|
|
|
|
|
|
by chiefalchemist
672 days ago
|
|
|
> Is that person perhaps just not a good fit for what we need? That's The Critical question. That is: the situation needs X (read: combo of hard tech skills and soft skills). Can they deliver X and then some? If not, there's three choices: 1) Develop them to fill their deficiencies, if they're interested. 2) Communicate with them that the biz has evolved and the fit is a misfit. This happens with founders who evolve into CEOs and don't have the chops for that role. It happens. 3) Do nothing. Note: A seasoned employee will always be asking the same questions. That is: is this the place for me. Should I stay or go? Great leaders and managers are aware of the mutualness of the relationship and approach it from that pov |
|
|
It doesn't sound like good management, and perhaps it isn't, but I did have people that didn't entirely meet my expectations stay, without gratuitous raises of course. I'd be open about this with them: "I think it'd make sense for both of us if you worked elsewhere, and I can help you figure out where that could be and how to get there. But I'm also gonna offer you a path here if you want it."
Sometimes that turned out to not be a good decision. Sometimes it was. But I felt it was a humane solution to the problem, that exceptional situation. No manager is all-knowing enough to understand to 100% what value they're getting out of each individual employee, so it's not the most illogical thing to involve them in that decision. But more than anything, I'm not a fan of changing a system that works for the general cases to deal with rare and varied edge cases. That's premature generalisation, and I think both in software and in organisations, that is the root of all evil.