Understanding average when you are a high performer

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

And, what is it you do?

[Anonymous]

How many people do you have on your team? I assume it's more than 2-3 so shouldn't the range of talents and effort that your team members exhibit give you a better idea?

And I'm a bit confused about how you think you are so much better. If you are all working in the same line of work, unless you are a true freak of nature, they are probably better than you think. Or it's you who is at the wrong job and could be doing a lot better.

[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.

An underperformer and an average performer are not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Your lack of comprehension of others' abilities makes it hard to believe you're as successful as you think. Sociability is critical is almost all workplaces.

[Anonymous]

I understand OP. I've seen people like you at work. They work hard and fast, not necessarily best, or kindly. But that's fine, because your team should bring in all the skills that you don't possess, and conversely they might not possess the skills that you do! Could you set goals for them that are not strictly a numbers game and production-related? Sweet-talking clients for example. Keeping everyone on track financially, or schedule-wise. I don't know what your team does, so this may be far off the mark, obviously.

The only way it works is if you can all respect each other and listen to suggestions. The highly productive person I'm thinking of is rather arrogant and can't take any kind of suggestion, and therefore team members hate him, even though he's a hard and efficient worker.

[Anonymous]

Find out who has a high EQ and ask her. She will make up for your low EQ.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

20:39 here.
If you have social intelligence, you can easily gauge people in the first few weeks of their job. Not necessarily in the interview; the right interview questions may help but are not a guarantee.
How do you define performance? It is very strange that you portray yourself as a successful and social high-performer, and yet can't seem to understand that going slow is sometimes the mark of a very observant and thoughtful game-changer. It's not all about speed! Unless you're nicely saying that these people are stupid, in which case you should get rid of them. Again, knowing which is which should become clear in time. Allow yourself some time to observe them closely at work. Don't expect to divine everything about them when they're brand new.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

Job description. If they can perform according to their job descriptions and meet the delivery dates, I do not worry how fast or slow they go about.

Did you hire or inherite your team? Several years ago I waited 8 months and had to replace my whole team because they could not do their jobs. Examples: I had to write test scripts for my senior test engineers and reports for my senior analysts. My boss asked me what took me so long. So yes, I was too inexperienced and too understanding.

[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.

Ugh.