[HN Gopher] How to manage software developers without micromanaging ___________________________________________________________________ How to manage software developers without micromanaging Author : gk1 Score : 109 points Date : 2022-02-14 14:10 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.infoworld.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.infoworld.com) | Oras wrote: | Micromanagement is a behavior related to the obsession with being | in control. I don't think the article will change how they manage | their teams. Not even sure if micromanagers identify it as an | issue. | | A better title might be: how to improve your developers' | performance. | irateswami wrote: | Literally the way to "manage" developers is to enable them to do | good work, and then get the hell out of their way. The git logs, | uptime, and slack messages are all the records you need for | evals. | blurker wrote: | Oof, please no. Simple metrics like LoC, story points and | number of commits are lazy ways to evaluate developers. And | people will recognize this so the metric becomes the goal. | Might as well replace managers with a bot. Good managers should | be in touch with the full picture of their reports work and not | rely on simple heuristics. That's what makes a really good | manager. | | edit: fixed autocorrects | beebeepka wrote: | Does that actually happen, though? Do managers have enough time | to go through git commits, chats, etc. Sounds like a full-time | job on its own | sz4kerto wrote: | I'm a VPE at a small-ish org (30 devs or so, currently), and | I regularly skim through commit history and keep an eye on | various technical chat (we're fully remote, so there's lots | of chat). I don't think I spend more than 15 mins per week | looking at git history, but that's very informative -- it is | not enough to make robust decisions but it is good enough to | spot issues once in a while. (I have written my fair share of | code in the past, so that helps.) So it's like going to a | book shop, reading two pages from a book and deciding whether | I like the style or not. | sdesol wrote: | Full disclosure: I'm trying to find a way to use development | insights to help us develop software better, together. | | I tried a lot and I mean a lot of ways to see if we could use | git commits to help us better understand productivity, but | I've found commits by themselves lacks a lot of context. | Especially since some commits may never be merged. | | What I've personally found so far, is that using pull | requests is a very good way to help us understand development | effort. By looking at pull requests, like the following for | cockroach: | | https://oss.gitsense.com/insights/github?t=crc- | insights&tb=a... | | it is much easier to grok what everybody is working on or has | worked on. Having studied a lot of open source projects, it | is kind of shocking how some developers can move and manage | so much. | | As a side note, if you are wondering what the lightning bolt | icon is for, it means another pull request is modifying a | similar file. The left arrow means the pull request has a | file that is not up to date with the target branch. | irateswami wrote: | I can't tell if you're making a joke about do-nothing | managers or not, but if so, brava. | beebeepka wrote: | I wasn't making that joke but I did get a good chuckle out | of myself while typing it. Glad it worked for you, too | wpietri wrote: | This is missing one of my biggest tools: establishing the right | feedback loops. | | For example, there was a novel situation where we thought we | might be able to do something for the internal team of experts | that was handling it. So we paired one of their people up with | one of the developers and said, "Take a few weeks and try out | things that might help." That short feedback loop between need | and solutions let them iterate through a variety of things to see | what had the highest ROI. | | Or at the last company I co-founded, we started out by doing | user-testing every Tuesday afternoon. My co-founder and I would | try things and see how they worked on real users, iterating from | there. Later, as we got more developers and enough users, we | gradually built up a sophisticated set of tools for conducting | experiments. Developers were closely involved in that work and we | had a ship-early, ship-often approach that let people release | something, see how it was working, and then adjust. | | I think of it sort of like game design. If you can structure | things so that teams can develop a rewarding emotional connection | via an overall purpose and frequent feedback, they'll just do the | right thing naturally. Through that lens, the need for a lot of | active bossing people around can sometimes be seen as a sign of | bad management. | drewcoo wrote: | Manage them with listicles! Everyone loves those. They solve | every problem. Have a problem that seems complex and want to make | sure you give a nod to everyone who matters but really just make | a bunch of words and no cohesive strategy? | | Listicle it! | commandlinefan wrote: | Whenever I'm presented with a problem that I don't have enough | information to meaningfully estimate, a "helpful" manager | suggests "breaking it down into subtasks". I usually end up | breaking it down into tasks something like: | | 1) Figure out what's going on 2) Fix it | rchaves wrote: | This article provides nothing new to me, my current company has | it all and I don't like | | Does anyone here actually feel personal goal setting as | beneficial anyhow? | wpietri wrote: | I don't. But I have found it useful to think about personal | development in a kanban-like sense, with various queues and WIP | limits. E.g. for physical/health stuff, I have a limit of 1 | must-do change and 1 stretch-goal change. My stretch goal for | December was moving back toward intermitting fasting. That went | well, so my main goal for January was doing the intermittent | fasting for real. That also went well, so my main February goal | was about starting to train for an upcoming race. | | I have a whole backlog of physical/health goals that I could | do. Having a WIP limit forces me to decide what's most | important when a slot open up. That involves a bunch of | thinking about goal-like things, but in a way that makes more | sense to me. It also helps me balance desire with capacity; | when I tried goal-setting outside of a kanban-like framework, | it was easy for me to dream big and then crash when I couldn't | hit the goals. | DerArzt wrote: | It's beneficial to your manager in that they can tell you | exactly what to write on your "personal goals list" and then | string you up with those words come review time when they | weren't met due to things out of your control and they will | feel like the onus is on you for not delivering. | openknot wrote: | >Does anyone here actually feel personal goal setting as | beneficial anyhow? | | Personal goal setting has helped me a lot, though I haven't | developed many personal goals at the request of a supervisor | (they're created just for myself). | | The assumptions that make personal goal setting work are: | | i) Time and energy is limited, so I can't pursue all my | interests at once. | | ii) If time isn't made for personal goals, they won't happen, | as requests from other people (or unfocused activity) will | occupy my attention. | | iii) By keeping goals in mind, it's easier to maintain | boundaries on time, by politely declining certain tasks or | opportunities to focus on my goals. | | This has helped with developing skills outside the workplace | (which have indirectly helped with my work), as it provides | clarity whenever there is uncertainty about how to spend time | and energy when there isn't external structure. | | In a past workplace, I've set personal goals with a non- | technical supervisor (e.g. suggestions to add features to a | website). This helped with skill development and showed | initiative that was appreciated, as the supervisor wouldn't | have thought about these potential features (as their primary | responsibilities weren't in development). | dbodin11 wrote: | TLDR | https://www.kontxt.io/document/d/smGsYCTufoEDsK8qc_7kc7-1QSa... | golf_mike wrote: | Interesting read, but it feels like a catch 22. Any organisation | that is mature enough to practically implement stuff like [non- | negotiable KPIs, quantified peer-reviews, mentoring programs, | work-life goals, ...] seems like a place that does not need | advice against micro-managing. The places that do need that | advice are in my experience ill-equipped to practically implement | such measures. In order to get an organisation to such a maturity | level you need strong leadership that is sensitive to the changes | needed and how to get their people to actually make those changes | in a constructive and permanent way. So if an organisation needs | changes like this, take a hard look at who lead you to the | current state and ask yourself if it is worth the battle. Because | chances are that without change in leadership (be it approach or | replacing people) you will not be able to get the things in place | mentioned in this article. | chiefalchemist wrote: | > One way to strike a balance is to work with human resources on | defining work-life goals and objectives. | | Pardon me if this sounds nitpicky but let's stop calling it human | resources. Those two words establish the wrong precedent and | perpetuate the wrong message. | | If you treat people like resources you're going in the wrong | direction. | core-utility wrote: | Nothing I've read in this article sounds more appealing than what | I've dealt with in the past. Performance metrics at my recent | careers have really become "Write what you did well in the last | year aligning to these and we'll give you what we think you | earn." It's a flawed system, but it's understood and doesn't get | in the way all that much (especially when you start building | templates year-after-year). Those who receive the highest | performance rating are pretty well known by everyone, as are | those who receive the lowest. Everyone else just wants to be left | alone and will deal with this little bit of red tape to get by. | commandlinefan wrote: | What I've always dealt with is "goal setting": at the beginning | of the year, you're supposed to write down all the goals you're | going to accomplish by the end of the year - usually five or | so. The goals you write down are usually based on whatever | random priorities are most visible during goal setting time (if | you actually try to make up your own goals, your manager just | tells you you have to change them before he'll sign off on | them), but then priorities change, management demands you work | on dozens of other things, so at the end of the year you write | down some lame excuse for why you didn't accomplish any of the | things nobody cares if you accomplish any more and if your | manager likes you he rubber stamps it and if he doesn't like it | he uses it as a stick to try to get rid of you. | core-utility wrote: | I have this same experience, but goals are editable all the | way through evaluations, so there's nothing saying you can't | change your goals as you're writing your self-evaluations. | wpietri wrote: | For sure. The theory of annual goals is you already know the | most valuable ways to spend your time for the next year. But | that's true only if nothing changes and nobody learns | anything important. It's generally just fantasy. | JonChesterfield wrote: | Try writing the goals for the year at the end of the year | instead. Significantly more accurate. | grahamm wrote: | I would love to do that but unfortunately every | organisation I've been in demands that I set them at the | start of the year. Then at the end of the year I can | reflect on all the goals that were no longer relevant | because plans change and being able change is agile. | waynesonfire wrote: | Same at my company, biggest pile of shit waste of time. | andi999 wrote: | You can also use goals as a shield. Since the company agreed | it is high priority other work should not interfere with it. | Of course if you manager thinks otherwise one can mutually | change the list (which ppl only will do if the new thing is | reeeaally important). | commandlinefan wrote: | Surely you're joking. | beebeepka wrote: | It does make sense, though. This would be a great | opportunity for deflection. | dvtrn wrote: | Why would they be? If my manager wants to constantly | change priorities, then it's THAT much easier for both of | us when that same manager wants to know why the five | things we agreed to do in January didn't get done come | performance review in November. | | Just seems like logical record keeping to me. | throwaway6532 wrote: | You sound fun. | willcipriano wrote: | This mirrors my experience. Setting goals for what you will | accomplish when you aren't in charge of what you are tasked | with doing is classic responsibility without authority. It | mostly feels to me that it's management trying to deligate | out performance management to their reports. | brentis wrote: | This is so true. As a PM, it's very arbitrary to set OKRs, | when you don't even have the KPIs in place to evaluate what | is meaningful. | | On top of that when you have a vision, roadmap, backlog | what are you going to say other than, "yessir, I'll do more | better" and will definitely help out more on the | distractions or "quick-wins" as you like to refer to them. | | In a matter of weeks l, it's clear who is moving the needle | and think peer review would show this more than management | alignment to OKRs. | a_c_s wrote: | I've never had goals that are project-specific. Some examples | of the types of goals I have had: | | To lead engineering on a project that has at least one other | engineer attached to it. | | Or go review 3 PRs/week from teams other than my own. | | Or to give a presentation at least every other month to the | engineering guild. | | These types of goals would be much less affected by changing | priorities. | lmkg wrote: | Several of those goals are still subject to the whims of | factors outside of your control. | | E.g. "lead engineering on a project that has at least one | other engineer." What if no project comes about? What if | you start such a project and it gets canceled by strategic | re-alignment? What if management keeps re-assigning the | other engineer out from under you? What if executive | leadership decides a larger project is priority #1 and | demands 100% of your time? What if your division re- | organizes how it assigns work and changes what it means to | "lead" a team? | | Not attaching goals to specific projects is certainly step | number 1, and insulates you from _some_ measure of change. | But all of your goals are still subject to varying degrees | of being de-valued or re-defined after a year 's time. | thackerhacker wrote: | When I went from contractor to permanent at my last employer | the goal-setting really stressed me out as I knew I didn't | want to be held responsible for something that might change. | | In the end I just decided to stop thinking about it to avoid | the stress and my manager stopped asking. End of the year I | filled in suitable goals based on what I had done and | explained how well I'd met them. | | It worked very well for me and I did the same for every year | I was employed there. | datavirtue wrote: | Same here. This was at GE, the goal and review structure is | elaborate, shifting, and based on a slew of cultural and | corporate factors and cult bullshit. A real mess. You | better have a cool manager that knows how to deal with it | in an optimal way or it is a very very painful waste of | time. My manager was brand new and by the book...greatly | hastening my exit. | | On top of all that it actually did influence your ability | to progress (I just told them I had no aspirations of | advancement beyond my current position...again, further | hastening my exit lol). | civilized wrote: | The problem with this kind of article is the dry, abstract, | formal presentation, which feels devoid of content. A lot of us | don't quite know how to operationalize it, and often the users | of such language don't either. It feels like religious doctrine | that everyone pays lip service to but doesn't really affect | life in any meaningful way. | | The manager-bureaucrat many of us are familiar with does not | understand or care how to _put these ideas to work,_ and | reduces "OKRs" to forms to be filled and boxes to be checked. | | We need context, examples, and explanations that show us when | these ideas are working and when they aren't. We need them in | plainer, more candid and more relatable language. And they need | to be relevant to the problems developers and managers actually | face. We need the why - why is it helpful to think in terms of | OKRs rather than some other more familiar or simpler way? | | Bottom line: the secret missing ingredient is often "actually | use your brain when doing all these things". | synergy20 wrote: | is it still 20% of the people doing 80% the work in software | projects? | | if so finding those 20% and rewarding them accordingly. give them | a raise, assign them stock options, make them feel appreciated | and financially tied with the company. | | this should be more effective than micro-management. | | in my book, management is basically trying to use the least money | to get the most out of employees, if instead reward people based | on their measurable finished items(e.g. work got done on time), | most of the management tricks go away on its own, they will | manage themselves better than you can ever do. | paulio wrote: | Thanks for your comment, it's enlightened and motivational. | Unfortunately so much management isn't like this. | hackerfromthefu wrote: | This sounds so sensible, yet the only company that ever did | this did it with no other option but when they needed to re- | hire me away from a sabbatical. | quickthrower2 wrote: | My objection to this is someone's contribution is a factor of | culture / role / assignments and person. You could have a great | person who's had to do some low-impact work (someone has to fix | those bugs!), finds themselves in the 80% and then realises it | (they will), and self-selects out of the company. You don't | want to lose such people. | | The trick is to bring out the best talent in everyone in my | opinion. | Waterluvian wrote: | I'm gonna say something pedantic and perhaps obvious. | | You don't manage people. If you do, you're a bad manager. You | manage problems and projects and enable people to do their jobs | well. You facilitate conversations and make sure they have what | info and tools they need. | | People are not robots you control. You are not better than them. | You aren't above them. In fact you're usually far easier to | replace than them. | | Maybe I have a chip on my shoulder but this is core to bad | managers: they think their reports are their subjects to lord | over. | cammil wrote: | I was going to say basically this. | | Let me add a thought. You manage something that needs managing, | that is to say, problems. If you see people as problems, then | you are the problem. | Kranar wrote: | It's fine to feel that way, but it's not a particularly | effective approach in my opinion and in fact quite the opposite | of what I look for in a manager. A good manager manages people; | they understand people's strengths, weaknesses, goals, how to | motivate and reward people, how to resolve potential conflicts, | how to delegate, and how to help people grow. These are all | people things. People are not robots which is exactly why they | need to be managed. After all you typically do not manage | robots, the point of using robots is that they're autonomous. | | Problems are not things you really want to manage, maybe in the | short run you can try to manage a problem, but ultimately the | goal is to solve a problem as opposed to managing it. The goal | of a manager is to assemble a team of people who can work | together to solve problems. | | Your issue is conflating management with superiority, you seem | to think that someone who coaches a basketball team feels | superior to its players. That couldn't be further from the | truth. While Michael Jordan's coach was in his time a competent | basketball player, he would never claim to have ever been | better than Michael Jordan, and yet both he and Michael Jordan | had an excellent working relationship without either of them | feeling superior to the other [1]. | | The issue you have about superiority has nothing to do with | solving problems or managing people. You could be a lawyer | working entirely independently from developers and feel you are | superior to them (or vice-versa). A good manager can cross | multiple projects and multiple problems, because a good manager | understands people first and foremost and lets competent people | work on solving problems, as opposed to trying to manage | problems. | | [1] https://www.netflix.com/title/80203144 | Godel_unicode wrote: | > Your issue is conflating management with superiority... | | Your issue is not realizing that many managers feel this way. | They think that being a manager puts them above the people | they are managing, and that their job as a manager is to boss | people around (thus the genesis of that term). | | Edit: I'll see your Phil Jackson and raise you Bobby Knight. | MathCodeLove wrote: | Are you arriving at this conclusion from a place of jaded | bias or from actual data? Some managers feel that way sure, | but your statement implies that its essentially the norm to | be expected which is not the case. | ThalesX wrote: | Why is this argument so easy to make for politicians that | get corrupted by power, but not for managers that might | suffer from the exact same human weakness? | [deleted] | mikelockz wrote: | Bobby Knight led the Hoosiers to three national | championships and 11 Big Ten championships. I'm not sure | the definition of "bad manager" would fit succeeding at the | most important metrics in sports - championship wins. | ThalesX wrote: | Isn't this exactly the point GP was making? That managers | conflate the team's wins with their own 'succeeding'? | It's not the manager that wins the championship, it's the | team that is comprised of the manager also. Why is this | so hard to grasp for managers? Is it the power? Is it the | disconnect from the actual work? | | As someone involved in both the technical and business | side, but heavily biased towards tech, it's amusing to me | just how cliche the management parties after a 'big win' | on a 'visible' project are. It's almost unbearable to be | around save for the brilliant food. | scsilver wrote: | A college team churns ever 4 years at most. Consistent | wins in that space is all about management, as the talent | is fleeting. | ThalesX wrote: | Why would a college team need to preselect players if | it's _all_ about the management? Couldn 't they just pick | random players? | | Thinking about this more, I find it hilarious to imagine | that you would expect the same results from A and B given | the same set of performant managers: | | A - team of highly unmotivated, undisciplined players | | B - team of highly motivated, disciplined players | bell-cot wrote: | If you think that your manager could improve...if only he'd | read the Evil Overlord list* and really give that some thought, | then your "manager" is actually an Evil Overlord (or wanna-be), | and you _might_ want to look for a new job. Working for a real | manager. | | *http://www.worldconquer.org/evil_overlord.html | willseth wrote: | You're correct about bad managers, but not about the idea that | you shouldn't manage people. You summed it up: | | > People are not robots | | Exactly, people are motivated in different ways, have different | backgrounds, aptitudes and weaknesses, the list goes on. A good | manager takes these aspects into account to help people and | teams do their best work. There is no generic template. | [deleted] | senko wrote: | > You don't manage people [...] You manage problems and | projects and enable people to do their jobs well. | | This is, like, the definition of managing people. Let's call a | spade a spade. | | > People are not robots you control. | | Control is not management. | | > they think their reports are their subjects to lord over. | | Bossing someone around is not management. | ThalesX wrote: | >> You don't manage people [...] You manage problems and | projects and enable people to do their jobs well. | | > This is, like, the definition of managing people. Let's | call a spade a spade. | | That's not like. The definition of managing people. A project | is some stakeholders (including the people you 'manage'), | some wants, some resources (including the people you 'manage' | as well as yourself) and some constraints. People are people. | | >> People are not robots you control. | | > Control is not management. | | What does this even mean? If control is not management, | therefore people are not robots you (not) manage, so, are | they robots you do manage? I think GP was sort of leaning | towards the 'people are not robots' part of that. | | >> they think their reports are their subjects to lord over. | | > Bossing someone around is not management. | | It can be. If you're a shit manager. This 'is not management' | thing feels very similar to 'is not Agile'. | ThalesX wrote: | I wonder why I've never worked for a company where the managers | shared a task board with us. | | If you plan on answering with a 'because our tasks are too hard | to quantify' I would like to remind you that some people on this | board implement hard to quantify things every day, so please make | an effort to give realistic counter examples. | peter303 wrote: | Lots of free doughnuts. | mythrwy wrote: | I managed people for a long time (not software developers but | think some of this transfers). | | At times well over 100 people with sub managers in some outfits. | I did pretty well at it from a results perspective watching | others who came before/after me. Here's some observations: | | -People are emotional creatures. They will behave irrationally | much of the time without realizing it. Everything isn't logical | game theory when the rubber meets the road. | | -People want to feel valued and not in a fake "You folks did a | really good job" when everyone knows it isn't true way. They want | to feel important and needed. It's something instinctive in the | human psyche. You have to give people the space to become heros. | Also you need people to feel what they are doing makes a | difference to get the best out of them. | | -Most people will put out given the situation allows them to do | so. Some people very simply will not. Don't tolerate those few | people and don't let it get started. Nothing threatens a team's | morality like those not pulling their weight with no | consequences. Also if someone plain isn't happy in their | situation (and everyone has bad days and even weeks) it's time | for a change. Helping those people make that change when it's | needed resolves friction both for them and the organization. | | -Ambiguity and complexity are mind killers. As a manager your job | is to make the path forward simple and make sure the resources | are available. People shouldn't have to doubt and guess much to | do their jobs. That's your job. Fine grained and very clear tasks | are best. | | -Humility is key. And honesty. Also a leader that wants to be | followed is on the front lines with a sword. Not slacking off in | comfort and showing up periodically to upbraid or threaten. Not | throwing his team members under the bus. The leader is ultimately | responsible and lack of results fall on their shoulders. | | -People have to feel fairly compensated and not taken advantage | of to be "happily working". If these are missing in the org don't | try to manage it, it's a shitshow revolving door and not | somewhere you want to be. On the other hand money doesn't buy | everything. People will do amazing things for reasons other then | money. | | -People have an innate sense of fairness dating back to our | earliest times. You can be strict in your expectations, and in | fact must be to have quality results. But if you have uneven | expectations or don't subject yourself to the same standards | moral goes out the window in a hurry. Never "pick on" a person. | Try your best not to favor people. Don't get cliquish. Employees | are not your friends in this context. But do everything in your | power to help people working under you. It's easier if you don't | go out drinking etc. with your employees. Keep your relationship | at a professional level. | | -A feeling of being a team is very powerful. Create this. But | don't create a gang. It's not "us against upper management, other | departments, irrational customers etc." The gang instinct is also | powerful, and it can work for a bit, but it's a lie and | ultimately harmful in the larger picture. Try to avoid | negativity. | | There's a lot more I could write. People are much more complex | then say, dogs, but there are general stimuli people respond to | and they can be induced in not dissimilar manner. But at the end | of the day they also need to eat. It's not about "tricking" | people or even "training" people (you train plants, you teach | people and "training seminars" is an utterly abhorrent term). | | It's a ton of work and stress effectively managing people. It | made me very tired after some years and I just wanted to write | code. | TheGigaChad wrote: | zwieback wrote: | Surprisingly perceptive and useful tips, I think peer-review is | something that's both underused and hard to get right. We all | love to self-manage but SW development can be a bit insular and | some feedback from peers, if they are respected, can really help. | [deleted] | paulio wrote: | > Ask developers to propose work-life goals and objectives | | I think I'd just hand my notice in. If that was ever asked of me. | | The whole article feels way over the top and honestly | suffocating. Most people I work with struggle through the usual | set of goals/targets every year and hate every minute of it. | People are complex and have a wide variety of skills, treating | people like this isn't motivational and you'll find good people | moving elsewhere. | skeeter2020 wrote: | >> Asking a developer to report to a manager with no software | development experience ... | | This is gonna big a big problem. | | The article focuses solely on the setup but IME you rarely have | the luxury of starting from zero. What would be really helpful is | telling me how I step into a role and start moving in the right | direction, or what do I do when things go off the rails? Also, | how could a manager without dev experience quantify peer review | requirements, or validate key metrics and results? | d--b wrote: | Jeez, this article is all wrong, this sounds like cattle | hoarding... | | I've worked with two good non-technical managers in my career. | | First thing is that they keep their measurements to themselves. | You know they're tracking how fast bugs are resolved and these | kinds of things, but they don't talk to you about it. | | Second is that they don't pressure you to finish things with | stupid release cycles. | | Third is that even though they don't know how to program | themselves, they should at least be interested in the content of | what's being produced and how. Cause programmers aren't all good | at the same things, and knowing what to do means that you | understand who needs to do what. | | Fourth is they take the heat if shit's not in time or buggy. | | Fifth is they take the tasks they can do to make people happier. | | And Sixth is they can't micromanage cause they're not technical, | so the whole premise of the article is moot, and in fact, they | should micromanage as much as they're able to. | sleepingadmin wrote: | Micromanagement is a negative and is unhealthy. If you are being | micromanaged, that's grounds for finding a new job instantly. | Absolutely nothing to do with what industry you work in. | | Performance reviews is another bag. That is bag of issues. My | last job, I got my first performance review. I was expecting a | good raise. I was a leader of the team, people would come to me | constantly looking for help with their issues. Out of a team of | ~30 sysadmins, only 2 people(including me) had any networking | skills. I was valueable. I was available afterhours regularly, I | billed ~50-60 hour weeks. I worked on multiple teams for clients, | I had many clients who wanted me exclusively. When a coworker | ended up in a disaster, I was often dispatched to help in the | situation. I often gave out kudos to my coworkers and thanked | them for the good work they did. Positivity in MSP is so | important because everything we deal with is negative. Something | broke, someone ran a virus, etc. | | Went into my performance review. I got very poorly rated | justifying no raise. So I went into it... why was I so poorly | rated? | | I had over 40 lates to work. Except that wasn't true. I was often | one of the first people into the building in the morning. So what | gives? | | Oh, every time I worked a weekend and clocked in at say 10am to | respond to an emergency... I was late to work. I had worked 40+ | weekend days. So if I worked a saturday and sunday, I was late | twice. When actually properly evaluated, I was late once and that | was with pre-approval for a doctors appt. | | That wasn't all, my boss was under the impression that I had no | friends there. That I was out of the office too much to build | interpersonal relationships with coworkers. That there was 2 | people who at the time were anonymous in that they didn't speak | highly of me. Turns out... I was being harassed. I had one of my | clients provide me a phone recording of my coworker badmouthing | me pretty badly. | GoToRO wrote: | You were working too much and you made everybody else look bad. | Also, they didn't have budget for a raise so they gave you a | poor review. I worked at a company like that. You see, if they | give you a raise then the budget must grow. This is the job of | the manager. But as he isn't doing his job, budget is not | growing. So bad reviews all around. This is when top manager | think they are so smart and come up with these rules, and then | middle managers bend the rules. | waynesonfire wrote: | It's also possible management didn't know what all you did. Or, | you were running around like a headless chicken-not aligned | with the company goals. | Twisol wrote: | Did they formally update your performance rating? Did you end | up getting the raise you were expecting, or did they give an | excuse like "well all the raises have been allocated at this | point"? The immediate situation sounds like it sucked enough, | but if it had continuing ramifications, I'd be beside myself. | datavirtue wrote: | If people are cognizant of when I start work then I'm | scrambling for the door. Everyone always thinks I come in at | 7am for some reason. I always have this reputation as an early | bird. I start ramping up somewhere between 9-10am. I have had | co-workers that guilty-ly admit they don't start up until 8:30 | and they notify everyone about the munitia of thier schedule | like we work in a restaurant or a factory or some shit. | | I don't get any of it. | lumost wrote: | Biggest two lessons of job performance I ever learned. | | 1) Your future hire-ability is determined by the work you do | and the results you achieve. If you aren't an A-hole to work | with this helps. | | 2) Your performance rating _within_ a company is based on | perception. If you are perceived as doing good work then you | get a good rating. There are no objective internal measures of | engineer quality in any company. | skeeter2020 wrote: | >> 1) Your future hire-ability is determined by the work you | do and the results you achieve. If you aren't an A-hole to | work with this helps. | | I agree with these but you've got them backwards. I'll help a | positive & kind but marginal performer get better or find a | role where they can excel; An a-hole is a cancer on the team | regardless of how talented. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-14 23:00 UTC)