[LCS] Bitterness resistence

[Sean Chambers]

Now that I've started to turn ships and avoid icebergs in my
organization, I'm starting to run into a pattern with our senior devs
that I have yet to figure out how to manage.

There are four senior devs that have been at this organization for
anywhere from 14 to 22 years. Being there so long they all have a high
level of bitterness in anything new that is presented that they
claimed they have tried before and were shot down and also seem to be
using our agile adoption as a way to rub managements face in the
process every opportunity they have.

Long story short, it's very negative behavior that is really the last
large impediment I'm running into and is preventing me from raising
communication to a higher level as the behavior is negative in nature.

How do you tactfuly approach whining type behavior like this. I've
tried to do it on a per argument basis, but this is tiresome and it
always comes back to this root cause of bitterness. I'm starting to
loose my paitence with them which I don't like to see happening.

On a positive note, management has observed this behavior as well and
is attempting to dilute them with new hires that are familiar with
agile processes so that hopefully we win through simple numbers.

It's one battle I'm not sure how to approach short of ignoring them
and continuig forward, even though they have valuable contributions
for the team.

Pointers? Opinions?

Sean

[Scott Duncan]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sean Chambers <scham...@gmail.com> wrote:

How do you tactfuly approach whining type behavior like this. I've tried to do it on a per argument basis, but this is tiresome and it always comes back to this root cause of bitterness. I'm starting to loose my paitence with them which I don't like to see happening.

I know what you mean about the argument-by-argument approach getting tiresome.  I am not sure there is any real way around this if management does not step in at some point.

 

On a positive note, management has observed this behavior as well and is attempting to dilute them with new hires that are familiar with agile processes so that hopefully we win through simple numbers.

Which is why I say what I did above.  If they see this, the concern must be that the people are too important to oppose in any serious way.  Trying to overwhelm them with numbers is a long-term, and back door, way to approach the problem.

 

It's one battle I'm not sure how to approach short of ignoring them and continuig forward, even though they have valuable contributions for the team.

And when you say they do have useful things to contribute, diluting the issue seems more like trying to marginalize, rather than deal with, them.  Maginalization isn't going to help them contribute effectively.

 

Frankly, I would talk to management about a serious sit down with them to address their issues.  If they have been ignored or shot down in the past, perhaps management needs to acknowledge this and ask them for their contributions and support now.  If they actually refuse, then management may need to either accept the disruptions this costs (due to needing them) or take action to remove their influence (if there is other work they can do).  (And without personal kinowledge of the people and history, I'd never suggest anything more serious as a solution.)

[Dave]

> Long story short, it's very negative behavior that is really the last  
> large impediment I'm running into and is preventing me from raising  
> communication to a higher level as the behavior is negative in nature.

One possible action is to quantify the effect of their behavior on the
organization's improvement program and communicate it to management
objectively. It's the behavior that matters and not the personalities
or emotions involved; it's sometimes tricky to keep things like this
on an objective level, though.

> I've  
> tried to do it on a per argument basis, but this is tiresome and it  
> always comes back to this root cause of bitterness. I'm starting to  
> loose my paitence with them which I don't like to see happening.

Without seeing the environment and meeting the people involved, it's
risky to make assumptions. That said, I'll suggest that addressing
their "arguments" directly may be a waste of time. If they are like
most people in that situation, they aren't really making "arguments"
that they care to discuss. For every "argument" you knock down, they
will find another. The "arguments" are like the tip of the Satir
iceberg. What they're really doing is expressing indirectly their
personal feelings about the changes.

If you're willing to work with them on that level, you may be able to
make some progress. You'll have to discover the deeper reasons why
they are resistant to the changes. Then you'd have to figure out how
to help them see the advantages /to themselves/ that they might enjoy
if they became leaders of change instead of opponents. Obviously there
is nothing quick or easy about this approach.

> On a positive note, management has observed this behavior as well and  
> is attempting to dilute them with new hires that are familiar with  
> agile processes so that hopefully we win through simple numbers.

I'm skeptical about this as a strategy to dilute their influence,
although there's nothing wrong generally with recruiting new employees
who already have experience in the newly-introduced methods. A senior-
level professional who has tenure in the organization will be able to
overcome just about any numerical advantage his "opponents" may have,
if he is determined to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

> It's one battle I'm not sure how to approach short of ignoring them  
> and continuig forward, even though they have valuable contributions  
> for the team.

I don't think you or management can afford to ignore them. IMHO they
need to find some personal benefit in helping with the transition, or
look for work elsewhere. There may be opportunities within the company
for individual contributors who need not work as part of an agile
team. If they just won't respond to any approach, then ultimately
there will be some uncomfortable decisions to make.

As to their perceived value, in many cases the individual contributors
who know the organization and the technical environment very well
aren't as indispensable as they may appear. I suspect that if one of
them left the company tomorrow, the impact would be far smaller than
everyone assumes it would be. Maybe they need to come to grips with
that fact, as well as finding a way to support the changes. A bit of
positive reinforcement and a bit of negative.

Tough problem. Good luck!

Dave

[Mark Levison]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sean Chambers <scham...@gmail.com> wrote:

Now that I've started to turn ships and avoid icebergs in my organization, I'm starting to run into a pattern with our senior devs that I have yet to figure out how to manage.

There are four senior devs that have been at this organization for anywhere from 14 to 22 years. Being there so long they all have a high level of bitterness in anything new that is presented that they claimed they have tried before and were shot down and also seem to be using our agile adoption as a way to rub managements face in the process every opportunity they have.

Systems Thinking maybe your friend here. Why are they behaving this way? What pressures/history do they have? Once you've understood, ask them what one thing you would need to change to get their support that this is different. Remember these people have been burned for years for doing something new/different, you need to provide the support they need to grow into new people.

I'm thinking the interesting and difficult work in Agile isn't around Scaling, its around humans and understanding their psychology.

Cheers

Mark 

[Janet Gregory]

Thanks Mark for that reminder. I find it is so easy to get caught up in the day to day issues, I forget to step back. This is one lesson I need repeated many times.... pretty much each time I go into a new consulting gig.

 

Janet

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Sean Chambers wrote:

> How do you tactfuly approach whining type behavior like this. I've tried
> to do it on a per argument basis, but this is tiresome and it always
> comes back to this root cause of bitterness. I'm starting to loose my
> paitence with them which I don't like to see happening.

I remember early advice related to the question "How do I get the senior
programmers on my team to program in pairs?" Tell them that you need them.

It seems to me that four people with a combined 50-80 years' experience
in your organization would prove invaluable allies in trying to help the
organization improve. Yes, they seem bitter, but they also know a lot
about how to survive, and even thrive, in the particular dysfunctions
that organization has developed over the decades. I imagine that if you
could mindmeld with them, but keep your positive attitude, then you'd
kick some serious ass there, right?

So pick the one of them you could see yourself bonding with and try to
really seriously become that person's friend. Tell him* that your
idealism and his experience would make an amazing combination in
improving the way things work. Your idealism stops his bitterness from
thwarting attempts to improve things before you try them. His experience
stops your ignorance from spiraling out of control and gives you the
subtle tacit information about this organization that you need to work
effectively. Together, you could transform the organization into what it
needs to become and what it can become with less pain for the two of you.

My business partner Niraj and I work this way. He brings me high-risk
opportunities. He brings me ideas that sound ridiculous. Once, we lost
$60k+ on an opportunity he brought to me. Once, however, we each made
about $500k. It makes us fight like dogs sometimes, but he forces me to
consider high-risk opportunities and I force him to do better due
diligence. The result? Our work together was instrumental in providing
the cash to let me become financially free at age 34. When he sells his
26-unit apartment building, he'll be most of the way to financial
freedom himself. It's more than worth all the fighting. You might have a
similar relationship with one of those crusty, bitter senior
programmers, if you let it happen.

----
*As usual, the masculine imparts the feminine, and the singular imparts
the plural. Do not send cards and letters.
--
J. B. Rainsberger :: http://www.jbrains.ca ::
http://www.thecodewhisperer.com

[John Goodsen]

I really wish I could get all jived up on this systems thinking, bring-them-around thinking, but you know what?  I am becoming more bitter.  If you're working with 10+ year experienced devs and they are just flat-out outta touch with technology - fire them.  Fire them fast and don't look back. I am sooooo tired of "experts" that don't know basics like O/R mapping, etc....  sometimes I think our title of "coach" is misleading - we are really app design mentors and agile is just a process we use to produce results.

Some new metrics I carry with me:  (1) If you don't know what O/R Mapping is, you're fired.  (2) If you don't know what RESTful service API's are, you're fired (3) if you still think you need to schedule meetings to flesh out architecture that you haven't built in the last year, you're fired.

... and so on ....

I think Donald Trump and I need to create a board game ...

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sean Chambers <scham...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
John Goodsen                 RADSoft / Better Software Faster
jgoo...@radsoft.com            Lean/Agile/XP/Scrum Coaching and Training
http://www.radsoft.com          Ruby on Rails and Java Solutions

[Chris Pitts]

> Some new metrics I carry with me: (1) If you don't know what O/R
> Mapping is, you're fired. (2) If you don't know what RESTful
> service API's are, you're fired (3) if you still think you need to
> schedule meetings to flesh out architecture that you haven't built
> in the last year, you're fired.

Are you sure you're not Alan Sugar in disguise?

:-)
--
On the road. Sent from my iPhone.

[J. B. Rainsberger]

John Goodsen wrote:

> I really wish I could get all jived up on this systems thinking,
> bring-them-around thinking, but you know what? I am becoming more
> bitter. If you're working with 10+ year experienced devs and they are
> just flat-out outta touch with technology - fire them. Fire them fast
> and don't look back. I am sooooo tired of "experts" that don't know
> basics like O/R mapping, etc.... sometimes I think our title of "coach"
> is misleading - we are really app design mentors and agile is just a
> process we use to produce results.

I agree. I assumed, since I didn't know otherwise, that these senior
programmers have a clue. If they don't, then dump the assholes and help
move the others into advisory positions.

[Glenn Waters]

Do you fire the people that don't know O/R, RESTful, etc. or do you fire the manager in the company that created such dysfunction that the people don't have a hope of being able to learn and use these technologies?

As Deming says "the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management".

Glenn

[Dave Rooney]

On 05/14/2010 05:40 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> John Goodsen wrote:
>
>> I really wish I could get all jived up on this systems thinking,
>> bring-them-around thinking, but you know what? I am becoming more
>> bitter. If you're working with 10+ year experienced devs and they are
>> just flat-out outta touch with technology - fire them. Fire them fast
>> and don't look back. I am sooooo tired of "experts" that don't know
>> basics like O/R mapping, etc.... sometimes I think our title of "coach"
>> is misleading - we are really app design mentors and agile is just a
>> process we use to produce results.
>
> I agree. I assumed, since I didn't know otherwise, that these senior
> programmers have a clue. If they don't, then dump the assholes and
> help move the others into advisory positions.

Uh, how about start by taking away the excuse that they don't have the
time to learn new things? How about ensuring that they have enough of
an education budget to learn new things? How about some enlightened
management to arrange people such that ideas are shared amongst the team
members?

How about treating them like human beings, gentlemen? Calling them
assholes only makes us look like elitist assholes ourselves.

Dave...

[Mark Levison]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dave Rooney <davero...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 05/14/2010 05:40 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:

John Goodsen wrote:

I really wish I could get all jived up on this systems thinking,
bring-them-around thinking, but you know what?  I am becoming more
bitter.  If you're working with 10+ year experienced devs and they are
just flat-out outta touch with technology - fire them.  Fire them fast
and don't look back. I am sooooo tired of "experts" that don't know
basics like O/R mapping, etc....  sometimes I think our title of "coach"
is misleading - we are really app design mentors and agile is just a
process we use to produce results.

Interestingly I think you would fire me, I never did commit to O/R.

I agree. I assumed, since I didn't know otherwise, that these senior programmers have a clue. If they don't, then dump the assholes and help move the others into advisory positions.

Uh, how about start by taking away the excuse that they don't have the time to learn new things?  How about ensuring that they have enough of an education budget to learn new things?  How about some enlightened management to arrange people such that ideas are shared amongst the team members?

How about treating them like human beings, gentlemen?  Calling them assholes only makes us look like elitist assholes ourselves.

I'm with Dave I do my best to treat them like humans. Maybe the problem is the people, maybe its the management, maybe its somewhere else. 

Cheers

Mark 

[Keith Ray]

I don't think bitterness and coaching are compatible. When you find yourself saying "they don't deserve my help" it's time to fire yourself.

I'm talking about bitterness in the coach himself.

C. Keith Ray

Agile Coaching, training, eLearning 

http://www.industriallogic.com 

Sent from my iPhone

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Dave Rooney wrote:

> Uh, how about start by taking away the excuse that they don't have the
> time to learn new things? How about ensuring that they have enough of an
> education budget to learn new things? How about some enlightened
> management to arrange people such that ideas are shared amongst the team
> members?
>
> How about treating them like human beings, gentlemen? Calling them
> assholes only makes us look like elitist assholes ourselves.

I think I said that I assumed none of them were assholes. If some of
them /are/ assholes, then certainly fire them; but the ones that aren't
assholes would make awesome advisors, even if their technical knowledge
is obsolete.

I think that some people, such as those who've reached the point of
becoming assholes, need help that goes well beyond work, and I know that
when a company hires me, they don't expect me to put their top people
through talk therapy.

So, to be clear, I didn't call anyone an asshole. I merely stated that I
assume people aren't assholes until they prove it and then I treat them
differently. Is that really so controversial?

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Keith Ray wrote:

> I don't think bitterness and coaching are compatible. When you find
> yourself saying "they don't deserve my help" it's time to fire yourself.
>
> I'm talking about bitterness in the coach himself.

Some days I find walking the line between "they don't deserve my help"
and "they're not ready for my help" difficult, although I do try my
hardest not to judge. That said, I think we do ourselves a disservice
when we think that because we can coach people to think clearly and
program well that we can function as life coaches or therapists. We have
to know when to stop trying to help.

[Michael Hill]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Janet Gregory <janet_...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> This is one lesson I need repeated
> many times.... pretty much each time I go into a new consulting gig.
>
> Janet
>

We have a saying at my house, derived from the experience of cracking
our heads on the stairway when pulling firewood we store under it:

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me three-hundred and thirty-seven
consecutive times, shame on me.

[Janet Gregory]

Are you saying I'm not going to learn this lesson until I repeat it 337 times ... consecutively? If I remember even once, I have to start all over?  :-) 

 

I hope I learn a lot faster than that, though I think I am doomed to get caught in that trap more than once. I aim for not repeating that mistake, but hope to recognize my mistake earlier.

 

~janet

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hill <mike...@anarchycreek.com>
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: [LCS] Bitterness resistence

[Michael Hill]

All I'm saying is that it has taken a very long time for me to learn
to duck while picking up wood and *continue* to duck until I'm at the
stove. I'm sure I look humpbackish to any observer, but that sharp
wooden corner hurts big-time.

As far as I know, you're much smarter than me, so it might not take
337 times. :)

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

> I think that some people, such as those who've reached the point of becoming
> assholes, need help that goes well beyond work, and I know that when a
> company hires me, they don't expect me to put their top people through talk
> therapy.

It's not my impression to be very effective to treat work as being
separated from live.

It's also not my impression that as coaches we are most effective when
we do exactly what our clients expected us to do.

> So, to be clear, I didn't call anyone an asshole. I merely stated that I
> assume people aren't assholes until they prove it and then I treat them
> differently. Is that really so controversial?

I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.

It's when I'm able to remind myself of the fact that I really believe
in the Retrospective Prime Directive that I become able to effectively
deal with the situation again. It's not always easy, and sometimes I
need help from a buddy to be able to do that, but it's exactly those
situations where it proves to be most helpful.

Cheers, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

> Some days I find walking the line between "they don't deserve my help" and
> "they're not ready for my help" difficult, although I do try my hardest not
> to judge. That said, I think we do ourselves a disservice when we think that
> because we can coach people to think clearly and program well that we can
> function as life coaches or therapists. We have to know when to stop trying
> to help.

It's certainly good and necessary to know and respect our boundaries.

And I think burried in what you wrote is another perspective to look
at it: "*I* don't have the right skills to help them." And *if* that's
a reason to fire someone, that someone should probably be me, I'd
think. Of course I'd expect there to be other options, too...

Kind Regards, Ilja

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/16 Ilja Preuß <iljap...@googlemail.com>

Hi Joe,

> I think that some people, such as those who've reached the point of becoming
> assholes, need help that goes well beyond work, and I know that when a
> company hires me, they don't expect me to put their top people through talk
> therapy.

It's not my impression to be very effective to treat work as being
separated from live.

It's also not my impression that as coaches we are most effective when
we do exactly what our clients expected us to do.

> So, to be clear, I didn't call anyone an asshole. I merely stated that I
> assume people aren't assholes until they prove it and then I treat them
> differently. Is that really so controversial?

I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.

It's an anti pattern, called "flip the bozo" bit in dynamics of software development.

people can do much more then what you think you can do.

everytime I tell people they can do something, (even when I personally think they can't)

they do it. 

 It's when I'm able to remind myself of the fact that I really believe

in the Retrospective Prime Directive that I become able to effectively
deal with the situation again. It's not always easy, and sometimes I
need help from a buddy to be able to do that, but it's exactly those
situations where it proves to be most helpful.

yes

sometimes being open about this helps.

y

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Ilja Preu� wrote:

>> I think that some people, such as those who've reached the point of becoming
>> assholes, need help that goes well beyond work, and I know that when a
>> company hires me, they don't expect me to put their top people through talk
>> therapy.
>
> It's not my impression to be very effective to treat work as being
> separated from live.

I understand that, but as software development coaches, we focus on
coaching issues related to software development, as opposed to general
life coaching.

> It's also not my impression that as coaches we are most effective when
> we do exactly what our clients expected us to do.

I understand that, but we also can't just so whatever we want: we must
do something related to what our clients expected us to do.

>> So, to be clear, I didn't call anyone an asshole. I merely stated that I
>> assume people aren't assholes until they prove it and then I treat them
>> differently. Is that really so controversial?
>
> I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
> impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
> typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.

I agree. And yet, some people are assholes. Perhaps not many, and I
never want to listen to my immediate judgments of people, but some
people are, simply, assholes.

> It's when I'm able to remind myself of the fact that I really believe
> in the Retrospective Prime Directive that I become able to effectively
> deal with the situation again. It's not always easy, and sometimes I
> need help from a buddy to be able to do that, but it's exactly those
> situations where it proves to be most helpful.

I agree with that, too, but after years of dealing with a person who
doesn't show a willingness to work with me, I will eventually declare
him and asshole and move on. It takes years, but it happens. I will have
tried fifty things before then, but it happens.

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Absolutely. If there are 20 people trying to work together, and my
coaching helps 18 in a clear way, but not the other 2, then both "I
don't have the right to skills to help those 2" and ("The client might
have to fire those 2 because they don't fit with other 18" or "The
client might have to fire me to find someone to help all 20" or "The
client might decide to let me help the 18 enough, then fire me and find
someone to help the 2").... or something else entirely.

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

>> It's not my impression to be very effective to treat work as being
>> separated from live.
>
> I understand that, but as software development coaches, we focus on coaching
> issues related to software development, as opposed to general life coaching.

I thought we were talking about cases were general life *is* an issue
related to software development - where a general life issue is
keeping someone from being an as good contributor to software
development has s/he could be.

>> It's also not my impression that as coaches we are most effective when
>> we do exactly what our clients expected us to do.
>
> I understand that, but we also can't just so whatever we want: we must do
> something related to what our clients expected us to do.

Yes, there is certainly contracting with the client involved before we
can do something like "life coaching". And it's not unheard of.

>> I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
>> impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
>> typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.
>
> I agree. And yet, some people are assholes. Perhaps not many, and I never
> want to listen to my immediate judgments of people, but some people are,
> simply, assholes.

I wholeheartedly disagree. "Being an asshole" is a property of a
relationship, not of a person.

>> It's when I'm able to remind myself of the fact that I really believe
>> in the Retrospective Prime Directive that I become able to effectively
>> deal with the situation again. It's not always easy, and sometimes I
>> need help from a buddy to be able to do that, but it's exactly those
>> situations where it proves to be most helpful.
>
> I agree with that, too, but after years of dealing with a person who doesn't
> show a willingness to work with me, I will eventually declare him and
> asshole and move on. It takes years, but it happens. I will have tried fifty
> things before then, but it happens.

I hope I won't, because I think I would only kid myself and deny
myself peace of mind. Your mileage might vary.

No hard feelings, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

>> And I think burried in what you wrote is another perspective to look
>> at it: "*I* don't have the right skills to help them." And *if* that's
>> a reason to fire someone, that someone should probably be me, I'd
>> think. Of course I'd expect there to be other options, too...
>
> Absolutely. If there are 20 people trying to work together, and my coaching
> helps 18 in a clear way, but not the other 2, then both "I don't have the
> right to skills to help those 2" and ("The client might have to fire those 2
> because they don't fit with other 18" or "The client might have to fire me
> to find someone to help all 20" or "The client might decide to let me help
> the 18 enough, then fire me and find someone to help the 2").... or
> something else entirely.

Full agreement. One option I might prefer is "the client might decide
to get someone to work with me together on this issue".

Cheers, Ilja

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/18 Ilja Preuß <iljap...@googlemail.com>

I'll try to translate how I use what Joe says:

The cost for me of dealing with that person costs a lot more then the benefits I get from working with that person.

In other words that relation costs me more then what I want to invest.

I think you are lucky not to have met such a person.

I have met 2 such persons in my life, and as long as I kept trying, I had no piece of mind. From the moment I tried to leave them behind, I have more or less a piece of mind, untill something happens that make me think about these people.

(like this thread ;-) )

Live is too short to try to be friends or collegues with everyone.

Realizing who you can't help as a coach is one of the hardest parts

and yes I agree with that it's a property of the relation and not of the person.

y

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Yves,

> I'll try to translate how I use what Joe says:
> The cost for me of dealing with that person costs a lot more then the
> benefits I get from working with that person.
> In other words that relation costs me more then what I want to invest.
> I think you are lucky not to have met such a person.
> I have met 2 such persons in my life, and as long as I kept trying, I had no
> piece of mind. From the moment I tried to leave them behind, I have more or
> less a piece of mind, untill something happens that make me think about
> these people.
> (like this thread ;-) )
> Live is too short to try to be friends or collegues with everyone.
> Realizing who you can't help as a coach is one of the hardest parts
> and yes I agree with that it's a property of the relation and not of the
> person.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just wouldn't call such a person an
"asshole". To me that would feel like I'm not taking responsibility
for my side of the relationship.

I don't need to be able to deal with everyone. I also don't need to
label that other person "asshole" to be able to let the relationship
go. It's not his fault that I can't deal with him. It just is.

Cheers, Ilja

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Ilja Preu� wrote:

> I thought we were talking about cases were general life *is* an issue
> related to software development - where a general life issue is
> keeping someone from being an as good contributor to software
> development has s/he could be.

I think we are, too, so let me illustrate the difference I mean to convey:

Suppose we have someone who refuses to work with others because he's
afraid they'll see him as incompetent. We conclude that we will try to
help him become more comfortable by showing how many people on the team
have similar concerns, or by emphasizing how we react to our own
mistakes. These are the types of coaching tactics I consider within our
grasp, relevant, and appropriate.

Now suppose further that he responds well initially to our coaching, but
remains quite reserved. We don't know, but it turns out that he grew up
in a householder with an abusive father who yelled at him or hurt him
whenever he made a mistake, however small. This represents the primary
reason he feels so insecure about his own competence. Even if we manage
to uncover this issue, I don't think we should try to fix it, even
though we might commiserate, tell similar stories from our childhood (if
we have them) and even try to empathize deeply with him. After that, he
needs talk therapy with a licenced psychologist.

I hope that shows you the difference. I think we do well to get to the
personal root of a business problem, but when we try to dive into the
emotionally-charged root causes of the personal problem, I think we
overstep our bounds.

>>> I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
>>> impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
>>> typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.
>> I agree. And yet, some people are assholes. Perhaps not many, and I never
>> want to listen to my immediate judgments of people, but some people are,
>> simply, assholes.
>
> I wholeheartedly disagree. "Being an asshole" is a property of a
> relationship, not of a person.

Hm. I see your point, and yet, when a person acts like an asshole to the
vast majority of the people with whom he interacts, then I really do
think that become "being an asshole" in general.

>> I agree with that, too, but after years of dealing with a person who doesn't
>> show a willingness to work with me, I will eventually declare him and
>> asshole and move on. It takes years, but it happens. I will have tried fifty
>> things before then, but it happens.
>
> I hope I won't, because I think I would only kid myself and deny
> myself peace of mind. Your mileage might vary.

Indeed. We all use our limited energy differently.

> No hard feelings, Ilja

Of course. I couldn't imagine you to be capable of stirring up such
harsh emotions in me. :)

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Ilja Preu� wrote:

> I wholeheartedly agree. I just wouldn't call such a person an
> "asshole". To me that would feel like I'm not taking responsibility
> for my side of the relationship.

Believe me: I take great care to distinguish between "you are an
asshole" and "you are acting at this moment to me like an asshole". I
only conclude the first in the most extreme cases of indiscriminate and
consistent acting as an asshole.

> I don't need to be able to deal with everyone. I also don't need to
> label that other person "asshole" to be able to let the relationship
> go. It's not his fault that I can't deal with him. It just is.

I agree with this, and like the generous interpretation; however, I
think we lose something when accept all responsibility for dealing with
a problem person. I think there's more than just "I can't deal with
him". I think there's also "He just won't try to be reasonable". Of
course, I find it hard to balance responsibility with someone who
already acts the way this kind of person would act towards me. :)

I applaud wanting to defer judgment longer than the average person, but
I think one needs to be willing to judge in at least the extreme cases,
otherwise one runs the risk of developing an inferiority complex, or an
Atlas complex.

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/18 J. B. Rainsberger <jbrain...@gmail.com>

Ilja Preuß wrote:

I thought we were talking about cases were general life *is* an issue
related to software development - where a general life issue is
keeping someone from being an as good contributor to software
development has s/he could be.

I think we are, too, so let me illustrate the difference I mean to convey:

Suppose we have someone who refuses to work with others because he's afraid they'll see him as incompetent. We conclude that we will try to help him become more comfortable by showing how many people on the team have similar concerns, or by emphasizing how we react to our own mistakes. These are the types of coaching tactics I consider within our grasp, relevant, and appropriate.

Now suppose further that he responds well initially to our coaching, but remains quite reserved. We don't know, but it turns out that he grew up in a householder with an abusive father who yelled at him or hurt him whenever he made a mistake, however small. This represents the primary reason he feels so insecure about his own competence. Even if we manage to uncover this issue, I don't think we should try to fix it, even though we might commiserate, tell similar stories from our childhood (if we have them) and even try to empathize deeply with him. After that, he needs talk therapy with a licenced psychologist.

I hope that shows you the difference. I think we do well to get to the personal root of a business problem, but when we try to dive into the emotionally-charged root causes of the personal problem, I think we overstep our bounds.

I find that once I put someone in an asshole (or similar) box, it's an
impediment to me treating them effectively as a coach. And it
typically says as much about me and my neuroses as about them.

I agree. And yet, some people are assholes. Perhaps not many, and I never
want to listen to my immediate judgments of people, but some people are,
simply, assholes.

I wholeheartedly disagree. "Being an asshole" is a property of a
relationship, not of a person.

Hm. I see your point, and yet, when a person acts like an asshole to the vast majority of the people with whom he interacts, then I really do think that become "being an asshole" in general.

mm, that is also something they learned (like you so nicely described in this mail)

 

or that is something you have learned...

;-)

I agree with that, too, but after years of dealing with a person who doesn't
show a willingness to work with me, I will eventually declare him and
asshole and move on. It takes years, but it happens. I will have tried fifty
things before then, but it happens.

I hope I won't, because I think I would only kid myself and deny
myself peace of mind. Your mileage might vary.

Indeed. We all use our limited energy differently.

No hard feelings, Ilja

Of course. I couldn't imagine you to be capable of stirring up such harsh emotions in me. :)

I can''t imagine Ilja stirring up  such emotions in anyone.

;-)

[Sean Chambers]

Ironically enough, the person I was originally referring to falls into the latter. I believe he had issues in his childhood that are carried over into his daily interactions with team members and people in general.

Sean


On May 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, "J. B. Rainsberger" <jbrain...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen]

On a related note:

http://5whys.com/blog/exclude-a-team-member-ndash-and-yoursquore-an-idiot.html

I have to admit though, I think that given the state of our industry..
Imagine all the hundreds of thousands of people who were virtually
forced/sucked into VB/PHP development (and did a crappy job at that),
and then later "re-educated" to Java/C# programmers.. They only stick
to it because of job-security and money. Doesn't that mean that there
a lot of people out there that need to be let go?

If we say "firing somebody is never the solution", we're basically
saying that every person is fit for software development. Is this the
case?

-Thomas

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/25 Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen <tfn...@gmail.com>

On a related note:

http://5whys.com/blog/exclude-a-team-member-ndash-and-yoursquore-an-idiot.html

I have to admit though, I think that given the state of our industry..
Imagine all the hundreds of thousands of people who were virtually
forced/sucked into VB/PHP development (and did a crappy job at that),
and then later "re-educated" to Java/C# programmers.. They only stick
to it because of job-security and money. Doesn't that mean that there
a lot of people out there that need to be let go?

If we say "firing somebody is never the solution", we're basically
saying that every person is fit for software development. Is this the
case?

For me never firing is not a solution.

and sometimes people learn a lot by being fired.

By not firing people, you might avoid to teach them a lesson.

I agree there are other ways of teaching.

(sometime avoid to tell something and prefer to fire someone)

Roy says try for 4 months and then fire them.

I see case where 4 months was too long and others it was not enough.

spending 4 months a lot of energy in someone you are not happy with send a wrong message to the rest of the team in my opinion.

Also, people might be dumb in one part and mart somewhere else.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/05/multiple-dumbnesses.html

this would be reasons to keep trying for 4 months but focussing on the good parts

--
Yves Hanoulle
Agile Coach EMEA

FR  +33 6 03 40 38 00
BEL +32 9 277 91 99 (Arrives on France Cellphone)

Blog: www.Hanoulle.be

See you at:

Agile Coach Camp Germany (30 April -  2 May 2010 ) http://ww.agilecoachcamp.eu
Agile Train to Trontheim (31 Mai)
Xp 2010 (1-4 June Norway) www.xp2010.org I will be delivering my Leadership Game.
Agile 2010 www.agile2010.org What I learned from burning down my parents house.
Agile Eastern Europe (8-10 October 2010, Kiev) http://www.agileee.org/
XPDay Benelux (25-26 November 2010) www.xpday.be

[Michael Hill]

I've only ever lost three. Two quit, one was canned.

I felt then and feel now that somehow I let them down.

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Yves,

> and sometimes people learn a lot by being fired.
> By not firing people, you might avoid to teach them a lesson.

If you fire someone, you have no control at all over what they will
learn from it. So, you didn't teach them, even if they should learn a
lot.

Anyway, how do you decide that firing someone will teach them
something they should learn? And how do you decide whether it's worth
the pain? What makes you qualified to make that decision for the
other, when even a trained therapist, let alone life coach, wouldn't
dare to?

Let's not kid ourselves: forcing someone into a situation they don't
want to be in "for their own good" is wishful thinking at best,
arrogant at worst. Even if we should be lucky enough that it works,
now and then.

> I agree there are other ways of teaching.
> (sometime avoid to tell something and prefer to fire someone)
> Roy says try for 4 months and then fire them.
> I see case where 4 months was too long and others it was not enough.
> spending 4 months a lot of energy in someone you are not happy with send a
> wrong message to the rest of the team in my opinion.

I notice that the focus shifted from what's good for the person
potentially being fired, to what's good for someone else.

Cheers, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Thomas,

> I have to admit though, I think that given the state of our industry..
> Imagine all the hundreds of thousands of people who were virtually
> forced/sucked into VB/PHP development (and did a crappy job at that),
> and then later "re-educated" to Java/C# programmers.. They only stick
> to it because of job-security and money. Doesn't that mean that there
> a lot of people out there that need to be let go?

First, unless you are keeping slaves, you don't let people go. Either
they want to go, in which case they probably quit, or they don't, in
which case you fire them. "Letting someone go" might sound less
painful to the person who is inflicting the change on the employee,
but it doesn't make it less painful for the one being quit - just less
respectful.

Second, we won't have that problem unless we actually hired those
persons. And we probably have contributed to them being where they are
in their career. Now we have the choice to either show responsibility
and loyality to our employees, or to show simple free market
opportunistic behavior. What kind of behavior would you like your
employees to show?

> If we say "firing somebody is never the solution", we're basically
> saying that every person is fit for software development. Is this the
> case?

No, it's not the case, and it's also not what we are saying if we say
"firing somebody is never the solution".

What three alternative solutions to firing can you think of if someone
is not a good software developer?

Cheers, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

I hear you saying that we shouldn't deal with whole-life-coaching
issues because we are generally not equipped with the knowledge and
tools to do so. With which I wholeheartedly agree.

No assume for a moment that you were an Agile Coach who, for some
reason, *was* equipped with the knowledge and tools to do
whole-life-coaching. Would still consider it inappropriate to use that
in an Agile Coaching situation?

Curious, Ilja

2010/5/18 J. B. Rainsberger <jbrain...@gmail.com>:

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

I certainly don't take responsibility for the other person's behavior.
I also don't *blame* myself for not being able to deal with it. That's
why I wrote "It just is" - I try to accept that I'm just not equipped
(at the moment) to deal with it (after all, I don't need to be
perfect); and in what I consider to be my best moments, I also accept
that the other person's behavior is the best behavior s/he can show at
the moment. I can't say that I feel superior or inferior in those
moments - mostly, I just feel in peace, perhaps mixed with a bit of
curiosity.

Cheers, Ilja

[Thomas Ferris Nicolaisen]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Ilja Preuß <iljap...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> First, unless you are keeping slaves, you don't let people go. Either
> they want to go, in which case they probably quit, or they don't, in
> which case you fire them. "Letting someone go" might sound less
> painful to the person who is inflicting the change on the employee,
> but it doesn't make it less painful for the one being quit - just less
> respectful.

Fair nuff. I've never been in a position to fire anyone yet, so
haven't done any harm here.

> Second, we won't have that problem unless we actually hired those
> persons. And we probably have contributed to them being where they are
> in their career. Now we have the choice to either show responsibility
> and loyality to our employees, or to show simple free market
> opportunistic behavior. What kind of behavior would you like your
> employees to show?

Well, I think the role of us as coaches is not that utilitarian. We're
here to help our clients, which I suppose means, among other things,
correct the stupid business decisions they've made in the past. Many
clients are dysfunctional organizations, and have created some
dysfunctional relationships in their hiring strategy (or lack
thereof). I also bet that many of these organizations don't want to
whip up the cash to correct their mistakes by showing responsibility
and loyalty to their non-productive employees.

In my organization, I wouldn't suggest any firing. Sure, there are
some people who are a bit slow at unit-testing, but I would say the
net-efficiency of each of them is positive. Also, when you take into
account the social damage it would do to the team, ordering a
termination can be a very expensive decision.

Anyhow, here in Germany, also in Norway, it is practically impossible
to fire anyone after they've passed their 3-month trial period. So the
whole consideration is a bit pointless for me, I have to admit.

> What three alternative solutions to firing can you think of if someone
> is not a good software developer?

1) Make her/him a good software developer (but I think this thread is
about cases where this has been tried and found to be beyond the
ability of the coach and/or organization).
2) Re-educate to be something other than a software developer within
the organization.
3) Explain the whole situation to them and hope they quit on their own account.

-Thomas

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/25 Ilja Preuß <iljap...@googlemail.com>

Hi Yves,

> and sometimes people learn a lot by being fired.
> By not firing people, you might avoid to teach them a lesson.

If you fire someone, you have no control at all over what they will
learn from it. So, you didn't teach them, even if they should learn a
lot.

By firing I tell them that the situation is so bad that I don't think it is valuabele anymore to work with them.

I agree I don't know what they will learn.

Medium is the message.

Sometime people need a big medium to understand the message

 

when you say this is not acceptable and don't take actions when they keep doing it, you now have a problme, nnot with that one person, but with everyone else in the team.

When one of my kids misbehaves, and I don't have the energy to react (because it is sunday morning and I don't want to get out of my bed) I can garantee you that within 30 minutes all three are misbehaving.

Anyway, how do you decide that firing someone will teach them
something they should learn? And how do you decide whether it's worth
the pain? What makes you qualified to make that decision for the
other, when even a trained therapist, let alone life coach, wouldn't
dare to?

it's not based on that I take the decision, it's based on the fact that I don't want to spend more time/energy/money to make the situation better.

 

 

Let's not kid ourselves: forcing someone into a situation they don't
want to be in

what makes you think this is a situation they don't want to be in?

"for their own good" is wishful thinking at best, arrogant at worst. Even if we should be lucky enough that it works,

now and then.

> I agree there are other ways of teaching.
> (sometime avoid to tell something and prefer to fire someone)
> Roy says try for 4 months and then fire them.
> I see case where 4 months was too long and others it was not enough.
> spending 4 months a lot of energy in someone you are not happy with send a
> wrong message to the rest of the team in my opinion.

I notice that the focus shifted from what's good for the person
potentially being fired, to what's good for someone else.

I think as a team leader/ manager of a company you have to think about the whole team.

and not just that one person.

y 

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Ilja Preu� wrote:

> No assume for a moment that you were an Agile Coach who, for some
> reason, *was* equipped with the knowledge and tools to do
> whole-life-coaching. Would still consider it inappropriate to use that
> in an Agile Coaching situation?

I find this one a bit tricky, because of two conflicting pieces of advice:

1. Don't try to solve the problem they didn't hire you to solve.
2. They usually don't know what their problem is.

Of course, those conflicting bits of advice have nothing to do
specifically with the situation we describe. I deal with it when a
client hires me to teach TDD and I help by also nudging the team to work
together better. I suppose that, in that situation, I fall back on
Hippocrates: do no harm. I try to do the best I can for my client, based
on the way I see it, without doing harm. That means that I gather more
information than I need to decide what to do, and I remain keenly aware
of the consequences of doing what I decide.

Given that, I suppose I can find it appropriate to use life-coaching
skills in an agile coaching situation, under some circumstances.

[Dave Rooney]

At last year's Cutter Consortium Summit Vince Kellen, the CIO of the U
of Kentucky, spoke about this very topic.

When he took that position, he met with each and every person in his
organization. He simply asked them what they loved to do, i.e. what got
them out of bed in the morning other than a paycheque. He then
completely flipped the normal model of "find a person to fit a role"
into "find a role to fit the person". His goal was to get the people in
his organization to be "on fire", i.e. in a state of flow for as long
and as often as possible.

He touched on what he did when there were people who either didn't want
to be there or didn't cut it even after extensive training and
coaching. He helped them find their next job.

In a few cases, the people decided that they actually didn't want to
leave, likely because they realized they had some enlightened management
with whom they could work. However, most others did take the help and
find something else more suited to them. Vince said, tongue in cheek,
that he liked this approach because some day he may have to work for
those people and wanted them to leave on good terms! :)

Seriously, though, the point here is there are better ways than just
firing someone who doesn't "cut it". Helping them fire themselves is
one approach. Helping them find what they really want to do and do well
is another.

Dave...

[Matteo Vaccari]

I had someone leave the team out of frustration and disillusion with
our company and my coaching. It was painful to feel his pain, and
more than anything I felt the pain of being rejected. It shattered my
illusion of being a benevolent father-figure for my team that I was
cultivating.

Matteo

[tottinge]

My personal opinion is that you have to bloom where planted.
I never developers to dread my coming and fear for their livelihood.
If they are fired/laid-off/etc it isn't because I was their
consultant.

Now, that being said, people have been fired while I was their
coach/consultant, but it was not because I recommended it. I want
everyone to succeed, and not everyone does. Some of them might
have even survived if not for the agile transition, but I did my part
to
make it work for them.

tim

[Bill Caputo]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:46 PM, tottinge <tott...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If they are fired/laid-off/etc it isn't because I was their
> consultant.

I want to second this. Having been in both roles (consultant and
hire/fire manager), making such a decision - and even coming to such a
conclusion - is not something to take lightly... and definitely not
something to be 'recommending' if it isn't your responsibility.

Unless it were information related to unethical behavior (e.g.
so-in-so is stealing from your company dude) I would most likely fire
the consultant if I felt they were trying to influence me into firing
someone (regardless of my own inclination to the situation).

If I am the consultant, my job is fulfill why I am there: If its to
coach, then I should coach. If someone doesn't "get it" then the
results will speak for themselves - and if they don't, then that's not
for me to solve either.

I think the hardest thing I had to learn (both as a consultant and as
a manager) - and the hardest thing I coached other consultants on - is
that things unfold in their own time and attempting to shortcut that
creates more problems (via the law of unintended consequences) than it
solves.

Oh and as to why it should be left to those with the responsibility?
Because only then does the ethics of what *you* are considering really
mean something - i.e. this person's livelihood, their family's, the
reaction of your team, the results they are actually delivering, etc.
is in your hands - and that needs to be weighed against your
conviction that you are actually right, that you've tried everything
else, that their leaving is truly better for the company (i.e. not for
you personally) that you aren't just being an overconfident ass, that
maybe they are right, and you are wrong, etc.

Firing someone equals taking their corporate life and should be taken
just as seriously as killing someone. Too often I have seen (and have
unfortunately given) advice to 'just fire someone' as if its no big
deal coming from those who won't be the ones doing it. To these I say:
Try It Sometime. If they are speaking from experience, then I hope to
never have them as a boss - and I hope I never get to where they are:
Seeing it as just part of the job.

Best,
Bill

[Dale Emery]

Hi Joe,

I find this one a bit tricky, because of two conflicting pieces of advice:

1. Don't try to solve the problem they didn't hire you to solve.
2. They usually don't know what their problem is.

If you can help them understand what the problem is, and secure their request to (help them) solve it, then the two bits of advice are in perfect harmony.

Dale

--
Dale Emery
Consultant to software teams and leaders
Web: http://dhemery.com
Weblog: http://cwd.dhemery.com

[J. B. Rainsberger]

Dale Emery wrote:

> I find this one a bit tricky, because of two conflicting pieces of
> advice:
>
> 1. Don't try to solve the problem they didn't hire you to solve.
> 2. They usually don't know what their problem is.
>
>
> If you can help them understand what the problem is, and secure their
> request to (help them) solve it, then the two bits of advice are in
> perfect harmony.

I think I do this, or at least something like it. On many engagements, I
end up helping the people "on the ground" find solutions to the problems
that matter to them, even if that doesn't necessarily (yet) solve the
problems of the people who hired me. I used to do a lot of work as a
subcontractor, and didn't at the time feel comfortable discussing which
problems to solve directly with managers or executives. That seemed to
fall to other people and didn't involve me. As I do more work myself, I
feel less constrained and tend to ask those people more questions about
what they want and what they expect. It seems to help.

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Thomas,

>> Second, we won't have that problem unless we actually hired those
>> persons. And we probably have contributed to them being where they are
>> in their career. Now we have the choice to either show responsibility
>> and loyality to our employees, or to show simple free market
>> opportunistic behavior. What kind of behavior would you like your
>> employees to show?
>
> Well, I think the role of us as coaches is not that utilitarian.

Of course - the "we" above refers to the leaders of an organization.
As coaches the best we can do is advise.

> We're
> here to help our clients, which I suppose means, among other things,
> correct the stupid business decisions they've made in the past. Many
> clients are dysfunctional organizations, and have created some
> dysfunctional relationships in their hiring strategy (or lack
> thereof). I also bet that many of these organizations don't want to
> whip up the cash to correct their mistakes by showing responsibility
> and loyalty to their non-productive employees.

The question to me is not what they want to do. The question is what
are we going to advice the to do.

If they hired the wrong people, they will have to pay for it, one way
or the other - we can't prevent that. Simply firing those people
certainly is a strategy. I just doubt that it's often the best one,
and therefore the one we should promote. I could just be naively
idealistic, of course. Seriously.

>> What three alternative solutions to firing can you think of if someone
>> is not a good software developer?
>
> 1) Make her/him a good software developer (but I think this thread is
> about cases where this has been tried and found to be beyond the
> ability of the coach and/or organization).
> 2) Re-educate to be something other than a software developer within
> the organization.
> 3) Explain the whole situation to them and hope they quit on their own account.

I like that list! I'd think, though, that explaining the whole
situation should come first, anyway, and that the choice probably
should be made at least partly in partnership with the employee?

Cheers, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Yves,

>> If you fire someone, you have no control at all over what they will
>> learn from it. So, you didn't teach them, even if they should learn a
>> lot.
>
> By firing I tell them that the situation is so bad that I don't think it is
> valuabele anymore to work with them.

I'd think that it would be good to already tell them beforehand, and
to engange them in a discussion on how their work could be made
valuable again. So, the firing really shouldn't tell them anything
new, should it?

> I agree I don't know what they will learn.
> Medium is the message.
> Sometime people need a big medium to understand the message

I agree that firing someone sends a strong message. And not only to
the person being fired. And much more than just "we don't value your
work any longer". What exactly the message is depends on lot on the
circumstances and how we deal with them. And because it is such a
strong message, it will be a very strong mirror of our values.

> when you say this is not acceptable and don't take actions when they keep
> doing it, you now have a problme, nnot with that one person, but with
> everyone else in the team.

Yes. Of course "taking action" doesn't necessarily mean "fire".

> When one of my kids misbehaves, and I don't have the energy to react
> (because it is sunday morning and I don't want to get out of my bed) I can
> garantee you that within 30 minutes all three are misbehaving.

Yes. And how often have you fired your kids? ;)

>> Anyway, how do you decide that firing someone will teach them
>> something they should learn? And how do you decide whether it's worth
>> the pain? What makes you qualified to make that decision for the
>> other, when even a trained therapist, let alone life coach, wouldn't
>> dare to?
>
> it's not based on that I take the decision, it's based on the fact that I
> don't want to spend more time/energy/money to make the situation better.

Yes. My point exactly - you don't fire people for their own good, you
fire them for other reasons.

>> Let's not kid ourselves: forcing someone into a situation they don't
>> want to be in
>
> what makes you think this is a situation they don't want to be in?

Well, I was assuming that we are talking about firing someone against
his will. If firing has been mutually decided to be the best solution,
I don't think I would have a problem with that.

>> I notice that the focus shifted from what's good for the person
>> potentially being fired, to what's good for someone else.
>>
> I think as a team leader/ manager of a company you have to think about the
> whole team.
> and not just that one person.

I totally agree.

Let me summarize what I'm arguing here:

1) if you decide to fire someone, salving your conscience by telling
yourself that it might even be a good learning experience for that
person is whishful thinking at best

2) firing a person sends messages to the rest of the employees that
are often overlooked or at least not fully understood

Let me tell you a small story:

When I started on a new programming job eight years ago, I had one
collegue who was just a horrible programmer. He would "fix" bugs by
more or less randomly changing code until it "worked". He created
messes. We all loathed working on his code. He didn't like to
collaborate. We still use his name for certain kinds of unreasonable
code changes. With other words, I wished he never had been hired.

One year, times got rough. Many of us started working less hours (and
getting paid less) for the company to survive. This one developer got
fired. At first he was upset, but he soon found a new workplace, and
as far as I know one that he enjoyed more. I never missed him. And
still, the firing left a bad taste in my mouth that lasts till today.
My relationship to the company changed, and I don't think to the
better.

Cheers, Ilja

[Ilja Preuß]

Hi Joe,

thanks for the answer. Yes, I would never advice to do life-coaching
without proper contracting with the client.

Cheers, Ilja

2010/5/25 J. B. Rainsberger <jbrain...@gmail.com>:

[Ilja Preuß]

Yes. Reminds me a lot of what Ricardo Semler describes in "The Seven
Day Weekend". He calls it "tapping into the talent pool", if I
remember correctly. At Semco, "helpig them find their next job"
actually often seems to mean creating a totally new job, with a new
business model, at Semco, which often enough later results in a new
company.

Quite interesting.

Cheers, Ilja

2010/5/25 Dave Rooney <davero...@gmail.com>:

> At last year's Cutter Consortium Summit Vince Kellen, the CIO of the U of
> Kentucky, spoke about this very topic.
>
> When he took that position, he met with each and every person in his
> organization.  He simply asked them what they loved to do, i.e. what got
> them out of bed in the morning other than a paycheque.  He then completely
> flipped the normal model of "find a person to fit a role" into "find a role
> to fit the person".  His goal was to get the people in his organization to
> be "on fire", i.e. in a state of flow for as long and as often as possible.
>
> He touched on what he did when there were people who either didn't want to
> be there or didn't cut it even after extensive training and coaching.  He
> helped them find their next job.
>
> In a few cases, the people decided that they actually didn't want to leave,
> likely because they realized they had some enlightened management with whom
> they could work.  However, most others did take the help and find something
> else more suited to them.  Vince said, tongue in cheek, that he liked this
> approach because some day he may have to work for those people and wanted
> them to leave on good terms! :)
>
> Seriously, though, the point here is there are better ways than just firing
> someone who doesn't "cut it".  Helping them fire themselves is one approach.
>  Helping them find what they really want to do and do well is another.
>
> Dave...
>
>

[Yves Hanoulle]

2010/5/27 Ilja Preuß <iljap...@googlemail.com>

Hi Yves,

>> If you fire someone, you have no control at all over what they will
>> learn from it. So, you didn't teach them, even if they should learn a
>> lot.
>
> By firing I tell them that the situation is so bad that I don't think it is
> valuabele anymore to work with them.

I'd think that it would be good to already tell them beforehand, and
to engange them in a discussion on how their work could be made
valuable again. So, the firing really shouldn't tell them anything
new, should it?

yes it tells new two things:

1) We take action on what we say we will

2) it really was more important then you think it was for me (if the person whould have understood and cared, he would have changed his behavior.)

 

 

> I agree I don't know what they will learn.
> Medium is the message.
> Sometime people need a big medium to understand the message

I agree that firing someone sends a strong message. And not only to
the person being fired. And much more than just "we don't value your
work any longer". What exactly the message is depends on lot on the
circumstances and how we deal with them. And because it is such a
strong message, it will be a very strong mirror of our values.

I worked with a team that was very relieved when someone was fired. The very next day productivity doubled (and not out of fear)

 

> when you say this is not acceptable and don't take actions when they keep
> doing it, you now have a problme, nnot with that one person, but with
> everyone else in the team.

Yes. Of course "taking action" doesn't necessarily mean "fire".

I agree

 

> When one of my kids misbehaves, and I don't have the energy to react
> (because it is sunday morning and I don't want to get out of my bed) I can
> garantee you that within 30 minutes all three are misbehaving.

Yes. And how often have you fired your kids? ;)

;-)

I think sometimes parents do that.

Parents that are bullied by "older" kids, or drug abused kids  that ruin their parents

sometime the only thing left for these parents is to fire them from being kids

is that easy?No

are they happy doing so? No

still sometimes it is the only choice

and yes it is teh last possible option, but that is what got this discussion triggered

 

>> Anyway, how do you decide that firing someone will teach them
>> something they should learn? And how do you decide whether it's worth
>> the pain? What makes you qualified to make that decision for the
>> other, when even a trained therapist, let alone life coach, wouldn't
>> dare to?
>
> it's not based on that I take the decision, it's based on the fact that I
> don't want to spend more time/energy/money to make the situation better.

Yes. My point exactly - you don't fire people for their own good, you
fire them for other reasons.

>> Let's not kid ourselves: forcing someone into a situation they don't
>> want to be in
>
> what makes you think this is a situation they don't want to be in?

Well, I was assuming that we are talking about firing someone against
his will. If firing has been mutually decided to be the best solution,
I don't think I would have a problem with that.

sometimes people only realize that after words

 

>> I notice that the focus shifted from what's good for the person
>> potentially being fired, to what's good for someone else.
>>
> I think as a team leader/ manager of a company you have to think about the
> whole team.
> and not just that one person.

I totally agree.

Let me summarize what I'm arguing here:

1) if you decide to fire someone, salving your conscience by telling
yourself that it might even be a good learning experience for that
person is whishful thinking at best

let's discuss this in person ap XP2010

 

2) firing a person sends messages to the rest of the employees that
are often overlooked or at least not fully understood

Let me tell you a small story:

When I started on a new programming job eight years ago, I had one
collegue who was just a horrible programmer. He would "fix" bugs by
more or less randomly changing code until it "worked". He created
messes. We all loathed working on his code. He didn't like to
collaborate. We still use his name for certain kinds of unreasonable
code changes. With other words, I wished he never had been hired.

One year, times got rough. Many of us started working less hours (and
getting paid less) for the company to survive. This one developer got
fired. At first he was upset, but he soon found a new workplace, and
as far as I know one that he enjoyed more. I never missed him. And
still, the firing left a bad taste in my mouth that lasts till today.
My relationship to the company changed, and I don't think to the
better.

That is really interesting because I have seen it happening alot more in the oposite sense.

how about the other people in your company?

If I'm not mistaken that was a small company, one bad programmer can bring down such a small company

not firing him, could mean bankruptcy. that would be worse for me.

I personally think companies should fire people when it's not a fit(yes after trying), not because the times are rough.

so maybe he was fired to late.?

What if companies felt that about you when you quit a job?

Cheers, Ilja