As a software engineering manager, I’ve had the experience of working with both low and high performers. Some of the low performers were able to turn around, while others had to face the tough decision of leaving the company. On the other hand, I’ve worked with high performers who I supported to gain new skills, and managed to move some of them to the next level.
Managing Low Performers
At one point, my manager had a low performing Technical Program Manager (TPM) reporting into him. Despite providing her with consistent feedback and guiding her, she struggled to improve. Since my manager was super busy, he assigned her to me with the hope that I could help her succeed. To give her a fair opportunity to turn around, I gave her a fresh start regardless of the previous feedback.
I think she was not meeting expectations due to her lack of technical skills, which made it difficult for her to grasp projects dependencies, contribute meaningfully in meetings with the working group, or develop delivery plans and execute on them.
During our 1:1s, I clearly communicated that she was not meeting expectations. I used the SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact) mechanism when discussing performance, clearly outlining the expected actions for each situation. I also followed each 1:1 with an email summarizing our discussion to avoid any miscommunication or ambiguity.
Despite these efforts, I was unable to help her improve, and had to engage the HR and place her on a formal PIP (Performance Improvement Plan). I assigned her to a new project with clear goals, which were approved by both of my manager and the HR to ensure they were appropriate for her role. We held weekly meetings with the HR to track her progress. Unfortunately, after two months without showing the desired improvement, I had to make the difficult decision to let her go.
The process to manage low performers is often the same, it entails setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and offering coaching. However, the challenges you could face as a manager might vary from one individual to another. Some low performers are receptive to feedback, show self-awareness, and understand that your role as a manager to support them. In my experience, the most challenging low performers are those who refuse to acknowledge their areas of improvement, reject feedback and coaching because it will imply that they’re not meeting expectations. As a manager, expect such 1:1s to be difficult and sometimes lead to conflict. If this happens, it’s important not to push too hard to prove your point, as it likely won’t deescalate the situation. Lastly, delivering the decision to put someone on a performance improvement plan or let them leave, which is sometimes the right thing to do, remains painful.
Managing High Performers
Back in the day, when I was a tech lead, I was often reluctant to fully commit to a design or a technology unless I was completely convinced that it is the best fit for the problem we’re trying to solve. If I later find out that my tech choice wasn’t the best, I would do whatever it takes to make it work. Now, as a manager, I worked with a senior software engineer who has excellent technical skills and consistently gets things done. However, we didn’t fully agree on each system design and the technology to use. But, I know, as a software engineer, that allowing them to own the direction forward of their work fosters a sense of commitment and accountability.
Each time we have a design review, I have one of two choices: either trust my team’s design and technology choices, or impose my preferred approach. I usually opt for the former, with two conditions: the proposed solution must meet the functional and non-functional requirements, and the team has already explored other alternatives. Does this approach work perfectly all the time? Of course not. Does it help the team attain new skills and be more engaged? Absolutely. Going with a new technology that the team is not expert in adds a learning curve, creates risk of not delivering, and might not add notable value to the customers. However, doing so is an example of investing in your team, where you help them make decisions and learn new skills.
Stepping back and allowing high performers to take charge of certain decisions can be uncomfortable, especially for new managers with hands-on experience. There is also the challenge of keeping your top performers motivated. It’s not always possible to have enough engaging projects for them. Balancing the allocation of projects with exciting tech stacks might become tricky. You should ensure fair opportunities across the team, deliver results, and keep the top performers motivated. One of the risks in managing top performers is that, because they get things done, they may end up with more work than they can take — essentially being punished for their success. It’s critical to keep an eye on their workload to avoid burnout, and avoid setting them up for failure.
Which one is more challenging?
Each individual, whether they are low or high performers, presents unique challenges. It might be hard to provide feedback to low performers who don’t acknowledge their areas of improvement, which can lead to conflict or unproductive meetings. Placing someone on a performance improvement plan, or letting them go, is also emotionally difficult. On the other hand, managing high performers involves balancing project allocation and maintaining autonomy while providing guidance, ensuring they don’t burn out while delivering on the team’s goals, and setting a clear path to advance in their career, which can often be more demanding.
Placing someone on a performance improvement plan, or letting them go, is also emotionally difficult. On the other hand, managing high performers involves balancing project allocation and maintaining autonomy while providing guidance, and ensuring they don’t burn out while delivering on the team’s goals.
