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.
I agree with you. There's nothing wrong in sharing the feedback of the committee, even if you think that if it was only up to you the decision would be different.
Even worse, there are hidden/invisible blockers that managers are not allowed to share to the employees. Things like promotion (or firing) quota, pre-calibration filter, and many others. Good luck trying to find this in employee handbook/rules
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
Thanks for your comment! Yes the article is short, and of course doesn't go into detail about many things. It could be a book, in fact :-)
I am not assuming that everything that happens over you is right. In fact, I often in my career disagreed with decisions, and sometimes it was very hard for me to make peace with a decision made -- I have problems with authority and seeing unfair things happen around me pushes my buttons profoundly.
What I learned in my career is that if one person gets out of the room where a committee decision was made and they are not at peace with that decision, this must be resolved before people move on. In the article I wrote I didn't go into details into that, but I think this is really necessary and important. Even if you disagree with the decision, you need to understand the decision and why it was made. In my experience, once you go through this type of "seeking understanding" conversation, you come out of it in a better place.
Also, I would never lie to someone about the reasons they didn't get promoted. I would though focus on the feedback, help the person to work on that feedback to get a better shot next time. If it was the best for the person even to leave the company, that would be ok too, its always the risk the company is taking when turning down a promotion. I would avoid going into a conversation that so important for a person with a desired outcome in mind -- it has to be their own decision whether they want to leave the company.
In your exemple of the commitee making nonsense decisions: as a manager, if I like my job and I am ok working for a company that makes such nonsensical decisions, then I will get very good at playing by the rules of that committee and ensure that the right outcomes happen to the people in my team. Complaining to the people in my team that the committee makes no sense, I would argue, it isn't super helpful to anyone except the person who gets to vent. There's another interpretation here which is: we presented x, y, z and the committee expected a, b, c. Let's work together on a, b, c? That's the choice people can make. They can always say no and leave.
Yes. This can be a book and it was hard for me which points to pick and refer in the comment :) thank you for making it more clear - I thinkk these are important points that you have added here.
As you probably see, I am not a fan of any callibration commitees. The dynamics in these meetings are not helping the organization's purpose in majority of cases. Also each team is in a very different context and what happens in these meeting is that it all need to be simplified and won't be understood. In a situation when a commitee needed a,b,c and we presented x,y,z in my opinion it is a very bad situation for everyone as it may say that what the commitee requires was not communicated well or the manager didn't put attention to this and the improvement cycle is often 6 or 12 months, so - not supportive situation at all. In my opinion - a callibration that is made in the end of the cycle is something that should be shifted at least few months earlier if not to the beginning of the cycle ideally. Therefore, you should not just agree with decisions, but try to make the whole environment better.
I was in a situation where comitee was looking at a,b,c one time, but in 12 months it was not valid anymore and d,e,f was important suddenly. The only thing I could do is say the truth about this situation and make the problem visible to the org.
Keen on talking more on that topic as it is very wide and maybe could create more articles on that topic ;)
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.
I agree with you. There's nothing wrong in sharing the feedback of the committee, even if you think that if it was only up to you the decision would be different.
Even worse, there are hidden/invisible blockers that managers are not allowed to share to the employees. Things like promotion (or firing) quota, pre-calibration filter, and many others. Good luck trying to find this in employee handbook/rules
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
Thanks for your comment! Yes the article is short, and of course doesn't go into detail about many things. It could be a book, in fact :-)
I am not assuming that everything that happens over you is right. In fact, I often in my career disagreed with decisions, and sometimes it was very hard for me to make peace with a decision made -- I have problems with authority and seeing unfair things happen around me pushes my buttons profoundly.
What I learned in my career is that if one person gets out of the room where a committee decision was made and they are not at peace with that decision, this must be resolved before people move on. In the article I wrote I didn't go into details into that, but I think this is really necessary and important. Even if you disagree with the decision, you need to understand the decision and why it was made. In my experience, once you go through this type of "seeking understanding" conversation, you come out of it in a better place.
Also, I would never lie to someone about the reasons they didn't get promoted. I would though focus on the feedback, help the person to work on that feedback to get a better shot next time. If it was the best for the person even to leave the company, that would be ok too, its always the risk the company is taking when turning down a promotion. I would avoid going into a conversation that so important for a person with a desired outcome in mind -- it has to be their own decision whether they want to leave the company.
In your exemple of the commitee making nonsense decisions: as a manager, if I like my job and I am ok working for a company that makes such nonsensical decisions, then I will get very good at playing by the rules of that committee and ensure that the right outcomes happen to the people in my team. Complaining to the people in my team that the committee makes no sense, I would argue, it isn't super helpful to anyone except the person who gets to vent. There's another interpretation here which is: we presented x, y, z and the committee expected a, b, c. Let's work together on a, b, c? That's the choice people can make. They can always say no and leave.
Yes. This can be a book and it was hard for me which points to pick and refer in the comment :) thank you for making it more clear - I thinkk these are important points that you have added here.
As you probably see, I am not a fan of any callibration commitees. The dynamics in these meetings are not helping the organization's purpose in majority of cases. Also each team is in a very different context and what happens in these meeting is that it all need to be simplified and won't be understood. In a situation when a commitee needed a,b,c and we presented x,y,z in my opinion it is a very bad situation for everyone as it may say that what the commitee requires was not communicated well or the manager didn't put attention to this and the improvement cycle is often 6 or 12 months, so - not supportive situation at all. In my opinion - a callibration that is made in the end of the cycle is something that should be shifted at least few months earlier if not to the beginning of the cycle ideally. Therefore, you should not just agree with decisions, but try to make the whole environment better.
I was in a situation where comitee was looking at a,b,c one time, but in 12 months it was not valid anymore and d,e,f was important suddenly. The only thing I could do is say the truth about this situation and make the problem visible to the org.
Keen on talking more on that topic as it is very wide and maybe could create more articles on that topic ;)
Cheers.