Understanding average when you are a high performer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don't laugh but three rules I now follow

1) answer no email for 24 hours unless is genuinely pressing
Why: email generates email. Often, if you hold back you'll find problems tend to be solved without your involvement. Force yourself to wait before jumping in.

2) if there's someone on my team or another team who can do it, ask them to. Ask yourself what happens if no one does this, or if it takes 24 more hours. If the answer to those questions aren't scary, then make that happen. Begin to think of extended teams - not just your directs.
Why: obvious but this really forces the issue

3) with your newfound free time, make offers on stuff you want to do. But, always make offers up or lateral - never down (you need to build bridges with your peers not with their directs).
Why: engenders loyalty, it's fun, when you come knocking for help on some other team, they'll do it for you or help you find someone who can.

Truthfully, for me, #1 was a game changer. I used to fancy myself the problem solver and I'd jump in every time.

[Anonymous]

I would say don't reward this obnoxious ass with helpful answers, but maybe it will help their poor team members to work for a less insufferable manager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say don't reward this obnoxious ass with helpful answers, but maybe it will help their poor team members to work for a less insufferable manager.

Wait, I thought the DCUM trope was that there were no bad managers, only bad workers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don't laugh but three rules I now follow

1) answer no email for 24 hours unless is genuinely pressing
Why: email generates email. Often, if you hold back you'll find problems tend to be solved without your involvement. Force yourself to wait before jumping in.

2) if there's someone on my team or another team who can do it, ask them to. Ask yourself what happens if no one does this, or if it takes 24 more hours. If the answer to those questions aren't scary, then make that happen. Begin to think of extended teams - not just your directs.
Why: obvious but this really forces the issue

3) with your newfound free time, make offers on stuff you want to do. But, always make offers up or lateral - never down (you need to build bridges with your peers not with their directs).
Why: engenders loyalty, it's fun, when you come knocking for help on some other team, they'll do it for you or help you find someone who can.

Truthfully, for me, #1 was a game changer. I used to fancy myself the problem solver and I'd jump in every time.

I like this. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don't laugh but three rules I now follow

1) answer no email for 24 hours unless is genuinely pressing
Why: email generates email. Often, if you hold back you'll find problems tend to be solved without your involvement. Force yourself to wait before jumping in.

2) if there's someone on my team or another team who can do it, ask them to. Ask yourself what happens if no one does this, or if it takes 24 more hours. If the answer to those questions aren't scary, then make that happen. Begin to think of extended teams - not just your directs.
Why: obvious but this really forces the issue

3) with your newfound free time, make offers on stuff you want to do. But, always make offers up or lateral - never down (you need to build bridges with your peers not with their directs).
Why: engenders loyalty, it's fun, when you come knocking for help on some other team, they'll do it for you or help you find someone who can.

Truthfully, for me, #1 was a game changer. I used to fancy myself the problem solver and I'd jump in every time.

I am still struggling with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't laugh but three rules I now follow

1) answer no email for 24 hours unless is genuinely pressing
Why: email generates email. Often, if you hold back you'll find problems tend to be solved without your involvement. Force yourself to wait before jumping in.

2) if there's someone on my team or another team who can do it, ask them to. Ask yourself what happens if no one does this, or if it takes 24 more hours. If the answer to those questions aren't scary, then make that happen. Begin to think of extended teams - not just your directs.
Why: obvious but this really forces the issue

3) with your newfound free time, make offers on stuff you want to do. But, always make offers up or lateral - never down (you need to build bridges with your peers not with their directs).
Why: engenders loyalty, it's fun, when you come knocking for help on some other team, they'll do it for you or help you find someone who can.

Truthfully, for me, #1 was a game changer. I used to fancy myself the problem solver and I'd jump in every time.

I am still struggling with it.

Don't know what more I can suggest. For me it was a performance evaluation that basically said "you are awesome at problem solving but you'll never get promoted if you don't stop. Let other people solve and you guide them if they get stuck".

The 24 hour rule really really helps. I promise you on an email with 10 people - 2, if not 3, people will reply with an idea or suggestion. Look at who does. Rarely is it the senior folks. They only chime in after the suggestions to either offer their support or raise a concern; let your team steer the ship, you just right it if they fuck up.

[Anonymous]

Are you in a stimulating enough job? At the right company? Industry? Choose a better fit or you will end up miserable, unlikeable and then your skills will suffer. Some places just can't handle progress or know what quality is. Think of the big tech companies - do you think google stands for 2nd best?

I feel you and I'm looking. I feel the same way like I'm surrounded by Cs when I'm used to As. I'm switching companies to one that values Innovation not seniority. I work with these very nice folks who have been there for 20+ years and are very behind the times on the latest and greatest and think status quo is the way to go. Oh wait,you want me to Fax you that PowerPoint? Sorry, 1992 called and the fax line is busy. True story...

It's best to find something more challenging. Mediocrity is contagious.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1

To what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never change, DCUM. Never change.

Jobs and Careers version of "my kindergartner is bored with the curriculum, what to do?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I process information and work faster than anyone on my team. How can I understand what a reasonable expectation is for others when I know it's much easier for me? I have trouble setting expectations for under performers. I sometimes err on the side of being too understanding because it is hard for me to tell what the average should be.

most people say and think the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Here's what I did: I looked for and applied for a new job that was a better fit. I understand not everyone can be a top performer like myself but I can't be around "average" and stay sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I did: I looked for and applied for a new job that was a better fit. I understand not everyone can be a top performer like myself but I can't be around "average" and stay sane.

Agree. I now work alone and I write scathing self reviews of my alter ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I did: I looked for and applied for a new job that was a better fit. I understand not everyone can be a top performer like myself but I can't be around "average" and stay sane.

Agree. I now work alone and I write scathing self reviews of my alter ego.

hilarious!

[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.

You sound like an enormous douche.