I thought that was a good article, but it dances around the core of the issue by not declaring what motivation is and how managers should think about it at the start.
Intrinsic motivation is a function of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. A managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation.
When you identify a weak performer without understanding which pillar of motivation is weak, it generally results in a direct and total assault on intrinsic motivation.
Interventional supervision is decreased autonomy.
Interventional supervision is a powerful indirect invalidation of mastery. Being overruled is a powerful invalidation of mastery. Being told what to do or how to do something rather than being told a goal to achieve is an invalidation of mastery. Being ignored when you bring up an issue or not having your issue be treated with seriousness is incredibly invalidating. Being told, directly or indirectly, that you are wrong without having it explained to you is a complete invalidation of mastery.
Lastly, assigning lower risk work, work that doesn't matter as much, is a direct assault on purpose.
When intrinsic motivation is assaulted, it is no surprise that the employee becomes less motivated, and therefore less capable, independent, and thoughtful, and therefore a much less appealing person to give work that matters creating a viscous cycle of being managed out at the cost of everyone's mental health.
So a managers purpose is to promote intrinsic motivation, but the standard actions taken are a direct assault on it. The manager adopts an "organization vs employee" approach rather than an "us vs the problem" approach and the consequences are always exactly as you would expect.
The proposed solution in this article (practice active listening, which means listen with the expectation of and desire to change your mind), is a core weakness I've seen from managers promoted from engineering, and especially managers from more hierarchical cultures.
I agree with the final assessment of the article. A mastery problem cannot be solved by a manager, so if the employee is truly not technically capable, they need to be let go. The entire purpose of a technical interview is to ensure there is a bar that is cleared for mastery. Autonomy and purpose problems are generally a problem with a manager failing to manage upwards, set expectations, or a managers inappropriate application of dominance (often manifested by a lack of active listening), rather than a failure to "manage" an employee.
This is quite applicable to many situations I‘ve witnessed. I‘ve also witnessed the exact opposite. I.e. managers blame themselves to avoid making hard decisions with employees. It would be great to have this article and another article which addresses „hard decisions“ in order to help managers navigate ambiguous situations.
I second this article, having applied the ideas (and shared the article) with people I've worked with in the past. The ideas are still relevant today, despite the original publication in 1998.
--
The comic partway through the article gives a good overview, and the following are a few highlights:
"Before the set-up-to-fail syndrome begins, the boss and the subordinate are typically engaged in a positive, or at least neutral, relationship. The triggering event in the set-up-to-fail syndrome is often minor or surreptitious. The subordinate may miss a deadline, lose a client, or submit a subpar report. [...]
"Reacting to the triggering event, the boss increases his supervision of the subordinate, gives more specific instructions, and wrangles longer over courses of action.
The subordinate responds by beginning to suspect a lack of confidence and senses he's not part of the boss's in-group anymore. He starts to withdraw emotionally from the boss and from work. He may also fight to change the boss's image of him, reaching too high or running too fast to be effective.
"The boss interprets this problem-hoarding, overreaching, or tentativeness as signs that the subordinate has poor judgment and weak capabilities. If the subordinate does perform well, the boss does not acknowledge it or considers it a lucky "one off." [...] The subordinate feels boxed in and underappreciated. He increasingly withdraws from his boss and from work. He may even resort to ignoring instructions, openly disputing the boss, and occasionally lashing out because of feelings of rejection.
"In general, he performs his job mechanically and devotes more energy to self-protection. [...] The boss feels increasingly frustrated and is now convinced that the subordinate cannot perform without intense oversight. He makes this known by his words and deeds, further undermining the subordinate's confidence and prompting inaction."
---
My own summary follows. The idea is that a good relationship between a manager and a junior can unnecessarily fall off the rails, beginning with the manager perceiving that the junior has made a small or moderate mistake.
Instead of letting it go, the manager begins a corrective action with more micro-management (such as requests for more check-ins or progress reports). This can result in the junior becoming disengaged with the work, or alternatively trying to take on too many responsibilities to regain the manager's trust. In any case, the manager tries to correct this by increasing micro-management (which is the opposite of what the junior wants), which worsens the relationship.
To solve this, the article recommends an open discussion between the manager and junior, with specific, concrete goals for restoring trust in the relationship (as well as attempting to prevent this in the first place). The article also notes that an attempted solution entirely on the junior's side—where the junior over-achieves for a while to attempt to rebuild trust—is often ineffective, as a manager may not even notice these efforts due to a bias to already label the person as unreliable.
