Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
As project managers, leaders and "change makers", we motivate our team members and reward them. What If three members of a five-person team did all the work, do you give those three members proper credit while pointing out that two members of the team did not pull their weight? Do you single out the non-performing team members in a negative light? Or do you give equal praise even though only a selected few did the real work? Saving Changes...
RAJESH K LProject Manager, PMP| Bharat Electronics, Bengaluru, IndiaBengaluru, Karnataka, India
Agree with Kiron.
Providing feedback and improvement to non-performing members is very important. Reasons for non-performance to be analysed both from professional and team environment perspective.
...
1 reply by Amany Nuseibeh
Jul 14, 2018 5:13 AM
Amany Nuseibeh
...
Thank you Rajesh.
Saving Changes...
Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
Jul 03, 2018 12:25 PM
Replying to Dinah Young
...
It is a balancing act. If you praise all equally, those who did all of the work may feel resentment. If you only praise the three, then the other two may do even less work in the future.
I think Eric's approach is better. I may also have a private talk with the productive members of the team to let them know that I am aware of what happened and to also get some input. Were the non-productive member incapable of doing the work, was the problem in team work or was it a matter of not wanting to do the work. There can be many reasons why 3 members of the team did all of the work and it may or may not be the "fault" of the other 2 that they did not contribute. Sometimes team members are "frozen out". Or they were improperly assigned to the team. It is best to get all of the information to find ways to improve.
Thank you Dinah for your insight - agree with getting all the information to assess and uncover opportunities for improvement. Saving Changes...
Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
Jul 03, 2018 1:19 PM
Replying to MANSOUR THABET ALQUBATY
...
I will go with Eric + using the tool of (interpersonal skills and team& root cause analysis) to see the issue of other two members and talk to them in privite.
BR,
Thank you Mansour. Saving Changes...
Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
Jul 04, 2018 5:44 PM
Replying to Adrian Carlogea
...
You have to be very careful when you are saying that just X people of a team have done all the work and the rest of Y have done nothing or have contributed very little. In order to properly asses the work of a person you must come from the same line of work as that person and you must be able to do the work yourself.
Imagine 5 surgeons all performing the same surgery on 5 different patients. Let's assume that only 3 patients survive. Would it be correct to say that 3 surgeons have succeeded and that the other 2 have failed? Of course not, patients unfortunately die even if the surgeon does an extraordinary job. Our bodies react differently to diseases and injuries.
Even if a team member apparently is unable to finish the work in time this does not mean that he did not contribute. On the contrary he may be the most productive worker.
Unless the PM comes from the same line of work as the worker he should not evaluate the productivity of the project team members. Imagine yourself as a team member that works on the most complicated tasks, you manage to complete the tasks but in more time that estimated, thanks to you the project succeeds but the PMs that understand nothing of your work comes and tells you that you are not productive.
Thank you Adrian - As PMs/Change Makers and Leaders, we naturally do not know every speciality that the team members undertake. However, we can measure outputs and quality. In this instance, the two members output is extremely low and lacking in quality, However, as the team pulls together, they fill the gap and accomplish collectively the desired outcome.
...
1 reply by Adrian Carlogea
Jul 16, 2018 6:48 AM
Adrian Carlogea
...
Hi Amany it is not always possible to accurately measure the productivity of some workers and if you still try the results may be completely wrong.
How would you measure the productivity of a software developer for instance? Would you count the line of codes he has written, the number of commits, the number of tasks he has completed or perhaps, since many teams use SCRUM, the story points the has delivered?
The above would be non-sense since the fact that a developer has written more lines of code than another or has completed more tasks does not necessarily mean that he is more productive or that he contributed more.
And then there is also a big problem. If the developers know that their productivity is measured on lines of codes or tasks completed then they would definitely compromise on code quality in order to finish faster. A task completed with horrible code can pass acceptance but then it would cause huge problems.
For starters code written at high speed would produce more defects would be less efficient and can cause more frequent crashes. But this is not the big problem. The biggest issue is that such a code would be very hard to maintain, the support team would need much more time to fix defects and if you want to develop new functionality using the code it would take very long time.
At some point developers would have to take the drastic decision to completely refactor the code by re-writing a lot of the it from scratch. Your "productive" developers that wrote the initial code fast and made possible reaching the dead-lines may be the cause of huge problems during the usage of the software and during new projects that bring new functionalities.
Not understanding what has happened in this case many PMs would consider this as a major performance drop. If the PM was a former developer then he would understand the situation.
Saving Changes...
Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
Jul 05, 2018 9:42 AM
Replying to Shweta Pai
...
Another thing in addition to everything mentioned above is your retrospective. If you follow scrum/agile, you 'd have a retrospective at the end of the sprint. If 3 people are carrying all the weight then you could have consequences too like those 3 people getting burnt out etc. or some stories taking longer than necessary. I 'd also expect these to be called out in the retrospective leading to the team coming up with some action items involving the non-functional team members.
Thank you Shweta for your insight. Saving Changes...
Amany NuseibehSpeaker, Global Leader | Optimal ConsultingSydney, Nsw, Australia
Jul 14, 2018 5:04 AM
Replying to RAJESH K L
...
Agree with Kiron.
Providing feedback and improvement to non-performing members is very important. Reasons for non-performance to be analysed both from professional and team environment perspective.
Thank you Rajesh. Saving Changes...
SAMUEL ODJELUAMsc, PMP, PMI-RMP, PMD Pro 1&2| THE LANDS COMMISSION, ACCRA - GHANAAccra, Spintex, Ghana
All contributions are on point. Indeed trying to sideline the non performing members in public is out, similarly naming and praising the other members alone is not the best.They all must be recognized as a team.Remember that "the strength of a team is the strength of the weakest member." Every team member has a strength and a weakness,the three members may have performed largely because that particular task falls within their area of strength,and that does not mean the contributions of the other two was zero.They may be playing the lead role in the next task. And like Mr. Mansour pointed, you later investigate the root cause of the situation and try taking to them in private.Except when your investigations reveals a consistent deliberate inactivity on their part then an immediate action must be taken by the PM to save the situation. Thank you all for making me learn the practice. Saving Changes...
Drew CraigSr. Agile & Product Coach| VanguardPhiladelphia, Pa, United States
I'm a 'we' leader. And while I certainly would not highlight an individual's lack of performance in public, I would do so if necessary 1:1. Also, quite possibly there are different issues at play and it may be required to look toward the performing individuals to help with inclusion, assignment of more apt tasks, or include in more learning opportunities to help show solidarity and support.
It is not always about the project or the work, it can be personal issues or difficulty hidden by shyness or introverted type behavior that can be worked through on a 1:1 basis. Saving Changes...
Henry HattenrathProject Consultant| Tectonic Engineering MSA LLCNew York, Ny, United States
Jul 03, 2018 10:43 AM
Replying to Eric Simms
...
Publicly shaming team members is rarely beneficial to anyone. In public I'd generally praise the team, and I would make special mention of the contributions made by the three who really did the work. That way the useful members get the recognition they deserve, and I didn't create a negative atmosphere of recrimination. I'd then have a talk with the two non-productive team members in private.
Eric I agree. Your response was concise and right on target. Saving Changes...
Al TaylorI.T. Contractor| IndependentWaterloo, Ontario, Canada
