Performance Management at a Macro Level

As an engineering manager, at least 50% of the time is spent on people management. The ultimate goal is not just to utilize the team’s capacity but also to tap into their potential talent. In this way, the manager should clearly show where the bar of excellence is and over time continue to raise the bar so the individuals can grow and the team will outperform.

Some would say managing people is harder than managing products or technology. Whereas products and technology could be dissected and analyzed with metrics, people have much wider and more complex dimensions and needs.

👋

An engineering manager’s mandate is to calibrate the team so the team can be highly effective in carrying out projects and turning input into business impact. Conversely, low performers should be managed out if coaching doesn’t work to create headcounts for new talents. In addition, being lenient to the individuals who are not carrying enough weight is unfair to the others who do.

💪

My approach to people management comes down to three main things:

1. identifying talents
2. calibrate talents
3. be Machiavellian

Identifying Talents

It is imperative as a new manager to quickly identify the team’s talent along these dimensions:

1. strengths
2. obessions
3. motivation

Note that individual strengths aren’t identical and are ideally complementary to each other. For instance, A’s strength is coding speed, B’s is designing architecture, C’s is operations, etc.

If the observable strength is the current state, then the potentiality of a future state can be projected with obsession. Ask about an engineer’s obsession early on would often yield invaluable insight. For example, if one states her obsession is machine learning, the manager should find opportunities in related or adjacent fields on her roadmap for her career growth. Once started, the manager should apply pressure by directly challenging her understanding and setting high expectations. She will thank you later.

Equally important is identifying an individual’s motivation. Some are motivated by cutting-edge technologies, some by working with talented colleagues, and others by money — all are valid. Motivation is an engine that makes one wake up wanting to do meaningful things and stay up finishing what they started. Under pressure, it is what sustains someone through hardships and ultimately makes them grow. It is however not sustainable to have just one lopsided motivation. Managers should strive to motivate the individuals across strength, passion, compensation, and mission (see Ikigai), to help them establish a good work-life balance.

Calibrate Talents

No two teams are created alike. A team could consist of all stars or of all coasters. Once the internal view is established, the manager must calibrate the talents against people in the rest of the org. For example, Jenny is a high-performing senior engineer on the team, but judging by her coding throughput and architectural designs against peers outside the team, she is average at best.

The first task of calibration is collecting data. An engineering org must have a collectible and measurable standard across teams to establish a fair and just mechanism of comparison. The second task is to let the individual know where they are on the org-wide scale. This is crucial for catching up and raising the bar.

Be Machiavellian

Niccolo Machiavelli has a bad reputation for being conniving and scheming through his book The Prince. In fact, his central belief is that the best way of managing people in a newly established environment is to strike a balance between being loved and being feared.

It is impractical to aspire to be loved by everyone — such a team would be inspired and happy, but not outperforming and winning. It is not sustainable to be feared by all — such a team would be loss-averse and not innovative. Most people, myself included, tend to want to be liked by all. But in a larger environment, the leader must fight against such instinct or risk regression to the mean.

Using the 20/80 principle, a manager should use positive enforcement to encourage the top 80% and disciplinary enforcement to manage the bottom 20%. With the former cohort, motivate them with incentives and their obsessions; with the latter, use disincentives and disciplines. Spell out the expectations and if they’re not met repeatedly resort to structured coaching and PIP (performance improvement plan) in that order.

Should a manager reserve disciplinary actions only when there is 100% certainty that an individual is at the bottom of the org? No. Performance is both a science and an art — when the metrics indicate low performance, despite disputes and disagreements, disciplinary actions should ensue. It’s doing both the individual and the company a disservice to place him in the wrong place. Vacating a seat on the team allows for a better hire and is also better for him to find a better fit elsewhere.

🙌

In the tech industry where salaries and the need for speed of innovation are extremely high, the room for talent misplacement is not tolerated. I’ve written about project planning as capital allocation in a prior blog post, and people management is very similar.

To create a virtuous environment, people managers must establish a good balance between excellence and comfort. Leaning too far on the former creates stress hence burnout, and leaning too far on the latter creates complacency hence low team impact, both of which eventually lead to attrition.

Recommend reading: You are firing people too late