[jib]

This isnt a boss problem though, right? It's a problem of interaction between two people, where neither is expressing clearly what their real opinion is. There's a bit more responsibility on the person acting as boss to resolve it, as presumably he has a bit more experience with that kind of situation, but it's a two-way street.

As a manager, it is normal to be more directive with someone who is underperforming due to (perceived) lack of knowledge. You do need to be clear about you doing so though, and be clear about the path away from it.

I had a manager a long time ago who did it in a nice way. Our office was underperforming compared to the other offices he was managing, so he explained to everyone in an all hands meeting that he would be spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so once we were hitting delivery targets once more. No-one took offense to that, it was more "Ok, we are not performing at the level we need to be, and that means we will spend more time on control activities for a while, but to get out of that and back to our normal more laid back approach we need to do X, Y, Z."

The harmful situation is when you start spending more time on control activities without expressing why you are doing it and without explaining what the path out is. The responsibility for that is for sure on the boss, but also on the employee. If you are not asking "Ok, I have noticed this, why is that?" as an employee as well, then you are contributing to the situation and the downward spiral.

[logfromblammo]

I have long believed that true communication is only possible between equals in a venue that everyone considers safe.

If you have the ability to significantly change someone else's life, they will produce submissive and defensive behavior just as though you had them actually pinned to the ground while baring your teeth. In the end, a manager is just a skilled laborer with a different set of skills.

There is no particular reason why the ability to organize a labor force should automatically result in authority over it. The manager does not always need to be the boss. I imagine that some business decisions would turn out differently if they had to be backed up with evidence and argument rather than authority and the threat of job loss.

[shubb]

Also, you can't lose sight of the fact that some people can do some things (like work independently) better than others.

Ability to work independently isn't the same thing as good performance either - comparing myself and a co-worker: I work best when given an outline of a 'business' problem and asked to create a technical solution, he works better when given explicit requirements with frequent checks that what he is making will solve the problem. But he writes faster, better code than me, and can quickly solve technical problems I'd find very difficult because he really knows his stuff.

My perception is, a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher because it is closer to what they understand and value in themselves.

But yeah, some under performance is to do with relationships, but other under performance is due to people doing work that doesn't suit them, or just not being very good.

[tixocloud]

The reason why a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher is primarily because the business demands it. The managers' own performance is being judged by the delivery of the technical solution and his boss is likely to be driven by the success of the technical solution in addressing the business problem.

[pjc50]

spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so

The latter half of this is the real big deal. Relaxed control as a reward for doing the "right" thing. Too often, especially in the public sector, the control measures are ever-tightening.