's much more subtle, and it can work wonders for your career.
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).
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).
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...
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.
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-o...
Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (working on the right things). You'll almost never see all 3, because a person who is strategic will either optimize for minimum discomfort (and not be dedicated/sacrificial) or for maximum personal yield (and, while he might follow orders, won't put the organization's goals above his own).
Moreover, people who have zero or one of those 3 traits are generally maladaptive and fall into a "Lumpenloser" category that excludes them even from the Loser in-group, and they'll usually be quickly let go.
This means that the interesting people will have 2 of those 3 traits. If they're subordinate and strategic (but not dedicated) they become minimum-effort Losers. If they're subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) they become the middle-manager Clueless who clean up the messes made below and above them. If they're strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) they fall into the category called "Sociopath".
The labels are a bit unfair. Most of the "Losers" aren't dislikable or inept people, and often the "cool kids" are MacLeod Losers. (In startups, the cool kids are Clueless.) Likewise, most of the "Sociopaths" aren't bad people-- just ambitious and not willing to sacrifice their own goals for the benefit of an organization that wouldn't return the favor.
Uh, where did "able to do good work" go??
Edit: "Dedication" and "productivity"/"capability" are different concepts. Trust me on this, I had an undetected bacterial infection for a while that lowered my capabilities seriously.
I had lowered productivity a couple of periods from undetected health problems (allergy troubles and a bacterial infection).
I have been both a high producer and a problem producer. And I have surprised bosses in both good/bad ways, and they have changed their opinions about me.
The main personal difference was self confidence ("I burn out easy these days? :-( More exercise/relaxation don't help?! I am old?! :-(". Afterwards, my reaction was/is "So I was physically sick, I am not a complete luser that turn everything I touch to shit.")
The only difference in "dedication" was a later natural effect -- of burnout from working like an animal to get productivity when it was failing.
And the lesson I have learned is compassion; the cynical failures that are a depressing pain on us others might not be stupid or sociopaths. I am happy for the insight, it made me less of an asshole, but it was probably not worth the high cost.
Edit: To make this into a point, I do believe in the "Pygmalion effect" and I have seen it in action. But it is far from the whole story. There are probably also many other effects than bosses' behaviour and those I know personally which influence workers.
The article describes people being sorted into a high and low status group, from which performance variations follow. It covers the majority of cases where performance follows directly from status.
The MacLeod-model Sociopath is someone who shows the capacity to perform at high levels, quite early, but also an unusual willingness to reduce his performance to zero if accorded low status. It's a "Go ahead, try to fire me" move. Sometimes (if done diplomatically) it gives him high status, begrudgingly. After all, a truly high-status person will ignore disrespectful leadership and underperform if given low status (but so will a low-status person; hence, there's a way of doing it.) More often, it leaves him ignored (rather than micromanaged) because the boss just doesn't want to deal with him, and this gives him the freedom to do whatever he wants with his time, as long as he stays out of the boss's way. Then he can usually bounce up-and-diagonal, given time.
Work hard when you join, get status, show that you get shit done and have a fast turn-around. Your mission should be to make everyone happy. That way, when you lose interest in the job you will be able to slack and still get raises and go up the ladder. Bosses will act exactly as you said, by giving you freedom in hopes that you will spend that time working (which you are not). Sometimes when they really need/want something done they will micromanage, but basically they won't fire you because they know how productive you can be and desperately want to harvest your brain power.
Companies and girls are exactly the same. Everything is predetermined by the first three months (or less) you spend with them.
TIL: I'm a Sociopath
It is possible to live a very good life as a loser if you manage it correctly.
If you are a higher status member of your team and want to help team cohesiveness and make friends in the process, try using your status to raise a little the status of an undeservedly low-status teammate.
That was awesome. I think I'll start reading your blog from the beginning now ...
[UK - "pretty good" is high praise]
This is gold.
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.
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-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
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.
Science is probably the most effect method of understanding the natural world, but people are notoriously difficult to characterize in that type of manner.