[tacostakohashi]

It sounds like the main issue with this person is a lack of transparency, and lack of collaboration.

If something is supposed to happen in 1-2 days, then after 1 day, there should be some signs of progress, like some specific questions/clarifications about the task, evidence that something is being run in a local environment, etc., and then after 2 days, it there should be a working PR, evidence that the code has been run, or alternatively some specific issues that that were hit, and specific details of 'this 70% is done, that 30% is not done', and specific action items for whats next, and not some vague one more day, one more day type thing.

The purpose of communicating specific details is to foster collaboration. The person may be on the wrong track, taking the wrong approach, other team members may have tips and suggestions, or at the very least have things to learn.

It may be that the 1-2 day task ends up taking weeks or months or whatever, but if thats the case there should be specifics that are communicated and artifacts that are produced as progress is made, not just endless 'nearly there, one more day'.

[adoga]

Thank you for the reply, I think that this hit the nail on the head for what I've observed in myself and the other devs on the team, and what I've been struggling with with this particular dev.

I understand that a 1-2 day task can end up taking weeks or months (and is really the culture I'm trying to create were we don't burn people out on the realities of software development), but I need more transparency and collaboration in the process (which the other developers have been doing without explicitly being told to do so).

I think that, along with making my expectations of speed explicit and giving him time to adjust is what I need to do to move forward.

Thank you