Category Archives: Recruitment

What kind of “Managers stick with poor performers rather than hire new faces” ?

I am sure you have heard it in all versions, subversions and perversions, but one simple universal workplace truth seems to be don’t tolerate poor performance, and if not outrightly eliminate poor performers, do ease them out over a reasonable but fast period of time. The yawning gap between a bottom performer and the top performer is perhaps nowhere more so prominent as in a human-skill based knowledge industry like software. Over the years, various productivity studies still continue to point a gap of anywhere between 1:10 to 1:20 or even more between the top programmer and the bottom one. The exact number doesn’t really matter.

What is important is to understand that success of a software endeavor howsomuch is dependent on very smart people, it finally needs a great team to deliver goods – no task is trivial enough to be single-handled performed by the star performer on a sustainable basis, nor is anyone smart enough to effectively comprehend every bit of information created by mankind. This doesn’t trivialize individual human talent, nor is meant to belittle those huge efforts that make a star performer a star performer. It only highlights the nature of the beast – to deliver a non-trivial piece of software with reasonable complexity and business criticality, one must have a team comprising of team members that complement each other’s skills.

We all know a great team that works like Swiss clockwork doesn’t happen by accident. Throwing a bunch of people together, howsoever individually competent, in a blender doesn’t ensure that the result is sweet juices of creativity, teamwork and performance. Instead, all one might get is a bloody mix of team dysfunctions, bruised egos, competing team members constantly on the prowl to backstab others…and so on.

So, how does one go about building a great team. Having the right intent, high bar (higher than what people believe that are capable of achieving) and zero-tolerance for poor performance is a good start. Often, it is easier said then done. There are also fair arguments that when you build a team six people, you can find the smartest people, but when your team needs sixty people, try doing the same. I have managed three fairly large teams: two of them were over 110+ people and one of them had some 190+ engineers working on really complex softwares such as core routers and SoftSwitch, and I can tell you the mindset one needs to manage such large endeavors of human creativity are radically different from what I would need when working on a six-people teams. For one, there is no way you are ever going to get all smart people with top talent – it is just impossible to hire people of equally hire calibre in such numbers on any team, any place on earth. People often don’t admit it, but I am going to hold on to my arguments. There is always a performance curve (“Bell Curve”) in any random distribution. My favorite quote here is from Mali, our HR Manager at Philips, “There is a Bell Curve even at Bell Labs”. Wider the bell curve, bigger is the gap between the top and a bottom performer that I talked about earlier. In a six-people team, it is possible to cherry-pick team members that leads to a very narrow bell curve. In a larger team, the curve starts to flatten out and widen at the ends. This is not by intent, but because of a combination of various factors:

  • difficulty in finding large number of experienced people with required skills in the given domain
  • you can’t always start with a flat staffing (meaning, achieve 100% staffing in the initial stages of the project) – there is not enough work in the beginning, and during the peak, everyone is stressed out and later in the project, there is overstaffing. A Rayleigh’s curve works reasonably well
  • the bad economics of having an all-star team – even Manchester United can’t get all the best players in the world to play for it – they might go bankcrupt before the kick-off itself !
  • inevitable dilution in hiring standards over time as hiring responsibilities get delegated, often to new managers who might not have the same level of organizational understanding as the original team
  • many smart people might not want to join a large team for the fear of becoming just another face in the crowd !
  • a large project is more like a marathon than a hunderd meter dash, and is often late, forcing people to forgo weekends and vacations for a prolonged period of time. Many people, irrespective of their talent, might not want to get stuck in such situations – so this already limits the gene pool to work on and work with

There are many more reasons, and even if you don’t agree with all of these reasons, it is incredibly difficult to build a large team. Coming to smaller teams, it is similar challenge, and many of the reasons mentioned above might very well apply there. However, when it comes to absolute numbers, I look at it this way: what is easier – raising a loan of $50,000 or $3million ? The fact is, everything else equal, you can almost always go a far better job of building a smaller team than a larger team. But even that doesn’t guarantee scintillating performance by our small team. The fundamentals don’t really change. If any, the stakes are even higher for there no safety nets – the team can’t handle inefficiencies, and probably everyone in the team is a multi-skilled multitasker (as opposed to an individual in a larger team where there is a higher level of ‘vertical differentiation’ and ‘horizontal differentiation’). If one person leaves the team, the impact is far bigger than a similar percentage attrition in a larger team that no HR metric on attrition can capture. And the same goes for low performance – poor performance is far more lethal in a smaller team than a comparable percentage of poor performers in a large team. You would expect a lower tolerance for poor performers in any team, more so in a small team.

And it is for this very reason, that I was surprised to read Managers stick with poor performers rather than hire new faces. It is unbelievable and very shocking that a good 70% among us would rather put up with an existing poor performer than risk a new hire ! I think most reasons there don’t make sense, and I think ‘denial’ as a reason is probably a bigger contributor than is generally credited for. Irrespective, I hope like hell this data is an anomaly. For if it is not, I see more serious challenges ahead. By not getting rid of the poor performers even in these tough economic situations, a clear message is being sent that not just condones, even promotes, that level of performance. The teams are as it is not performing to their potential. Everyone in the team knows who those poor performers are, but the fact that a lower performance is being tolerated clearly send mixed signals and confuses people, especially the committed, hard-working performers. Some among them might feel insulted and likely to leave, thus leaving the team in an even bigger mess. I think managers of those teams are doing the biggest disservice to their organizations: one one hand they are tolerating poor performance and on the other hand, their condoning behavior could be disenchanting higher performers.

With this attitude, I think it surely is going to be one long slowdown. For those companies, surely.

Talk about Realistic Job Preview

One question that has always intrigued me is related to work and its associated challenges. How many of us truly believe that we (especially managers, even though generally true for all lesser mortals) are still in the jobs because it is not a perfect world ? How many of us sincerely believe that our jobs are in fact to fix the problems and not crib about their very presence ! If absence of those problems was a pre-condition to job, we might perhaps not be needed at all !

That said, it could perhaps be proved asymptomatically that when there is no challenge left in the job, that job might not be required anymore ! So, a noble objective of our job is to make our jobs redundant !

Wow !

So, why is it when we give out an ad for a job, we paint a rosy picture of the job. What we really ought to be promising is a wagonload of challenges (to be unashamedly marketed as the USP of the job) but we end up promising a cookie jar full of material rewards ! When we ought to be saying that this job promises to be more difficult than the one at the next company down the road, why is it that we say that we offer better flexi-time or health benefits than that very company. Are we not setting up wrong expectations that this company is a country club, and this job is more like flying first class, when we know that the company is more like a battalion and the job entails sapping mines, not to forget, sometimes with heavy shelling going on all around ?

How many of today’s HR Managers will be caught dead in freezing cold putting out an ad like this for recruiting their next generation of leaders ?

null

Instead, we actually see a game of one-upmanship in the recruitment fraternity. Oh, they are offering you 3x annual base for life insurance, ok, I will offer you 4x (as if we are really expecting them to use it !). They are sending you to Timbuktu for six months, we will send you to Kinshasa for twelve months. They are offering you a Project Lead role, I will give you Assistant Project Manager (whatever that means). What, they are only offering you 25.6% salary increment on what you make today, shame be on them, bunch of insensitive guys. Wait, I will offer you 29.3%.

For a change, how about a conversation like this:

Candidate: My current job keeps me busy only 20% of the time, so I am looking for a change. How do I know you will also not underutilize me ?

You: We promise at least 45 hrs of core work per week – which won’t leave you with time to chat with your buddies, notwithstanding the fact that we don’t allow an IM or webmails in the office. We don’t offer working from home option because we believe we don’t want to encroach in your personal lives, and you are not allowed to work on Sundays, come what may. That means, you will have to face more hardships since all work must be done out of office. We don’t offer external training because we believe in self-learning. We don’t believe in overnight promotions, we believe curing the foundation is the most important aspect of career development and hence can almost promise no promotion in the first 3-4 years. We also realize that despite us being a typical start-up, human beings being human beings that they are, decision cycles could take time. Sometimes, there might not be funding to get an important resource, or a software library to ensure on-time delivery of your product. We don’t expect you to break the law by using pirated software or try some other tricks, but show your real mettle by being innovative under adverse conditions. How does that sound to you ?

Candidate: Wow ! This looks like the job I could give my right arm for. What about compensation ?

You: We are in startup mode. We believe the challenges I just mentioned above actually make up for a 30% premium if it could ever be equated to money. So, you will actually come on a 15% pay cut. Plus, the last three people who were in this job, two quit before they picked up the first paycheck but the last one stayed here for last two years and has gone on to start his own company. I understand he is filing for an IPO next month.

Wow, wow, wow !!! Doesn’t this type of conversation blow you out of your socks !

I can imagine cynics sniggering on this conjured-up tale of a utopian world. After all, people have not added years of experience for nothing. If it were so simple, and effective, wouldn’t we be doing it already ? Fair point. I have no argument for it, except that:

• Until Dick Fosbury tried his now famous ‘Fosbury Flop’ in 1968 Mexico Olympics, no one questioned the ‘straddle’ style of high jump prevalent until that time.
• When no one wanted to lend money to the poorest of the poor, Mohammed Yusuf thought micro-banking was the way to alleviate the poverty-ridden farmers in his homeland and created the now famous Grameen Bank.
• If Akio Morita would have gone with the market research, the world would have never seen Sony Walkman.
• examples galore….

Sometime back, I came across a great unconventional thought. It says, listen to the ‘unreasonable man’, for all progress in this world has happened due to the him. Reasonable men, if argues, basically fall in the line and follow the norms. So, you can’t expect them to question the means and ways to do something differently, or better. But, it is the unreasonable man who defies the conventions and takes an unbeaten path. Sometimes he sinks, sometimes he sails. If he sinks, in the words of Edison, we have found one more way how things don’t work. But, if he sails, we probably have something significant on our hands !

I strongly recommend the highly readable, very simple and astonishingly commonsensical “Whatever You Think, Think the Opposite” by Paul Arden. A word of caution though – it could change you forever !

Coming back to world of hiring hiring and realistic job previews, If I were to hire a soldier, would I give out an ad about the workland that boasts of the best golf courses or a workland that is a minefield ?

And if I were a soldier, would I join an army that offers me flexi-time or allows me to develop myself by throwing me in newer challenges and raising my own potential with each passing failure ?

[PS: Originally written for li-ba.com on 5-Oct-2007]