Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On being the employee who “needs improvement”

virtuouscode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#161

Post by sverhagen »

rorykoehler wrote: post #16
sverhagen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Managers need to be available when things happen. I mean, they have other meetings, but during the day they should be able to give or receive "immediate" feedback; don't wait until the scheduled weekly (if you're that lucky) one-on-ones. However, if everybody is busy, and there's no immediate need to walk into each other's (virtual) office, it's good to have the scheduled interactions, to make sure you're still align…

1 on 1s are not for feedback on day to day stuff. They are supposed to cover the more meta aspects not related directly to delivering on a daily basis. If your boss is using 1 on 1s to cover operational stuff they're wasting the opportunity to help improve the team wellbeing and progress.

I don't think we really had a disagreement, here. Just keep in mind that one-on-ones vastly differ between companies and managers, among other things in frequency.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#162

Post by mulmen »

balfirevic wrote: post #86
kd5bjo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you have a smartphone... there is no reason to be unreachable It is totally fine to be unreachable nights and weekends[1] without providing notice to your employer; being able to detach from work completely from time to time is key to minimizing burnout risk, and what you do on your own time is none of their business. [1] With the exception of formalized support rotations, of course

I certainly hope parent poster meant being reachable during working hours.

Never assume management's expectations.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#163

Post by mulmen »

nerdponx wrote: post #158

I've been this person. I was not only somewhat surprised, I also felt betrayed. It was apparent that complaints had been building for some time, but I heard very little of those complaints in the form of direct feedback. It was only in hindsight that I realized my coworkers had been subtly dropping hints for a while. It sucked. Then again, I actually did kind of suck at my job, too. So maybe the real lesson here is t…

Sounds like your manager dropped the ball. Management makes the big bucks to avoid these situations, not pass blame to the people they fail. Firing an employee should reflect at least as badly on management as it does on the employee. Why did they hire you in the first place? Are their hiring policies broken? Why are you expected to read minds?

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#164

Post by JimDabell »

avip wrote: post #160
JimDabell wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. You're judging asynchronous/remote working styles according to synchronous/co-located standards. There isn't necessarily any such thing as a "normal work day". Monday–Friday 9:00–5:30 isn't 100% applicable when your team members aren't in the same time zones or observe the same national/religious holidays. So long as they get the work done when they say they will, the exact hours they work aren't important.

No, I'm judging by my extensive experience co-working with remotes. No "time zone" makes it legit to be non-responsive for over 24h during work days. It's 100% ok to be not working but that's referred to as "day off" and should be communicated as such.

It's not just you that has extensive experience with this. Sure, some teams are managed synchronously as if they were co-located, but just because that's what works for you, it doesn't mean that is the only way to do things. You quite clearly have a concept of a standard work day because you keep going on about "work days". Not all teams are run that way. If you communicate to your team that you want them to work to set hours and they don't? Sure, that's unprofessional. But stop pushing the idea that your way is the only way and everybody else is unprofessional. Different teams have different norms.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#165

Post by CydeWeys »

dasmoth wrote: post #159
CydeWeys wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people think that what works for them must be ideal, and should work for everyone. I honestly think that most people will not thrive in a fully remote, work-from-home environment.

Too many people think that what works for them must be ideal, and should work for everyone. Agreed. I honestly think that most people will not thrive in a fully remote, work-from-home environment. That may well be true. But there's clearly a non-negligible group that swing very much the opposite way. What we're looking for is flexibility, not one-size-fits-all.

> What we're looking for is flexibility, not one-size-fits-all.

And yet people look at me like I have a third eye sometimes (including several posts up in this exact thread) just because I, like many people, don't like working from home.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#166

Post by khedoros1 »

dasmoth wrote: post #159
CydeWeys wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people think that what works for them must be ideal, and should work for everyone. I honestly think that most people will not thrive in a fully remote, work-from-home environment.

Too many people think that what works for them must be ideal, and should work for everyone. Agreed. I honestly think that most people will not thrive in a fully remote, work-from-home environment. That may well be true. But there's clearly a non-negligible group that swing very much the opposite way. What we're looking for is flexibility, not one-size-fits-all.

In my situation, I feel like the dynamic has changed, and that's part of what bothers me. The team has always had a tendency toward flexible scheduling, since we do have some fully-remote workers living elsewhere. A couple years ago, that meant that someone might be out a couple hours, maybe once a week. Now it means "I've got an errand at 2, so I'll wfh today".

The other members of the team seem happy with the arrangement. Maybe it would work better for my situation if I had a good home workspace available to me, too. There are other things I'm not happy with there, and I'm leaning toward thinking that my time there has just run its course.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#167

Post by dasmoth »

CydeWeys wrote: post #165
dasmoth wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many people think that what works for them must be ideal, and should work for everyone. Agreed. I honestly think that most people will not thrive in a fully remote, work-from-home environment. That may well be true. But there's clearly a non-negligible group that swing very much the opposite way. What we're looking for is flexibility, not one-size-fits-all.

> What we're looking for is flexibility, not one-size-fits-all. And yet people look at me like I have a third eye sometimes (including several posts up in this exact thread) just because I, like many people, don't like working from home.

I can certainly understand that preference, even though I don't share it. I will, however, say that, when phrases like "humans are social animals" get deployed, it's quite easy to read them as implied criticism of those of us who need substantial amounts of time alone.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#168

Post by nopzor »

nerdponx wrote: post #158

I've been this person. I was not only somewhat surprised, I also felt betrayed. It was apparent that complaints had been building for some time, but I heard very little of those complaints in the form of direct feedback. It was only in hindsight that I realized my coworkers had been subtly dropping hints for a while. It sucked. Then again, I actually did kind of suck at my job, too. So maybe the real lesson here is t…

I think this is too one sided.

In these types of situations you generally have to allocate some of the blame to the company, instead of the employee.

Sure, the employee might not be performing to expectations, but why were they hired in the first place?

Im not saying that in some situations the employee isn't clearly to "blame", but I think it's important to hold management accountable too.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#169

Post by bcostlow »

biztos wrote: post #143
ncallaway wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We run an entirely remote company, and the cabin fever is definitely a real concern. If you ever have to be a remote worker in the future, I'd highly recommend getting a co-working space as it really helps fulfill a ton of those social needs. Your employer might even pay for some (or all) of the costs associated.

Do you have any other strategies against cabin-fever? I've tried co-working but once you add in your own chair and monitor (ergonomics) and eavesdropping-proof location (security) and taking the laptop home at night (security) and on top of all that having a commute again, it's kind of a pain. I will probably eventually rent my own office (at my own expense) near where some friends work, but that's a pretty expensive…

I'm not the original person you are asking, but over a 27 year career in IT, I've worked from home for 17 of them.

Here's how I stayed social. First, I used the time you would spend commuting or going out to lunch to get non-work chores done. I'd do laundry in the morning when I'd otherwise be in the car. I cut the grass or worked out during lunch, etc. I'd already be fixing dinner during everyone else's evening drive time.

That freed up my weekday evenings to be social, since I wasn't in after work commute-cook-chores hell.

I'd spend time at programming language groups; taking classes related to hobbies (brewing, a little woodworking); going out with friends to nice restaurants on Wednesdays when they weren't crowded; and doing some social volunteering. I got involved in running a couple of software conferences and joined a wine-and-movies social club.

I found—since I am a "gregarious introvert"—that not having to be around coworkers all day left me more energized to socialize with friends and family in the evenings.

And instead of a social circle dominated by coworkers, I have one that provides interactions with people from all walks of life, and have friends scattered around the globe to visit when I retire.

If you plan well and work at it, you can be more social working from home.

Re: On being the employee who “needs improvement”

#170

Post by acjohnson55 »

BeetleB wrote: post #142
acjohnson55 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, but that's a sign of both parties not actually being committed. There's a lot of assuming in that scenario. A lot of that uncertainty would disappear with some candid communication. "Maria, what you're doing today is X, Y, Z. We wanted that before, but going forward, we need A, B, C. My impression is that you like doing X, Y, Z. So, we've got two choices, and both of them are difficult, but we need to be u…

What you said is almost the same as what the HR person told her manager. Have the conversation, and if it's clear she no longer fits the role, let her go with a good package. Why make everyone unhappy with a PIP? >My only point is that it's wrong to say definitely that a PIP is a death sentence. It's more like a cry for help. Not completely disagreeing with you there. I don't believe in either extreme. I do not think…

It's different, because the HR manager closed the door by preemptively assuming Maria wasn't up for it. My point is that if the manager and the employee both fully buy in to the possibility of a productive future, that's a necessary (but certainly not sufficient) condition for success. In that case, some type of explicitly shared strategy for getting there is crucial.

But yeah, if you, as the manager, have decided it's a lost cause, it's best to just go ahead and initiate the separation. In that case, I agree with the HR guy.

And I certainly agree with you that in many instances, the PIP is a reflexive CYA move from management or HR.

Post reply on HN