How would you deal with this management situation?

In My Humble Opinion
121

Well first, it looks like the employees being described are basically just standard IT development staff doing fairly mainstream, “farm hand” type tasks. If all they are doing is data access and such then that’s a pretty established thing, and it’s probably not accurate to talk about these guys in the quotation-mark surrounded term “talent.”

Not all development is created equal, there’s a lot of developers out there who do tasks that are pretty mainstream and not really “novel” but still require technical expertise to implement the specific solution.

So there is no intrinsic reason to treat these guys like they are the team that developed iOS or something like that.

That being said, if they are IT people who work in a loose environment with a loose schedule but get things done correctly and on time, as a manager I’d see no reason to change things up.

It does seem like some people in this thread are honing in on the fact that the OP talked about the unprofessionalism and nerdiness as if it was “anything other than positive.” As long as the OP is a professional manager there’s absolutely no reason he can’t (correctly) label their work habits unprofessional and their personal characteristics “nerdy” and still treat them as he should and manage them as he should. I didn’t get the impression he was bitching at them about playing Magic: The Gathering or that he was making fun of them for being nerds, if he was then I’d agree that’s a management problem.

No, instead it looks like he has an issue with a single employee, who apparently, unlike his peers, is not succeeding in this environment. Not all IT shops are so loosely organized, and to be honest some people have trouble succeeding in a loosely organized environment. It could be that this team member is someone who needs more structure than his peers to succeed.

As a manager one of your most important roles (if not prime role) is to help your employees get their jobs done. In this case the loose culture has created a scenario in which the one team member who cannot succeed on their own feels like you talking to them at all is “harsh” and etc.

Do the tasks this guy have come with specific deadlines? If not, I’d try to establish some sort of internal deadline, just casually let him know “let’s see if we can get this done by 5/25 for me to review.” Check in with him periodically throughout the week in a very non-confrontational (and as private as possible) way, with questions like “so how is xx doing? Do you need anything from me on that? Just let me know if there’s anything I can help with.” Obviously your help wouldn’t be in the technical sphere but just anything you could help expedited, any procedural or organizational snags he’s hitting you could smooth over etc.

If he misses the deadline, I’d try to talk to him about how we can change things to get them in time. Maybe adjust the deadline some, maybe assign more help etc.

I think what this does is hold him accountable but without actually directly criticizing him. Once you’ve set up a framework like that over time if he doesn’t recognize he’s being held accountable and needs to step it up, then I think you have to start maybe getting a bit stricter with him, but you should ease into that if possible.

122

Do you have a reference to an article about this? I’m curious as to how they justify it. As a hiring manager, interviewing and recruiting take up a lot of time and effort. If I were spending this time with this low a success rate, I would wonder. Bringing someone in is expensive also, since the person needs to be set up and trained, and isn’t going to be very productive the first few months.
Now I’ve seen companies with policies that there are always 10% or so unsatisfactory performers, but 90%? Unless they hire off the street and winnow when the person comes in, but that is just stupid.

123

I’d so use this, but I rarely interview people old enough to care about this topic!

124

He’ll ask it of people right out of school, too. He says there’s no real wrong answer, other than a blank stare. It’s a Shibboleth.

Btw, Dangerosa may be referring to this (and/or related articles): http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-2009

I googled 'cause I was curious. It’s actually a very interesting read. I think the culture sounds awesome, actually (and familiar). But I can totally see how that would look horrible to many people.

125

[QUOTE=Obsidian]

Btw, Dangerosa may be referring to this (and/or related articles): Culture (Original 2009 version) | PPT

I googled 'cause I was curious. It’s actually a very interesting read. I think the culture sounds awesome, actually (and familiar). But I can totally see how that would look horrible to many people.
[/quote]

It sounds horrible because it sounds like a cult. I’ve worked for companies just like that. What it really means is they expect you to devote yourself completely to the company 24-7. And if you don’t devote yourself with enough passion or if you somehow don’t meet one of their other criteria, they will immediately eject you from the company. Our idiot HR manager told us “our people crave feedback!” No they don’t. They crave being told they are the best and brightest and most creative people on the planet. They don’t want to be told their output is wrong or their analysis is flawed or their personality somehow doesn’t jibe with the culture. Because they know they will be a “get well program” away from termination.

126

It sounds pretty good, if the place really works the way the slides say. I like the no vacation policy policy. Almost everyone where I work gets close to maxing out stored vacation, so it is nice to respect employees enough to not assume that they are out to rip off the company - and get rid of them if they can’t produce.

I, as a non-HR person, was on a bunch of committees setting performance review policy at one job. We talked to a lot of people, and you couldn’t be more wrong. They do want feedback. Helpful, accurate feedback, but feedback. They wanted to have their bosses understand what they did, which was not always the case. If a review is a surprise to someone, then the boss screwed up.

I didn’t notice 90% of the people being laid off, by the way, so I don’t retract my comments. It is true that the right people can out perform average people by orders of magnitude. Almost any manager knows that. Really great performers are a bargain. We’ll see how they do when they start losing money, though. I suspect these slides came from before they screwed up.

127

It “sounds” good on paper. As I said, I’ve worked for companies exactly like that. They all pull that same crap out of the same management play books - Jim Collins “Good to Great” or “Built to Last”, The Mckinsey Way, so on.

The basic premise is that the company IS much like a professional sports team. They want people who want to work for the company much in the same way a little kid wants to play for the Yankees when he grows up. But it will also “trade” players or “send them down to the minors” (ie counsel you out of the company) if you aren’t a start performer. And in terms of performance, “teamwork” is everything. Which means they do not tolerate anyone who does not conform to their stated core values. They will constantly remind you of this with their 360 feedback. It IS very much like a cult and that is by design. “Why aren’t you following the core values? Aren’t you a team player? Do you even want to be here?”

128

There are some places where people do actually have pride about their company. (Though there are always a few grousers.) Bell Labs, before Bob Allen screwed it up, was a fantastic place to work.
They understand that slogans are not reality, which is why they had that Enron slide. Now if their slogans equal their reality is unclear. You can’t tell until crises.
There are different types of people and there are different types of company cultures. When I started at Intel the first thing I did was take a little class, which was usually taught by a high level exec. The first thing I heard was that people who liked the military fit in well at Intel. Uh oh. But some people loved the place. The next place I worked had a culture of just do it and don’t ask for too much permission, which they actually followed. That place I loved. Some people didn’t.

So, does this group meet its goals and how is this problem performer getting on?