As a manager myself, I would both agree and disagree with the article here. There are some cases where "manager hero" happens, but there are some cases where the manager becomes the scapegoat (even PIPed) because the decision sometimes doesn't make sense.
Example (scapegoat): Someone was rejected for promotion because in the past (>1 year ago), the person (he/him) exhibited lower commitment and engagement (turn-off video during the team meeting, being passive, etc), but in the last year, he has changed and become a lot better. During calibration, someone in the senior management (Director level) put No vote with the reason being that the person has exhibited a lack of commitment and engagement in the past. The manager now have difficulty translating this feedback to the employee.
I believe making the calibration process attended by the person and making the feedback transparent (from: calibration committee -> Manager -> Employee, to: calibration committee -> employee) is the way to go. No fingerpointing, scapegoating, hero manager, or the like will happen because everybody owns the process.
This article consists a lot of shortcuts and simplifications. However it's good for a reflection about yourself as well as about the place you currently work in.
I do agree that if there is ANY person that pursues personal satisfaction rather than serving the purpose of the company is making a bad move. This is about any_single_one person serving the company no matter what position you have. So it's great to be aware of your intentions and reasons of your actions. But let's get deeper into it:
What if the 'master' of that committee or the group is making the decision not to promote someone
just to be a hero to someone else in the system, probably higher?
The shortcut you're making is that everything that happens over you is always right and if not - you cannot show it to the other people. I'd call that a hidden slavery, when you steer all the information with a single intention - to keep somebody at their job. In which case, longterm, everybody loses.
I was a witness of really many committee meetings and the decisions made there were 90% nonsense. yes - it was time to me to decide if I am at the right place. But it was not an reason for me to lie to people. When the feedback was reasonable I was able to change my mind and pass it forward, but if it was not - I was passing the truth. Not to be the hero! Only to let the people choose if that's what they want. Until this day many times I reflect if it was a good thing or bad, as many people were mad at the company, of course - but it was their decision to stay and be in it, not mine.
I have many other reactions and thoughts about this article but this is something I could share right away. good luck
As a manager myself, I would both agree and disagree with the article here. There are some cases where "manager hero" happens, but there are some cases where the manager becomes the scapegoat (even PIPed) because the decision sometimes doesn't make sense.
Example (scapegoat): Someone was rejected for promotion because in the past (>1 year ago), the person (he/him) exhibited lower commitment and engagement (turn-off video during the team meeting, being passive, etc), but in the last year, he has changed and become a lot better. During calibration, someone in the senior management (Director level) put No vote with the reason being that the person has exhibited a lack of commitment and engagement in the past. The manager now have difficulty translating this feedback to the employee.
I believe making the calibration process attended by the person and making the feedback transparent (from: calibration committee -> Manager -> Employee, to: calibration committee -> employee) is the way to go. No fingerpointing, scapegoating, hero manager, or the like will happen because everybody owns the process.
This article consists a lot of shortcuts and simplifications. However it's good for a reflection about yourself as well as about the place you currently work in.
I do agree that if there is ANY person that pursues personal satisfaction rather than serving the purpose of the company is making a bad move. This is about any_single_one person serving the company no matter what position you have. So it's great to be aware of your intentions and reasons of your actions. But let's get deeper into it:
What if the 'master' of that committee or the group is making the decision not to promote someone
just to be a hero to someone else in the system, probably higher?
The shortcut you're making is that everything that happens over you is always right and if not - you cannot show it to the other people. I'd call that a hidden slavery, when you steer all the information with a single intention - to keep somebody at their job. In which case, longterm, everybody loses.
I was a witness of really many committee meetings and the decisions made there were 90% nonsense. yes - it was time to me to decide if I am at the right place. But it was not an reason for me to lie to people. When the feedback was reasonable I was able to change my mind and pass it forward, but if it was not - I was passing the truth. Not to be the hero! Only to let the people choose if that's what they want. Until this day many times I reflect if it was a good thing or bad, as many people were mad at the company, of course - but it was their decision to stay and be in it, not mine.
I have many other reactions and thoughts about this article but this is something I could share right away. good luck