Slashdot Mirror
A Measure of Your Team's Health: How You Treat Your "Idiot"
Esther Schindler (16185) writes "Every team has someone who at the bottom of its bell curve: an individual who has a hard time keeping up with other team members. How your team members treat that person is a significant indicator of your organization's health. That's especially true for open source projects, where you can't really reject someone's help. All you can do is encourage participation... including by the team "dummy.""
I can't rejects someones help on my open source projects? Linus Torvalds is really mean then.
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
>> Every team has someone who at the bottom of its bell curve: an individual who has a hard time keeping up with other team members
The manager. Badoom-cha!
>> That's especially true for open source projects, where you can't really reject someone's help
New to open source, are we?
Some organizations are large enough and organized enough to help employees grow in their current and future roles but some are too small and cannot afford the down time as they require expertise right away.
That said, in my experience individuals who struggle to get to the level of competence required are more loyal employees hence a reduced cost of employment long term. They are also more accepting of a slower career path.
My 2 cents.
I've had the delightful experience of being treated as the team idiot simply for declaring that the emperor had no clothes. It was one of those death march instances where a company decided to write a "version 2.0" of their extremely good program from the ground up. They brought in extremely skilled and expensive technical leads who developed a complicated new back end that was designed to be as "infinitely versatile" and then deployed a front end to match. The result was that they took a very good user experience and turned it into an arcane and slow -- but insanely flexible -- system. Client users absolutely hated the preview releases because they simply didn't let them do their work. I was the unlucky sap who had to provide feedback to the dev team. I decided not to pull punches and deliver a factual summary. The end result? The project lead declared that, "The consulting team simply doesn't understand how the system works" and proceeded to try to ice me out of the company. The organization ultimately failed because the project was such a mess. Unpleasant, but I'm glad I stood my ground and called a spade a spade. It took a while to regain my confidence after that, but my subsequent projects have all been successful and even award winning.
I've worked on teams with a variety of skillsets over the years ranging from fresh-out-of-college new grads to seasoned "dinosaurs" with 50 years experience. Everyone had something they were good at and could contribute to the project, though many times what they could contribute wasn't technically the role they were hired for.
There was only one exception: a fellow way back in the early '90s who got a job on the project I was on because he'd supposedly done programming for AT&T after graduating from Bowling Green.
The first time we reviewed his code, we realized it was bullshit. Before every single stdio function call, there was a "#include <stdio.h>" statement. Every single call!
Further investigation proved that his degree was a fraud -- Bowling Green had no record of any student by his name.
Despite that, he was stuffed in a corner and allowed to "work" the remainder of his six month contract by "reviewing" documentation and marking spelling and grammar corrections with a red pen.
He couldn't even do that -- his English sucked.
But firing him would have put the company at risk of a lawsuit, so they had him make the documentation binders.
So even the worst team idiot can do something "useful" if you've got no choice but to keep them busy with something. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
As a former technology manager, I can say that (at least as I saw things) the challenge and responsibility of management is to understand the capabilities of the staff and get them into roles in which they can succeed. If someone is underperforming in a certain job, then the manager must get them into a job in which they can perform. Everyone wins in such a case. The organization doesn't need to go through a fire/hire cycle, and instead ends up with an employee who contributes. The employee keeps his/her employment and, as a real contributor, definitely feels better about him/herself. (This needs to be done without a salary cut, which is destructive to everyone's morale, not just the staffer.)
This is, of course, if the employee is at least making an effort ... laziness or not caring is a different issue.
Pretty much this.
I don't have an "idiot" on my team. I have a handful of people, all with various advantages and disadvantages. My best analyst is horrible at writing reports. But I have someone who is a rather mediocre analyst but can write reports in such a way that it fits like a glove to the intended audience (as you may expect, you write differently for techs and management).
The trick is to put the right person to the right job. Yes, that means you have a bit of overhead where they have to interface, but the end result is PERFECT rather than mediocre.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I played the role of the village idiot in my team for almost 2 years. It was due to an unique and very unpleasant set of circumstances [outside work, mostly family and health stuff] that totally destroyed my motivation, concentration and even my will to live. Now this might be somewhat different than what the fine article is talking about, as the condition was temporary and everyone knew I could perform above expectation even bordering on excellent.
Nevertheless, only my direct supervisor was aware of all the facts of my case and he never shared them with the MT [because I asked him not to]. Thus for the MT I was a case of lost motivation, reasons unknown. Despite that, considerable effort was executed both on team level as well on MT level to help me out.
More or less the action was as follows:
- Instead of doing long-term project with uncertain result they put me on important but short-term project so I could see the positive effect of my work immediately and boost my self-confidence.
- Every time I did something good, an MT member would drop by the office to congratulate me in front of everyone
- I never heard a single nasty word about me; no-one spoke about my performance and very importantly they all avoided in making me feel patronized. In line of this I did get negative evaluation for one of those years and was punished financially. I wanted this as I was afraid that if I get a "hand-out" I might loose some of the motivation to get better again.
- They send me working part-time to 4 different teams and also contractors outside the company - meeting and working with many new people on very diverse projects really helped getting back on my feet.
- When they saw the recovery progressing really nicely they threw me on the most urgent project in the whole company where I contributed substantially, gained more "fame" than ever before and was rewarded financially offsetting the previous punishment and then adding some to my career growth.
I count all this experience as a resounding success and I have told them many times how grateful I am.
This is Europe and more importantly the Netherlands. As I have stated here before, there is a bunch of neocon-like politicians in NL [alas, they have the power ATM] that are just itching to destroy the management system of the country, more commonly known as the "the polder model".
They claim the model is not profitable but what they mean is that it is not profitable for their corporate friends. Society as whole wins BIG TIME by using that model and it is CHEAPER (again, if you look at the whole country, not a single company or industry). What would be the profit for society if they kicked me out and I spiraled in misery and depression? Would I ever recover? Would I ever get another job? Could it be that I'd turn into complete burden for society, incapable of supporting myself. In such desperation people turn to drugs and suicide becomes a viable way out.
Ohh yhea, I just noticed that I imply in the beginning of the last paragraph that the polder model might not be so profitable if you look at specific business. That is false - the company also wins since if I had not recovered they'd have to spend tens of thousands finding and educating a replacement for me [I did the math, our solution was cheaper indeed than hiring another person]. So, apparently the polder model is not profitable for a very small group of people within companies who probably get their bonuses based on very short-term performance so that the long-term negative effects of fucking your employees is not visible at the moment.
Mod parent to top. I'm in my 50s now, and in a management role in a fairly well-known British financial software development firm. The idea that you can rank people on some one-dimensional scale is laughable bullshit - not much more sophisticated than the phrenology of yore. My job is to find out how people work, and to give them what they need to make them thrive.
It is extremely rare for me to find someone who is genuinely dull - I'm much more likely to have a group of closed-minded people who think the "different" guy is stupid, only to find out a year later that he's a stellar performer given the right conditions. I'll go so far as to say sometimes it's straight prejudice: a few years ago we had a top graduate with very little programming experience who was constantly asking questions. He was also black and his English wasn't very good - two things that were mentioned more than once in the office by others when he wasn't around, as part of discussions suggesting that he lacked competence. Fast forward to today, and he's leading a team of financial modellers. He still slips up on engineering, but he's one of the most mathematically talented chaps we've had. He's much better at communicating than he once was, but it's really a case of his brain not thinking the same things are "obvious" that other people think are so. I've heard no nasty remarks on his heritage anymore, either - which, in a team full of public-school-educated white boys, is my idea of progress.