Do you know what you are getting into?
So far, my posts have always been written as if I'm an ID - a resource who creates SBs. But as I have been reminded (a few times) over the last couple of weeks, I'm a lead and need to understand that role, if not better than at the least, as well as I know my role as an ID. If you are one of those interested in being a reviewer/lead read on...
Being a review/lead is no reason to cheer. And once promoted there is no need for song and dance. Coz the euphoria, if you really feel it, hides many pitfalls.
These pitfalls are not mentioned anywhere in the job profile/description. We are not told of these when we take on the job.
As I have said before, not all reviewers/leads are trained to do their job. They are generally given the additional responsibility of reviewing other people's work/leading the project because they do their own tasks well.
The management thinks that as you know your job well, you will be able to raise the level of others performance to your level by guiding them.
A lot has been assumed here:
Example: You have a tight deadline. You need n number of SBs to be delivered weekly. There is no scope to change the target or date. The number of SBs to be delivered and dates are fixed. The client will penalize the company if these are not met. The number of resources allocated to you are fixed.
In order to meet the deadline, your resources need to create m number of SB per week. Each week, they also need to fix the SBs created by them in the previous week as per the SME + ID feedback. Let's call this number n. So, this means that your resources effectively need to work on m+n number of SBs per week.
Now, imagine your resources saying that they will not be able to work on m+n SBs per week. That if you need m SBs created, they will not be able to do n fixes. If you need n SBs fixed, they will not be able to create m SBs.
You take this to your manager who says that it doesn't matter who works on what, weekly m SBs should be created and n SBs should be delivered.
Add to this, when you get the first lot of SBs, the quality does not meet your expectation. You observe that you have to do multiple reviews of the SBs, to get them to the level where you can sign them off.
Now, what would you do?
As mentioned before you cannot change the delivery schedule nor the ability to hire more resources. These problems were not foreseen by anyone.
Here, you may find that you have two possible options. And you need to decide whether to focus on task or people.
Option 1 - People oriented: You inform everyone in the management that the target cannot be achieved. And make alternative delivery plan. You keep your team happy and try and get a more resource friend schedule.
Option 2 - Task oriented: You do the changes yourself. You mark the resources on the updated SB. Ask them to go through the changes done to learn where they need to improve.
Now, if you decide to go by option 1, you still have a 5% chance of missing a delivery (you promised 14 SB but gave only 13). The mgmt makes a huge hue n cry about it and you can kiss your performance review good bye.
Also, there is still no guarantee that your resources will up their game to reach your level of proficiency in their task. Had they been really motivated, they too would have been promoted along with you!
Now, if you decide to go by option 2, you still have a 5% chance of missing a delivery but as you had already warned the mgmt that the target is difficult, it may not be held against you as a leader (coz you had already warned). But while your managers are happy with the fact that everything was done on time, your performance is still at stake.
You ask why?
Because here you are asking your juniors to be more proactive, to take ownership of their own learning. You have sent them the updated SB and expected them to take charge of their own improvement. But in the 360 degree feedback world what are the chances that they won't hold this against you?
Coz you see, you won't have the time to give face-to-face feedback.
You are doing your task (reviewing SBs) as well as the IDs tasks (fixing SBs). You won't have the time to sit with them, to join their discussion over some movie during lunch. (You most probably won't have the time to have lunch!)
But during the 360 feedback, they will say that they learnt nothing from you. And you will have points taken away from you for not being a good lead.
So know that people are not really interested in learning unless they are internally motivated to. You can force them but only so much. And you cannot guarantee that their performance will improve just because you forced them.
And knowing this, ask yourself, "Are you really ready to take this kind of responsibility?"
Being a review/lead is no reason to cheer. And once promoted there is no need for song and dance. Coz the euphoria, if you really feel it, hides many pitfalls.
These pitfalls are not mentioned anywhere in the job profile/description. We are not told of these when we take on the job.
As I have said before, not all reviewers/leads are trained to do their job. They are generally given the additional responsibility of reviewing other people's work/leading the project because they do their own tasks well.
The management thinks that as you know your job well, you will be able to raise the level of others performance to your level by guiding them.
A lot has been assumed here:
- You are ready to take the responsibility of others' performance
- Others have the same basic ability as you
- Others are willing to learn from you
Example: You have a tight deadline. You need n number of SBs to be delivered weekly. There is no scope to change the target or date. The number of SBs to be delivered and dates are fixed. The client will penalize the company if these are not met. The number of resources allocated to you are fixed.
In order to meet the deadline, your resources need to create m number of SB per week. Each week, they also need to fix the SBs created by them in the previous week as per the SME + ID feedback. Let's call this number n. So, this means that your resources effectively need to work on m+n number of SBs per week.
Now, imagine your resources saying that they will not be able to work on m+n SBs per week. That if you need m SBs created, they will not be able to do n fixes. If you need n SBs fixed, they will not be able to create m SBs.
You take this to your manager who says that it doesn't matter who works on what, weekly m SBs should be created and n SBs should be delivered.
Add to this, when you get the first lot of SBs, the quality does not meet your expectation. You observe that you have to do multiple reviews of the SBs, to get them to the level where you can sign them off.
Now, what would you do?
As mentioned before you cannot change the delivery schedule nor the ability to hire more resources. These problems were not foreseen by anyone.
- The mgmt assumed the resources to do m+n tasks per week.
- You expected the resources to improve the quality of task as days go by as you knew that they will learn from your feedback.
- You expected the SBs to be of okay quality.
Here, you may find that you have two possible options. And you need to decide whether to focus on task or people.
Option 1 - People oriented: You inform everyone in the management that the target cannot be achieved. And make alternative delivery plan. You keep your team happy and try and get a more resource friend schedule.
Option 2 - Task oriented: You do the changes yourself. You mark the resources on the updated SB. Ask them to go through the changes done to learn where they need to improve.
Now, if you decide to go by option 1, you still have a 5% chance of missing a delivery (you promised 14 SB but gave only 13). The mgmt makes a huge hue n cry about it and you can kiss your performance review good bye.
Also, there is still no guarantee that your resources will up their game to reach your level of proficiency in their task. Had they been really motivated, they too would have been promoted along with you!
Now, if you decide to go by option 2, you still have a 5% chance of missing a delivery but as you had already warned the mgmt that the target is difficult, it may not be held against you as a leader (coz you had already warned). But while your managers are happy with the fact that everything was done on time, your performance is still at stake.
You ask why?
Because here you are asking your juniors to be more proactive, to take ownership of their own learning. You have sent them the updated SB and expected them to take charge of their own improvement. But in the 360 degree feedback world what are the chances that they won't hold this against you?
Coz you see, you won't have the time to give face-to-face feedback.
You are doing your task (reviewing SBs) as well as the IDs tasks (fixing SBs). You won't have the time to sit with them, to join their discussion over some movie during lunch. (You most probably won't have the time to have lunch!)
But during the 360 feedback, they will say that they learnt nothing from you. And you will have points taken away from you for not being a good lead.
So know that people are not really interested in learning unless they are internally motivated to. You can force them but only so much. And you cannot guarantee that their performance will improve just because you forced them.
And knowing this, ask yourself, "Are you really ready to take this kind of responsibility?"
Comments
Post a Comment