| I thought that was a good article, but it dances around the core of the issue by not declaring what motivation is and how managers should think about it at the start. Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation. When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation. Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy. Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery. Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose. When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health. So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect. The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures. I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee. |