Understanding average when you are a high performer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Do you manage these people? If so, you're not great at your job. Do you even understand why not, op? Are you on the spectrum by any chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Ugh.

Seriously. OP, something tells me you are a really difficult person to work for, and not just because you can't judge the abilities of your team members.

I concur with the PP that this is basic management stuff. Seek out courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Honest answer: you look at the mean.

I'm exceptionally fast and good at pulling together presentations - people often crack jokes during meetings that "it'll probably be done before we leave the room since xXXxX is here". I'm fast and good at it because I cut my teeth in consulting whereas most of my peers never set foot outside this firm. I recognize that, so when I task my team with stuff I look at how other managers task and expect results.

The non performers are easy to spot: do they routinely miss deadlines? Is feedback ignored? Is there work full of mathematical or other errors that should have been caught? Do they not communicate issues? Are you left surprised in meetings for things they should have told you about? If you've coached them, do you see progress?

Part of being a high performer is also learning to let go: it's tempting to do it all when you know it'll take you half the time of someone on your team. The problem is that leads to no leverage - and actually makes you look like a worse manager because you can't effectively delegate and manage. Learn that people will do some things better - or worse - or differently - and all those things are Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Do you manage these people? If so, you're not great at your job. Do you even understand why not, op? Are you on the spectrum by any chance?

This.
I'm sure you'll spin this into all of us just not being as good as you and being jealous OP, but that's not likely. The problem in this situation really is you, and you aren't even looking at the right issue.

[Anonymous]

You aren't good at your job if your job is managerial. Skills assessment is a huge part of being a good manager.

You illustrate exactly why so many employees hate their managers. Because their managers were pretty good at doing their first job, they got promoted to management even though they lacked managerial skills. I guarantee you BOTH your superiors and your employees recognize this and you aren't the star you think you are. The employee who might not have been as good at their first job but is a better manager than you will rise higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Honest answer: you look at the mean.

I'm exceptionally fast and good at pulling together presentations - people often crack jokes during meetings that "it'll probably be done before we leave the room since xXXxX is here". I'm fast and good at it because I cut my teeth in consulting whereas most of my peers never set foot outside this firm. I recognize that, so when I task my team with stuff I look at how other managers task and expect results.

The non performers are easy to spot: do they routinely miss deadlines? Is feedback ignored? Is there work full of mathematical or other errors that should have been caught? Do they not communicate issues? Are you left surprised in meetings for things they should have told you about? If you've coached them, do you see progress?

Part of being a high performer is also learning to let go: it's tempting to do it all when you know it'll take you half the time of someone on your team. The problem is that leads to no leverage - and actually makes you look like a worse manager because you can't effectively delegate and manage. Learn that people will do some things better - or worse - or differently - and all those things are Ok.

You cannot rise up to senior management with big teams if you have to be able to do everybody's job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Honest answer: you look at the mean.

I'm exceptionally fast and good at pulling together presentations - people often crack jokes during meetings that "it'll probably be done before we leave the room since xXXxX is here". I'm fast and good at it because I cut my teeth in consulting whereas most of my peers never set foot outside this firm. I recognize that, so when I task my team with stuff I look at how other managers task and expect results.

The non performers are easy to spot: do they routinely miss deadlines? Is feedback ignored? Is there work full of mathematical or other errors that should have been caught? Do they not communicate issues? Are you left surprised in meetings for things they should have told you about? If you've coached them, do you see progress?

Part of being a high performer is also learning to let go: it's tempting to do it all when you know it'll take you half the time of someone on your team. The problem is that leads to no leverage - and actually makes you look like a worse manager because you can't effectively delegate and manage. Learn that people will do some things better - or worse - or differently - and all those things are Ok.

Thank you PP this is very helpful. I absolutely need to do a better job delegating. It's very tempting to do the work myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

I feel you, OP. I coasted through high school, scored perfect scores on my SATs, graduated at the top of my Ivy in 3 years, and had a blast in my consulting firm. But now I'm in nonprofits and have left the bubble of high achievers, so it's hard for me to tell what's reasonable to expect from my team.

I think I've learned to think less of people as high or low performers and just evaluate whether or not they are helping advance the teams goals. It helps me see that people have different strengths and should be utilized differently. If you are not good at a task, you are simply reassigned because it's not a good fit. I try to assign new people a wide range of tasks so I can quickly see where they fit. Few people are bad at everything, and it's usually a sign of poor attitude more than aptitude.

this is also very helpful, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Ignoring the responses that don't reflect on you favorably.

Another agreeing that a large part of the issue is your lack of managerial skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Honest answer: you look at the mean.

I'm exceptionally fast and good at pulling together presentations - people often crack jokes during meetings that "it'll probably be done before we leave the room since xXXxX is here". I'm fast and good at it because I cut my teeth in consulting whereas most of my peers never set foot outside this firm. I recognize that, so when I task my team with stuff I look at how other managers task and expect results.

The non performers are easy to spot: do they routinely miss deadlines? Is feedback ignored? Is there work full of mathematical or other errors that should have been caught? Do they not communicate issues? Are you left surprised in meetings for things they should have told you about? If you've coached them, do you see progress?

Part of being a high performer is also learning to let go: it's tempting to do it all when you know it'll take you half the time of someone on your team. The problem is that leads to no leverage - and actually makes you look like a worse manager because you can't effectively delegate and manage. Learn that people will do some things better - or worse - or differently - and all those things are Ok.

You cannot rise up to senior management with big teams if you have to be able to do everybody's job.

How have you gotten away from this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignoring the responses that don't reflect on you favorably.

Another agreeing that a large part of the issue is your lack of managerial skills.

I am ignoring the responses that do not address my problem.

[Anonymous]

You sound like a prime candidate for getting a professional coach. I bet your team will benefit from it too. It will force you to become more aware of their needs and more self-aware as well (assuming you go to someone good).

[Anonymous]

If you want to get an idea of how long people are taking to do things, a desk audit is a big help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs you have it all wrong! Trying to stay anonymous here. I am in a very social, public-facing profession. You must all work with someone who is the highest and best performer. For the sake of argument just assume I am that person. Most people, including my employees and colleagues, like me. That is essential to the work I perform.

I have trouble pinpointing when someone on my team really is an under performer. It would never take me much time to learn the things they need to learn, so when I get new people I can't tell if they will get to where they need to be with time.

Well, I am the PP who suggested that you could note the range of skills on your team and judge individuals based on the range of group members' performance. How is that so hard? Especially for someone in a "social" profession where you are expected to interact with (and notice) others?

This is a skill that you develop by watching your team members. I am a manager and it's just something you do, and isn't different if your skills were superior, the same as or even beneath your team members'. In fact, the best manager I ever had was someone who was totally unskilled compared to his team. But he was super great at .. wait for it ... paying attention to them and thinking critically about how people worked and related to one another.

Maybe you just need some Management Training. It wouldn't hurt to spend less time think about how great you are, too.

Thank you PP. Each person has a different job requiring different skills so it's not like I can look at 8 people doing the same type of work and figure it out. I wrote the original post a little obnoxiously on purpose, because I want a lot of different advice. Click bait, if you will. I should have included that everyone has a different type of job in my last post. My point is that I think that all of the jobs are easy. However, I realize they are not easy for others. I am having a hard time figuring out (and of course, this is clearly not an area of strength for me), when people are not going to improve. I am over correcting my expectations, because I've watched many people come into these roles and take much longer than is my natural expectation to achieve success. Basically, how can you tell when someone just isn't going to cut it. I understand that I am lacking empathy in this area. I didn't say I was great at everything - just great at my job.

Actually it does sound like you shouldn't be in management. You may be great at your particular task but you're not great at being a manager.

[Anonymous]

Never change, DCUM. Never change.