Third Place is You're Fired
Interesting article on Slate about the impact of Tiger Woods on other golfers' performance. One would assume that playing with a superior golfer would raise the performance of other golfers. But evidently, when that golfer is Tiger Woods, so superior at his game, the reward structure is reduced and incentive to win is also therefore reduced.
At work, we all may be looking to hire the "rock star", but really, could it be best to hire just strong performers? When evaluating performance, those that work hardest will likely be those that feel they have a chance at being the best. When there's one standout, it could potentially be demoralizing for the tier two (and still very productive) performers. It's interesting to think that for the good of the team, you may not always hire the Tiger Woods (and seriously, who wouldn't just hire him anyway?). I think that the successful manager, when given an opportunity to hire someone exceptional, would start to think about whether they could use that person to raise the collective performance level on the team.
Comments
Anonymous
January 28, 2008
I think that 'rock star' should be promoted into tech lead, group lead position quickly. It's fair, it's the best position for them and it's good for the team according to what you just said.Anonymous
January 28, 2008
I think it depends on the kind of job. In an independent sales position, yes you want the star performer. If you're talking about a team that needs to work closely together, you may can hire the best person as long as sharing and teaching others is not a problem.Anonymous
January 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 28, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 28, 2008
Reeve - Wow...well said!Anonymous
January 29, 2008
Heather- Have you heard of this new site called Notchup.com where companies pay people for interviewing? If you want I can send you an invite to it as its still in Beta. It was released yesterday. It got alot of press and traffic to the site has made it perform sluggish. But the concept is interesting and I'd be curious to see if a recruiter like you would use a tool like this.Anonymous
January 29, 2008
Wine-Oh, Yeah, I have heard about it. I have an initial reaction to it which is that we aren't paying people to interview with us. We want to interview people that are interseted in working at Microsoft, not people who are looking to make a little extra cash. I find the concept a little distasteful, actually.Anonymous
January 29, 2008
Very interesting dilemma to have, but I suppose it depends on the definition of Rockstar. I think that a real Rockstar would make an effort not to make the others look bad and thus, not demoralize them. I remember learning this lesson when I was about 15 and working in a warehouse when one of the more senior guys came and said: "Hey! Don't work so fast! You're making the rest of us look bad!!" I'm sure he was [sort of] joking, but I never forgot the lesson. The other thing I wondered is: Would a team of strong performers be negatively affected by a Rockstar? I can see how average people may be discouraged, but strong performers are motivated/demotivated by different things...Anonymous
January 29, 2008
I agree and thanks for your take on it. I signed up just to see what happens from a prospective interviewee point of view. But through the process, I was wondering why a company would sign up. I would think they would not be able to qualify a candidate as well as through other methods. At the end of the day I think it hurts both the company and the interviewee. There could be those serial interviewees out to make a buck, thus resulting in lower credibility. Companies already have successful methodologies of how they recruit. I think this is a gimmick.Anonymous
January 29, 2008
Yep - agreed. Only way I could see it working for a company is if they have no employment brand to speak of and need that hook to get candidates to even look at them.Anonymous
January 29, 2008
Ian - I think that some Rockstars don't intentionally make others look bad. It's just that they are so good that others pale in comparison. I don't relaly think there's intent there, necessarily. I would have fired that guy in your warehouse. The best thing for the business is to get maximum productivity. That guy was hurting the business for his own benefit. Re: the stroing performer to rock star thing...it depends on the people, the einvironment/culture, the reward structure, etc.Anonymous
January 30, 2008
When presented with an opportunity to "hire the best" but instead you go for "strong performers," how do you feel when the competiton then lands the "rock star?" Julie for WOW!Anonymous
January 30, 2008
Well, it really depends on the secondary skills of the "Rock Star". I am assuming that by gaining the label of "Rock Star" someone is outstanding at performing their job duties. The hypothetical manager need not worry about those. But how does this "rock star" interact with others? Is the person a "people person" that can interact with others well? If so, hire them, hire them right now, because they will lead your org into another level and probably move right up the chain of command. The problem with the workplace nowadays (and, judging from Mini, Microsoft is no exception) is that people believe that just because you are great at doing x, you can lead other people in doing x. Usually, leadership and x are two entirely different skill sets. Its why there are a lot more poor managers in the world than good ones.Anonymous
January 30, 2008
Well, I am sure there's some of that everywhere. I have seen a significant investment recently in management excellence training. I did that one 4 day class and it was really awesome. Did I meet some people where I thought that they might be better ICs than managers? Sure. But hopefully their manager saw something in them that made them think that management was a good path for them. People here do move back to IC roles from manager roles for any of a number of reasons. But yeah. It's imperfect. We have developed better career path options for senior ICs. So people don't have to go into management to move up. I find managing people really challenging (mostly bc it's realtively new for me) and I'm trying to learn all I can about how to be a good manager. But at some point, I could see taking an IC role if it was something that rounded out my skill set or that I found particularly interesting. But def. want to put my time in here first to give myself an opportunity to learn. So anyway, I have seen it both ways and we are doing things to get better at getting the right people into mgr roles and equipping them to be successful.Anonymous
January 30, 2008
Heather, in my experience, the best managers are those who are able to balance three things. One is the realization that the people you are leading are people, and they have feelings, emotions and problems just like any other person. People don't necessarily look to you to solve or fix the issues, but recognizing them goes a long way towards earning the respect of those you manage. The second balancing act comes in the form of integrity. People that feel that their managers stand behind the decisions they make (unless they are horrendously stupid) and are willing to go to bat for them when the ca-ca hits the fan (which it inevitably does at least once) make the most productive employees. The third and final balancing act is the needs of the organization. A good manager is able to advocate for org needs and supervisee needs at the same time. They are able to make the supervisee feel like they make a valued contribution to the success of the organization while still keeping the org's goals in mind. This is actually an outgrowth of integrity, as people tend to respect managers that are able to succeed without burning the managees out. I am glad to see that you're a manager. Judging by the thoughtfulness and humor of your blog entries, I think you'd make a good manager, especially with your focus on learning (the best managers are always trying to improve themselves). I hope your path takes you to a place you enjoy, wether as a manager, an IC, or something completely different. on another topic: I didn't mean to imply that Msoft had a monopoly of bad managers (even if I do read Mini :-). It's just a common misconception in the general workplace that people that are good at their individual jobs must be good at managing others doing the same job. Unfortunately, people tend to hire people like themselves, so one bad manager usually gets three to four more bad managers promoted before they leave and the cycle continues...Anonymous
January 30, 2008
Rick - great points. It's mid year career discussion time around here so I am kind of in that mode of thinking what the next step is. Still not 100% sure what I want to be when I grow up. But learning is part of it. And I knew you weren't implying that we have a monopoly on bad managers.That stuff happens everywhere. I just wanted to say that we are aware of the phenomenon and actually doing something about it.We aren't perfect but we try :) Everyone has a story about a bad manager, right? I'm fortunate in that I have had more good than bad. I guess I just try to emulate the good ones. Still much to learn!Anonymous
February 05, 2008
Just came across the Notchup concept, and researching that, read a few opinions here. Must say the idea does have potential, and that the Notchup marketing team has done a very poor job in communications, and that when the product does at least have potential. For instance, why can somebody not turn interviewing into profit making; well; simply because each company that they interview with, gets to leave a feedback, much like ebay and also contributes to stats for the candidate (If the candidate interviewed, were they selected (a yes or may tell something about the deserving of the candidate), and if they were, did they join or not. Again, so much like ebay feedback numbers, these feedback numbers are bound to help the market forces get the right candidate favored over the poor ones, and let the market decide. How does that help? Well, this service may never interest senior level managers or the companies interested in pursuing them. Additionally, Heather was right in saying it may not help Microsoft, or a company larger than a few thousand heads. In my view, Notchup could be much more effective for entry and mid level candidates, both for candidates and the interviewing firms. The fee structure per candidate may deter small firms and managers interview entry and lower mid level candidates without really having an idea of what traits they are looking for (most true for consultants and sales jobs). On the other hand, it also does help genuine firms get more value for money in terms of being more selective, and choosing at their convenience.Anonymous
February 05, 2008
The concept of storing any kind of interview feedback in some web-based too, outside of a corporate firewall makes me alittle sick to my stomach.Anonymous
February 05, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 05, 2008
Gotta love the rant. What's worse is that there are some staffing industry leaders that will say I don't "get it" because I'm not all giddy and drooling over this bad idea. And to that I say be very careful about who you choose as a leader.Anonymous
February 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 07, 2008
Well most legal departments of corporations aren't going to be comfortable with the "chance factor" and I have to agree with crawdad....I have had some people interview me where I had to wonder how they got their job. We aren't rating movies on amazon...these are people. There's plenty of feedback on companies in the blogosphere. I still can't help but wonder why an employer would try to motivate prospects to consider them by paying the person to interview. The currency in the interview model is time. Money just dirties it up by introducing a new motive to interview; getting paid. I;m not going to come around to the point of view that paying people to interview does anything good for the company. Not going to happen. Companies should invest that money in improving their employment brand.Anonymous
February 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 07, 2008
I can't imagine interviewing anyone that would even care about being paid a nominal fee to interview.Anonymous
February 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 07, 2008
Yeah, agreed. The solution they came up with doesn't address the issue. How about they focus their attention on an effective applicant tracking system. That would make thousands of recruiters jump for joy.