Being asked to performance manage a good performer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something similar happened to me but in my case the person he wanted me to manage out had a tough personality and was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. From my perspective, though, she was highly productive and hard-working, bringing in many big clients. I asked if I could give her feedback and get her some coaching to work on her interpersonal issues. And honestly? I wish I hadn’t. Something seemed to go wrong with all those big clients. She lost us a lot of money, and the coaching didn’t improve her behavior. My boss was right.

Op - the difference in this scenario was that your employee DID have obvious performance issues if they were struggling to collaborate. In this case the employee does not have any. It may be that she isn’t meeting his expectations but he is only able to articulate subjective issues like ‘she’s not good’. She works hard and does what is asked

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised that no one is mentioning that OP is potentially opening themselves up to an EEO complaint if they just follow along with the supervisor while they believe the supervisor is judging this employee based on their protected status. The employee may be aware of more than you think and may be carefully documenting everything. Tread carefully OP as you don’t want to get wrapped up in someone else’s mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you'll be the fall guy if she complains or sues. If you refuse will you get managed out? Toxic

Yes, pretty much. My spouse was the victim of such a situation. Manager choose to comply and fabricate performance issues. (Manager made the mistake of attributing specific comments to specific individuals, so it was fairly easy to go talk to those individuals and confirm that nothing even remotely close to that was ever said). Bottom line, help your direct report find another team and also GTF out of there yourself. Don’t think you aren’t next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What reason did he give?

he just says things like 'she's not good'. He says that a lot about her and her deliverables.

It's funny we recently showed him a deliverable that we had compiled almost wholly using claude cowork from direction he'd given in emails, messages and meetings and he said it was 'really bad'.

I asked him to sit with her and try to show her how to improve and admitted that I wasn't able to understand what she was doing wrong myself and he said 'she's just the wrong person for this job and we need to manage her out'.

I don't even know what this means/how it is relevant. You used AI and the results were bad? Cool story. That has nothing to do with her or her work. You say she's an excellent performer, yet you want HIM to sit down with YOUR direct report to show her how to improve? Sounds like the problem is you, not her.

Surely you have KPIs, metrics, things you can track on her deliverables?

op - you seem pretty mad about this for some reason but I'll explain.

We created a deliverable out of HIS directions and input. Not sure how familiar you are with these tools, but when your AI is integrated into your work apps you can pull transcripts from meetings, and emails, and messages that have been sent and then you have a record of what has been discussed. He said 'this document needs to reflect x, y and z'. She sent it back to him, and before I could share with him that it was a compilation of his own directives, when he thought it was her guidance, he said it was bad.

This to me makes it clear that none of this is real. On the off chance it isn’t, OP, you seem too personally invested in your boss being wrong about this, and working with your report to try to prove the boss is wrong using AI tools? Well, I guess it’s a way to go. It sounds to me, again if this is real, you have kind of a savior complex. Really, you have only a few choices: 1. Push the button on her as your boss directs; 2. Tell your boss that you won’t do it, you think he’s making a major mistake, and take the consequences of that, if you are a valued person your boss might listen; 3. Try to get her out of your group and into other groups that might value her more, as PP above helpfully suggested. But in any dispute where your boss thinks “x” and you think “y”, your boss’s boss is probably going to go with your boss, which is the right choice more often than it is the wrong one. Your current approach will merely create an ambiguous documentary record that is likely to make you look bad without persuading anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women are screwed in the workforce.

All the glowing WOHM life retelling does not factor in toxic male bosses and their harassment.

- SAHM

if you are a sahm why are you on this board?

Assume (judging from your post) because you are not 100% sure it's the right thing for you so you're looking for evidence that work sucks and then commenting on posts about difficult work situations that those wouldnt happen if the person didn't have a job?

Also what glowing wohm life retelling? People go to work bc they need money.

You need to make some peace with your own life decisions and stop looking for evidence elsewhere that they were or were not correct. some people have great jobs they love, some people dont. Some people have jobs they love then jobs they dont love then jobs they love again. No bearing on your own life situation.

Well 1865 called. All slaves have been freed, the horses have been returned to their stables, so you and all the other overseers are now obsolete…you can go ahead and clock out now. We can all, regardless of job status, exercise our 1st amendment right to read and comment on any DCUM forums we choose. If you want to gate keep toxic work environments, have at it, enjoy! PP’s comment was a relevant one, now what?

[Anonymous]

What does “performance manage out” mean?

I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying, but if your boss makes an assessment that a team member is not a good fit or detrimental to the organization, you should heed the message & take care of it.

Otherwise, you’ll be out of a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something similar happened to me but in my case the person he wanted me to manage out had a tough personality and was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. From my perspective, though, she was highly productive and hard-working, bringing in many big clients. I asked if I could give her feedback and get her some coaching to work on her interpersonal issues. And honestly? I wish I hadn’t. Something seemed to go wrong with all those big clients. She lost us a lot of money, and the coaching didn’t improve her behavior. My boss was right.

Op - the difference in this scenario was that your employee DID have obvious performance issues if they were struggling to collaborate. In this case the employee does not have any. It may be that she isn’t meeting his expectations but he is only able to articulate subjective issues like ‘she’s not good’. She works hard and does what is asked

We are hearing one side of the story. There is likely a lot of information missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What reason did he give?

he just says things like 'she's not good'. He says that a lot about her and her deliverables.

It's funny we recently showed him a deliverable that we had compiled almost wholly using claude cowork from direction he'd given in emails, messages and meetings and he said it was 'really bad'.

I asked him to sit with her and try to show her how to improve and admitted that I wasn't able to understand what she was doing wrong myself and he said 'she's just the wrong person for this job and we need to manage her out'.

I don't even know what this means/how it is relevant. You used AI and the results were bad? Cool story. That has nothing to do with her or her work. You say she's an excellent performer, yet you want HIM to sit down with YOUR direct report to show her how to improve? Sounds like the problem is you, not her.

Surely you have KPIs, metrics, things you can track on her deliverables?

op - you seem pretty mad about this for some reason but I'll explain.

We created a deliverable out of HIS directions and input. Not sure how familiar you are with these tools, but when your AI is integrated into your work apps you can pull transcripts from meetings, and emails, and messages that have been sent and then you have a record of what has been discussed. He said 'this document needs to reflect x, y and z'. She sent it back to him, and before I could share with him that it was a compilation of his own directives, when he thought it was her guidance, he said it was bad.

This to me makes it clear that none of this is real. On the off chance it isn’t, OP, you seem too personally invested in your boss being wrong about this, and working with your report to try to prove the boss is wrong using AI tools? Well, I guess it’s a way to go. It sounds to me, again if this is real, you have kind of a savior complex. Really, you have only a few choices: 1. Push the button on her as your boss directs; 2. Tell your boss that you won’t do it, you think he’s making a major mistake, and take the consequences of that, if you are a valued person your boss might listen; 3. Try to get her out of your group and into other groups that might value her more, as PP above helpfully suggested. But in any dispute where your boss thinks “x” and you think “y”, your boss’s boss is probably going to go with your boss, which is the right choice more often than it is the wrong one. Your current approach will merely create an ambiguous documentary record that is likely to make you look bad without persuading anyone.

op - to be clear we didnt use AI tools to 'make him look bad'. He had feedback on the deliverable that he expressed in written and verbal form. We used AI to consolidate his feedback and integrate it into the deliverable. That is what AI is for. He made himself look bad by saying that the pushes to the deliverable were 'bad' when in fact they were a direct reflection of his own feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does “performance manage out” mean?

I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying, but if your boss makes an assessment that a team member is not a good fit or detrimental to the organization, you should heed the message & take care of it.

Otherwise, you’ll be out of a job.

Doesn't it mean PIP her? How do you PIP if her performance is good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women are screwed in the workforce.

All the glowing WOHM life retelling does not factor in toxic male bosses and their harassment.

- SAHM

if you are a sahm why are you on this board?

Assume (judging from your post) because you are not 100% sure it's the right thing for you so you're looking for evidence that work sucks and then commenting on posts about difficult work situations that those wouldnt happen if the person didn't have a job?

Also what glowing wohm life retelling? People go to work bc they need money.

You need to make some peace with your own life decisions and stop looking for evidence elsewhere that they were or were not correct. some people have great jobs they love, some people dont. Some people have jobs they love then jobs they dont love then jobs they love again. No bearing on your own life situation.

Well 1865 called. All slaves have been freed, the horses have been returned to their stables, so you and all the other overseers are now obsolete…you can go ahead and clock out now. We can all, regardless of job status, exercise our 1st amendment right to read and comment on any DCUM forums we choose. If you want to gate keep toxic work environments, have at it, enjoy! PP’s comment was a relevant one, now what?

what

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does “performance manage out” mean?

I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying, but if your boss makes an assessment that a team member is not a good fit or detrimental to the organization, you should heed the message & take care of it.

Otherwise, you’ll be out of a job.

op - there are two ways to fire someone that avoid any legal ramifications.
1. You fire someone because of poor performance. You can then refill that same role. In order to do this, you have to document consistent performance issues, feedback given, and not addressed. It's hard to do that in this case because there haven't been consistent performance issues that I or my boss can clearly articulate.
2. You can eliminate the position. However then you cannot refill the same position, legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What reason did he give?

he just says things like 'she's not good'. He says that a lot about her and her deliverables.

It's funny we recently showed him a deliverable that we had compiled almost wholly using claude cowork from direction he'd given in emails, messages and meetings and he said it was 'really bad'.

I asked him to sit with her and try to show her how to improve and admitted that I wasn't able to understand what she was doing wrong myself and he said 'she's just the wrong person for this job and we need to manage her out'.

I don't even know what this means/how it is relevant. You used AI and the results were bad? Cool story. That has nothing to do with her or her work. You say she's an excellent performer, yet you want HIM to sit down with YOUR direct report to show her how to improve? Sounds like the problem is you, not her.

Surely you have KPIs, metrics, things you can track on her deliverables?

op - you seem pretty mad about this for some reason but I'll explain.

We created a deliverable out of HIS directions and input. Not sure how familiar you are with these tools, but when your AI is integrated into your work apps you can pull transcripts from meetings, and emails, and messages that have been sent and then you have a record of what has been discussed. He said 'this document needs to reflect x, y and z'. She sent it back to him, and before I could share with him that it was a compilation of his own directives, when he thought it was her guidance, he said it was bad.

This to me makes it clear that none of this is real. On the off chance it isn’t, OP, you seem too personally invested in your boss being wrong about this, and working with your report to try to prove the boss is wrong using AI tools? Well, I guess it’s a way to go. It sounds to me, again if this is real, you have kind of a savior complex. Really, you have only a few choices: 1. Push the button on her as your boss directs; 2. Tell your boss that you won’t do it, you think he’s making a major mistake, and take the consequences of that, if you are a valued person your boss might listen; 3. Try to get her out of your group and into other groups that might value her more, as PP above helpfully suggested. But in any dispute where your boss thinks “x” and you think “y”, your boss’s boss is probably going to go with your boss, which is the right choice more often than it is the wrong one. Your current approach will merely create an ambiguous documentary record that is likely to make you look bad without persuading anyone.

op - to be clear we didnt use AI tools to 'make him look bad'. He had feedback on the deliverable that he expressed in written and verbal form. We used AI to consolidate his feedback and integrate it into the deliverable. That is what AI is for. He made himself look bad by saying that the pushes to the deliverable were 'bad' when in fact they were a direct reflection of his own feedback.

DP. I think he sounds like a jerk, but just because his own thoughts were fed into AI doesn't mean what AI produced isn't slop. If he just wanted his emails and transcripts put into AI to spit out a report, he could have done that himself and not pay employees. Presumably he expected his employees to understand what he wanted and either produce it or if, using AI, properly refine it to his specifications.

I just don't think this is the flex you think it is. Your theory has an underlying assumption that if you put the right information into AI, that what AI produces accurately reflects what was put in. If I were you, I wouldn't use this example in the real world because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of AI and a lack of diligence on the part of the employee who produced the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What reason did he give?

he just says things like 'she's not good'. He says that a lot about her and her deliverables.

It's funny we recently showed him a deliverable that we had compiled almost wholly using claude cowork from direction he'd given in emails, messages and meetings and he said it was 'really bad'.

I asked him to sit with her and try to show her how to improve and admitted that I wasn't able to understand what she was doing wrong myself and he said 'she's just the wrong person for this job and we need to manage her out'.

I don't even know what this means/how it is relevant. You used AI and the results were bad? Cool story. That has nothing to do with her or her work. You say she's an excellent performer, yet you want HIM to sit down with YOUR direct report to show her how to improve? Sounds like the problem is you, not her.

Surely you have KPIs, metrics, things you can track on her deliverables?

op - you seem pretty mad about this for some reason but I'll explain.

We created a deliverable out of HIS directions and input. Not sure how familiar you are with these tools, but when your AI is integrated into your work apps you can pull transcripts from meetings, and emails, and messages that have been sent and then you have a record of what has been discussed. He said 'this document needs to reflect x, y and z'. She sent it back to him, and before I could share with him that it was a compilation of his own directives, when he thought it was her guidance, he said it was bad.

This to me makes it clear that none of this is real. On the off chance it isn’t, OP, you seem too personally invested in your boss being wrong about this, and working with your report to try to prove the boss is wrong using AI tools? Well, I guess it’s a way to go. It sounds to me, again if this is real, you have kind of a savior complex. Really, you have only a few choices: 1. Push the button on her as your boss directs; 2. Tell your boss that you won’t do it, you think he’s making a major mistake, and take the consequences of that, if you are a valued person your boss might listen; 3. Try to get her out of your group and into other groups that might value her more, as PP above helpfully suggested. But in any dispute where your boss thinks “x” and you think “y”, your boss’s boss is probably going to go with your boss, which is the right choice more often than it is the wrong one. Your current approach will merely create an ambiguous documentary record that is likely to make you look bad without persuading anyone.

op - to be clear we didnt use AI tools to 'make him look bad'. He had feedback on the deliverable that he expressed in written and verbal form. We used AI to consolidate his feedback and integrate it into the deliverable. That is what AI is for. He made himself look bad by saying that the pushes to the deliverable were 'bad' when in fact they were a direct reflection of his own feedback.

DP. I think he sounds like a jerk, but just because his own thoughts were fed into AI doesn't mean what AI produced isn't slop. If he just wanted his emails and transcripts put into AI to spit out a report, he could have done that himself and not pay employees. Presumably he expected his employees to understand what he wanted and either produce it or if, using AI, properly refine it to his specifications.

I just don't think this is the flex you think it is. Your theory has an underlying assumption that if you put the right information into AI, that what AI produces accurately reflects what was put in. If I were you, I wouldn't use this example in the real world because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of AI and a lack of diligence on the part of the employee who produced the report.

OP - I work in AI. I undestand AI very well. And I deeply understand how to use it in addition to human effort to create something that is a quality deliverable. You're correct that just relying on it alone is not a catch all. You'll just have to trust me that I used it correctly in this case. Or maybe I didn't, but if I didnt, he should be able to articulate specifics rather than just using the word 'bad'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What reason did he give?

he just says things like 'she's not good'. He says that a lot about her and her deliverables.

It's funny we recently showed him a deliverable that we had compiled almost wholly using claude cowork from direction he'd given in emails, messages and meetings and he said it was 'really bad'.

I asked him to sit with her and try to show her how to improve and admitted that I wasn't able to understand what she was doing wrong myself and he said 'she's just the wrong person for this job and we need to manage her out'.

I don't even know what this means/how it is relevant. You used AI and the results were bad? Cool story. That has nothing to do with her or her work. You say she's an excellent performer, yet you want HIM to sit down with YOUR direct report to show her how to improve? Sounds like the problem is you, not her.

Surely you have KPIs, metrics, things you can track on her deliverables?

op - you seem pretty mad about this for some reason but I'll explain.

We created a deliverable out of HIS directions and input. Not sure how familiar you are with these tools, but when your AI is integrated into your work apps you can pull transcripts from meetings, and emails, and messages that have been sent and then you have a record of what has been discussed. He said 'this document needs to reflect x, y and z'. She sent it back to him, and before I could share with him that it was a compilation of his own directives, when he thought it was her guidance, he said it was bad.

This to me makes it clear that none of this is real. On the off chance it isn’t, OP, you seem too personally invested in your boss being wrong about this, and working with your report to try to prove the boss is wrong using AI tools? Well, I guess it’s a way to go. It sounds to me, again if this is real, you have kind of a savior complex. Really, you have only a few choices: 1. Push the button on her as your boss directs; 2. Tell your boss that you won’t do it, you think he’s making a major mistake, and take the consequences of that, if you are a valued person your boss might listen; 3. Try to get her out of your group and into other groups that might value her more, as PP above helpfully suggested. But in any dispute where your boss thinks “x” and you think “y”, your boss’s boss is probably going to go with your boss, which is the right choice more often than it is the wrong one. Your current approach will merely create an ambiguous documentary record that is likely to make you look bad without persuading anyone.

op - to be clear we didnt use AI tools to 'make him look bad'. He had feedback on the deliverable that he expressed in written and verbal form. We used AI to consolidate his feedback and integrate it into the deliverable. That is what AI is for. He made himself look bad by saying that the pushes to the deliverable were 'bad' when in fact they were a direct reflection of his own feedback.

DP. I think he sounds like a jerk, but just because his own thoughts were fed into AI doesn't mean what AI produced isn't slop. If he just wanted his emails and transcripts put into AI to spit out a report, he could have done that himself and not pay employees. Presumably he expected his employees to understand what he wanted and either produce it or if, using AI, properly refine it to his specifications.

I just don't think this is the flex you think it is. Your theory has an underlying assumption that if you put the right information into AI, that what AI produces accurately reflects what was put in. If I were you, I wouldn't use this example in the real world because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of AI and a lack of diligence on the part of the employee who produced the report.

OP - I work in AI. I undestand AI very well. And I deeply understand how to use it in addition to human effort to create something that is a quality deliverable. You're correct that just relying on it alone is not a catch all. You'll just have to trust me that I used it correctly in this case. Or maybe I didn't, but if I didnt, he should be able to articulate specifics rather than just using the word 'bad'.

PP. Fair enough, and I do agree with the bolded. Seems to be an issue with your boss in general, lol!

[Anonymous]

I don’t really understand this. Assuming your employer is an at-will employer, why the need for so much documentation etc.? I was let go for “poor performance” after six months with an employer with ZERO documentation of poor performance - had been heartily praised by a client the day before being let go - and I recognized I had no recourse so I moved on.

(I am not defending your boss or this behavior - it is cowardly and toxic - just trying to understand the why.)