22 Comments

1. 

   Derek Huether on November 19, 2010 at 7:00 am

   Just the idea of me asking my team to single out 1 or more members (publicly) to say they are at the bottom sends shivers down my spine. I understand we can’t all have teammates who sit on the far right of the bell curve. But, these are people, not statistics. Once you do something like this, the damage can not be undone.

   I had a Director, a few years back, who was going through an MBA “leadership” program. He came back to the office and tried this process on us. It was awkward from start to finish. I don’t know if he thought we’d all hug it out after or what. Regardless, the relationship between the management team was never the same.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

     Hi, Derek –

     I believe that people need information about their work….I don’t see how “knowing where you stand” in a ranking of the team helps either the individual or the team.

     Processes like this damage relationships within the team, and as you point out between the manager and team.

     e

     Reply
2. 

   Laurent on November 19, 2010 at 7:43 am

   There’s an interesting language/mindset issue at play here, too. I’ve heard this referred to as “growth mindset” vs “fixed mindset”, or “essentialism” vs “phenomenalism”, or “correspondence bias”.

   In either case the idea is to distinguish who people *are* from what people *do*. There’s a difference between saying “X’s contribution in the past iteration was the least helpful” and “X is the worst performer here”. The former may be a factual matter, settled by observation. The latter is a generalization, not very likely to be true in the long term or in a wide range of situations.

   Of course, the best isn’t to tell someone that their contribution was “best” or “worst” in a given iteration, the best is to tell them *how their contribution fell short* and *what they could do to improve*.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

     Hi, Laurent –

     Interesting points.

     I find it ironic that these ranking schemes say they are about helping people improve (movement) when the language use often implies a static state (no movement).

     When managers use static language to describe people they make it harder to notice when people actually do improve or do something that conflicts with the label.

     Jerry Weinberg tells a story about when he had a job grading college papers. When the professor reviewed the grades Jerry had assigned, he over-ruled an A that Jerry had granted,–without looking at the paper–because in the professors assessment, the person receiving the A was “a C student.” Obviously, a “C student” was not capable of producing a paper that deserved an A.

     Reply
3. 

   Pat Kua on November 19, 2010 at 7:54 am

   Well written. I find it fascinating to see this practice inspired by “baseball team selection” (because enough adults obviously weren’t emotionally scarred enough by this as a kid).

   Do you think you could post the link to the blog post you talk about? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

     Hi, Pat-

     I chose not to include the link to the blogger. He’s just a dude trying to make his way in the world. I commented on his blog, he got that the process was destructive. No need to publicly humiliate him by naming him here.

     Welch’s ideas about Differentiation are all too easy to find on the internet.

     Reply
4. 

   Matthew Heusser on November 19, 2010 at 7:55 am

   Thank you for your efforts to push the world in the direction of being, well, just a bit more … human, Esther. If, on a bad, day, you think people haven’t noticed, or don’t appreciate it (we all have bad days), please think again.

   all my best!

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:17 am

     Thanks, Matt.

     Reply
5. 

   Marcelo L on November 19, 2010 at 8:41 am

   Got directed to this post, via Mick’s RT. LOVE IT….with your permission, I’d like to send the following out to everyone who follows me on twitter and link to this post…

   “We aren’t playing baseball, we’re doing knowledge work. Surely, we can do better with adults in the work place.”

   I cannot tell you how deeply relevant this is in the workplace today.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 19, 2010 at 9:17 am

     Of course.

     I suspect we have both seen the damage that such practices do. The challenge is to change the thinking that leads to these practices in the first place.

     Reply
6. 

   Sandy Mamoli on November 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm

   Thanks for a great post – well said!

   “We aren’t playing baseball, we’re doing knowledge work. Surely, we can do better with adults in the work place.” – Thanks for pointing that out! The reason that this process has a place in professional sports is that sports is a 0-sum game whereas it is unnecessary in the workplace as it’s a non-zeor sum game.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:30 am

     Hi, Sandy –

     And even on sports teams, it’s not always zero-sum within in team. Sadly, many managers seem to think that software teams are more like ski teams than soccer teams or basketball teams.

     Reply
7. 

   Griffin Jones on November 20, 2010 at 10:27 am

   Interesting that “differentiation” is almost a perfect team-destroying exercise.

   Having had management (in the past) inflict this idea down onto my teams, I can say this practice is horrible, horrible, horrible – for everyone involved.

   For me – The only advantage I found from it, was that it was an excellent litmus test. People that like this process are people I want no association with.

   Reply
   • 

     Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:36 am

     Hi, Griffin –

     Yes, it would be hard to come up with a better team-breaking activity. But as you point out, it’s information about mental models of management.

     Reply
8. 

   Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:25 am

   Yes.

   And the “teams” on those show are usually such fine examples of trust, collaboration, and respect.

   Zero-sum game.

   Reply
9. 

   Esther on November 20, 2010 at 11:34 am

   Agreed. Ranking within a team, especially in a public and humiliating process won’t return better results, unless the goal is competition.

   But the thought process behind such processes reflects what managers have been exposed to since they were children. Most of us are subjected to various sorts of rating and ranking from the time we are 4 or 5 years old. Sad.

   Reply
10. 

    Bobby D on November 22, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Any system that introduces a “Lord of the Flies” mentality to a team can be very destructive. Rather than having people working hard towards the betterment of themselves or the team, you end up turning the workplace into a popularity contest in which, generally, no one wins.

    Reply
11. 

    Matt on November 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    If you have ever read Welch’s work you realize that he is talking about middle and upper management. He rarely talks about dealing with frontline employees. Thus, he is dealing with knowledge workers in the truest sense of the term.

    In my opinion the real reason this practice isn’t effective with technology workers is the large number of fragile egos in the field. For me it was a culture shock coming into software from a largely blue-collar background. In my old world pointed feedback was essential to improving performance. Most technology workers in my experience aren’t able to handle the thought that they aren’t as smart as they think they are.

    If you can’t admit you are wrong or have deficiencies then you are unlikely to ever grow.

    The key then is to find a method of coaching or mentoring that enables people with fragile egos to recognize deficiencies in a safe environment. Differentiation is definitely NOT that safe environment!

    Reply
    • 

      Esther on November 22, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      Matt –

      I agree that people need information in order to improve.

      I don’t know what you mean by “pointed feedback.” I do know that the way feedback is delivered plays a big part in whether the other person can hear it.

      e

      Reply
      • 

        Matt on November 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        Agreed. Crucial Conversations was one of the first books I read after getting into software. That book along with Communication Gaps by Naomi Karten was crucial in improving my communication in the tech world.

        Pointed feedback in the blue collar world is as simple as “you are doing it wrong… do it this way.” If you say that to a developer, the ensuing religious war is rarely productive or informative.

        Better is “I like how you solved that problem. [stroke the ego] The other day I read a blog article by X [appeal to the desire to be well known] that showed a new way of doing it. [appeal to desire to try new things] I haven’t given it a shot yet but it might be worth checking into if you have time [appeal to desire to be the first to learn something].”

        I know this sounds cynical but then my personal preference is still to be told “look Matt… you are doing it wrong” but that’s just me. 🙂

        Reply
        • 

          Esther on November 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm

          Both the books you mention are worth reading.

          Part of the issue is that so much of what goes on in software shops is shades of gray. There are better ways and worse ways, good engineering practices and hacks. When there isn’t agreement within the group what those better ways and good practices are, it ends up as a debate. So telling some one “You’re doing it wrong” becomes not a matter of fact, but personal opinion. And it gets into the big game of who gets to tell who what to do.

          Your description sounds like you are trying to influence. Not a bad thing. You might consider talking about the impact the actions you are attempting to influence. Then it doesn’t feel so arbitrary.

          Reply
          • 

            Matt on November 22, 2010 at 2:49 pm

            Shades of gray aren’t just in the tech world. Every guy on an assembly line has opinions on how things should be done as does every middle manager at a finance firm on Wall Street.

            I think the difference lies not so much in the opinion-based nature of our work but rather the creativity-based nature of our work.

            Alfie Kohn’s conclusions about the negative impact of rewards and punishment on creativity come to life in Robert Austin’s book on Measuring and Managing Performance. Saying “that is wrong” can stifle creative thinking… but so can telling someone “if you do it right I will give you a bonus.”

            It seems that Welch’s Differentiation would be detrimental in building an environment that encourages creativity.

            Interesting stuff… thanks for the article and the feedback!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.