How can I deal with a team member who is always complaining?(andiroberts.com)
andiroberts.com
How can I deal with a team member who is always complaining?
https://andiroberts.com/leadership-questions/how-can-i-deal-with-a-team-member-who-is-always-complaining
68 comments
That's a great call but it should be paired with a promise: you present your great plan and then we'll put it to a vote. Otherwise you are just trying to get rid of them with busywork.
I've found that it's enough to just widely circulate it. As you point out, it's important to have some guarantee, so that the writing seems worth it.
If it is really a good idea, it will attract the attention of other serious people and become common knowledge in the organization. The shift in common knowledge is the most important change because the problem goes from something that many think they have to live with, to something that has a solution. At that point it becomes something to prioritize against everything else.
This does present some risk to leaders, it's much easier to seem incompetent when there are solutions available that are not being put to use. Leaders need to specifically address why known solutions aren't being implemented yet, and rationalize the decision.
If it is really a good idea, it will attract the attention of other serious people and become common knowledge in the organization. The shift in common knowledge is the most important change because the problem goes from something that many think they have to live with, to something that has a solution. At that point it becomes something to prioritize against everything else.
This does present some risk to leaders, it's much easier to seem incompetent when there are solutions available that are not being put to use. Leaders need to specifically address why known solutions aren't being implemented yet, and rationalize the decision.
Vote? By the same people who created this mess in the first place?
It's a sure was to demotivate a serious complainer. He knows the vote will be turned against him.
The only was to give him confidence is to promise that the plan will be judged objectively, not democratically.
It's a sure was to demotivate a serious complainer. He knows the vote will be turned against him.
The only was to give him confidence is to promise that the plan will be judged objectively, not democratically.
Well, that's part of politics. To get people on board the complainer will then have to try to build some consensus. If you start out from the premise that the vote would be turned against him then he should simply leave for a company that is worthy of his talents instead.
Objectivity in tech is more often than not in the eye of the beholder.
Objectivity in tech is more often than not in the eye of the beholder.
I think many long-time managers can recall some time were they really just put up busywork for them to not have to deal with that team member. It's not the best solution but sometimes it eases political conflicts.
I wouldn't recommend this. As I mentioned in a reply to a different post: A good idea, widely visible, must be addressed by leadership. Failing to do so makes you look incompetent as a leader. That doesn't mean it has be implemented immediately, but it needs to be referenced in the larger plan, along with a rationale.
I think that's unfair.
> Some of the time (maybe 10% IME), the person complaining knows how to fix a problem,
Knowing how to fix the problem shouldn't be a hard prerequisite to raising an issue. I've seen situations where everyone on the team is aware of a problem, but the only people with authority to solve it are sitting around waiting for it to work itself out without their intervention.
Of course the natural thought is "raising an issue constructively isn't complaining", but there's a kind of viewpoint bias on both sides of this. Sometimes people who are too wedded to some idea or way of doing things view any criticism at all in a reflexively negative light, just as some people tend to air grievances as a hobby without a constructive outcome in mind.
Knowing how to fix the problem shouldn't be a hard prerequisite to raising an issue. I've seen situations where everyone on the team is aware of a problem, but the only people with authority to solve it are sitting around waiting for it to work itself out without their intervention.
Of course the natural thought is "raising an issue constructively isn't complaining", but there's a kind of viewpoint bias on both sides of this. Sometimes people who are too wedded to some idea or way of doing things view any criticism at all in a reflexively negative light, just as some people tend to air grievances as a hobby without a constructive outcome in mind.
Reality check.
Complaint: tickets created by the QA team for developers, even seemingly trivial ones, stagnate in Jira for months and sometimes years without anyone looking.
Written plan: Hire somebody who will be actually responsible for planning and prioritization. Hire more developers, so that the existing ones are not overloaded.
Reality: "This is not a realistic plan. There is a budget, and you are not the one who makes hiring decisions, so shut up and stop creating tickets unless there is something really serious".
So - is the complainer above serious, or not?
(all of the above is pure fiction)
Complaint: tickets created by the QA team for developers, even seemingly trivial ones, stagnate in Jira for months and sometimes years without anyone looking.
Written plan: Hire somebody who will be actually responsible for planning and prioritization. Hire more developers, so that the existing ones are not overloaded.
Reality: "This is not a realistic plan. There is a budget, and you are not the one who makes hiring decisions, so shut up and stop creating tickets unless there is something really serious".
So - is the complainer above serious, or not?
(all of the above is pure fiction)
> A good way to partition the complainers into serious and unserious groups is to ask for a written plan
This can be good but I've seen it weaponized before by an incompetent cto to deflect and delay any change. He would ask for written proposals on the most minute details until people just gave up trying to fix anything.
This can be good but I've seen it weaponized before by an incompetent cto to deflect and delay any change. He would ask for written proposals on the most minute details until people just gave up trying to fix anything.
As an obscure stand-up comedian once said, "initiative has to be punished with following it up".
> Complaints slow execution.
Not everything needs to be done yesterday. I've "executed" plans where leadership basically flips flops on their position. The team started putting all these hare brained ideas behind feature flags.
Wish we had this complaining guy.
Not everything needs to be done yesterday. I've "executed" plans where leadership basically flips flops on their position. The team started putting all these hare brained ideas behind feature flags.
Wish we had this complaining guy.
Depends on what they are complaining about and how they are doing it. In general, I would ask them how they would fix the problems they're complaining about. The first two steps to fixing any problem are to identify any analyze it. This might be their (unideal) way of doing that.
Many years ago in my software engineering course, my professor said that he would add to Fred Brooks' concept of a "surgical team" and said that he found that many successful engineering teams had a "team mother": the person that helped quell disagreements, remembered birthdays, cheered the successes no matter how small, kept tabs on how folks were doing emotionally, etc. Years later in my professional career, I found this to be true and met a few people like this on my teams -- not the best engineers, but additive to a great team.
I think that successful teams may have a place for a "team canary" (?): someone that is going to speak up about points of friction where most others might just end up with apathy and learn to deal with the inefficiency or friction (a "that's just how it is" attitude). Sometimes, complaints are a sign of genuine friction. Complainer may not feel like they have the authority/allotted bandwidth to remove the point of friction. When this happens, give this person some ownership of the friction points and see what happens.
I think that successful teams may have a place for a "team canary" (?): someone that is going to speak up about points of friction where most others might just end up with apathy and learn to deal with the inefficiency or friction (a "that's just how it is" attitude). Sometimes, complaints are a sign of genuine friction. Complainer may not feel like they have the authority/allotted bandwidth to remove the point of friction. When this happens, give this person some ownership of the friction points and see what happens.
I had worked with a guy which is smart, or at least persuasive, since him was hired somehow. He after started working with the team, him complaining about the project proposal, about the bad code decisions and had serious discussions with the product owner. After I talked with the PO, I opened a meeting with the complainer to extend my hand and say that I was opened to listen, him thanks me but preferred to stay a little away. The CTO proposed that since him spotted a bad code (it really was), him had time to analyze better and fix! In the end him lost 2 or 3 weeks fixing the code, wasn't able to finish and request resignation directly to the HR with the reason that the team and the project was bad, probably criticized the CTO. I had to take the code him left and finish the fix!
I think some of the most important problems get hidden if there is a culture where you expected to also want a specific solution before you complain. People avoid reporting difficult, complex problems without obvious solutions. Maybe they just see somethings as "the way things are" at that org or that leadership doesn't want to hear their needs.
Better to have a free, easy ability to complain about things, and if there is a good manager hanging around somewhere, they can synthesize the complaints and discover if there are solutions possible at the org level, which individual contributors might not know about or even be functionally able to own.
Better to have a free, easy ability to complain about things, and if there is a good manager hanging around somewhere, they can synthesize the complaints and discover if there are solutions possible at the org level, which individual contributors might not know about or even be functionally able to own.
I see raising issues in a postmortem or retro different from complaining, but I generally agree.
For most practical problems, the answer is usually, "well, it depends. There are no clear solutions, only tradeoffs"
I once worked for a small consultancy which did business by fishing for contracts, then doing the absolute to-the-letter minimum to fulfill them, irrespective of damage to the customer’s business or the company reputation. We would deliver working software that was absolutely awful to actually use for anything.
Often, clients would literally tell us to f*ck off when they realized we would not do anything that wasn’t in the contract verbatim, no matter how trivial.
To me, it was insanity. I would have preferred actually solving customer issues in a partnership fashion, and day-to-day work was nightmarish due to the constant conflict of values. Raising an issue about this got me branded a complainer.
The company slowly gathered enough references to attract some bigger clients (realistically: via backroom deals and kickbacks) and was eventually acquired, and some time later the executives were politely told to pack their things and get out.
They got what they wanted: a hefty paycheck and a load of shares from the acquiring company. The entire company was an acquisition scam from the get-go.
Often, clients would literally tell us to f*ck off when they realized we would not do anything that wasn’t in the contract verbatim, no matter how trivial.
To me, it was insanity. I would have preferred actually solving customer issues in a partnership fashion, and day-to-day work was nightmarish due to the constant conflict of values. Raising an issue about this got me branded a complainer.
The company slowly gathered enough references to attract some bigger clients (realistically: via backroom deals and kickbacks) and was eventually acquired, and some time later the executives were politely told to pack their things and get out.
They got what they wanted: a hefty paycheck and a load of shares from the acquiring company. The entire company was an acquisition scam from the get-go.
>The project plan is flawed. The deadlines are unrealistic. Leadership is out of touch.
Fascinating examples. I have never in my professional career heard anybody refer to these as "complaining". "Complaints", yes, but in English that has does not have the same connotation.
Fascinating examples. I have never in my professional career heard anybody refer to these as "complaining". "Complaints", yes, but in English that has does not have the same connotation.
I scanned the article to see if "check whether any of their compaints are valid" but didn't see it anywhere. Sometimes maybe the person complaining might be right..
Unproductive complaints are... frustrating if you're on the receiving end of them, because they are basically (and unproductively) asking for help / solutions. But if it's just complaints, they also have the impression that the problem is not in their "sphere of influence"; coffee, for example, is usually handled by a facilities department. It's easy to complain about coffee to your boss, but it's confrontational if you actually pull the issue into your sphere of influence and go to the facilities department to complain.
It opens you up to vulnerability. You speak to people you don't usually speak to; you get confronted with the realities of that particular issue; office coffee for example is often a factor of budget vs cost, long-term supply and support contracts with coffee machine companies, and of course personal taste. Are you going to take on some responsibility for all that?
Of course, the other part is that you get hired for one job, stepping outside of that role to pursue something not directly impacting said job is often frowned upon. I say often because it's a bit of both, the best people will take on more and different things than what they were hired for.
Anyway. Complainers can / should get a training about "circle of influence/control", also because I doubt that work stuff is the only thing going on in their life, it can help them outside of work too. Knowing what you can change and what is outside of your control is great for your peace of mind and general attitude.
It opens you up to vulnerability. You speak to people you don't usually speak to; you get confronted with the realities of that particular issue; office coffee for example is often a factor of budget vs cost, long-term supply and support contracts with coffee machine companies, and of course personal taste. Are you going to take on some responsibility for all that?
Of course, the other part is that you get hired for one job, stepping outside of that role to pursue something not directly impacting said job is often frowned upon. I say often because it's a bit of both, the best people will take on more and different things than what they were hired for.
Anyway. Complainers can / should get a training about "circle of influence/control", also because I doubt that work stuff is the only thing going on in their life, it can help them outside of work too. Knowing what you can change and what is outside of your control is great for your peace of mind and general attitude.
Are they just right and your timelines are wrong? Have you considered they have a valid point and are not a boot licker so willing to speak up?
[deleted]
The article really does a great job of setting up Survivorship Bias and then completely drops the ball.
Of course chronic complainers complain about stuff out of their control. They've fixed (at least in thier eyes) the items within their control. Asking them "what would they do" is but itself entirely ineffective unless anybody is going to act on it.
Of course chronic complainers complain about stuff out of their control. They've fixed (at least in thier eyes) the items within their control. Asking them "what would they do" is but itself entirely ineffective unless anybody is going to act on it.
> Example: A team member repeatedly complains about timelines. Each time, the manager extends them. Soon, complaining becomes the default negotiation strategy.
Well, are the timelines too short? Is the team member complaining, or are they pointing out actual problems with the proposed timeline? And if the complaining gets the timeline extended to something reasonable, is there a problem with it being a negotiation tactic if it works?
> Learned helplessness: complaint as despair
> Leadership move: Restore agency through small wins.
This feels like when we'd let our five year old pick out what clothes she wanted to wear. Shouldn't the leadership move here be to try to solve the source of the despair?
This article focuses on dealing with the team member, and not the sources of the complaints. Sure, some people are just negative downers. But the first three examples on the page seem like actual external problems that the complainers are noticing and voicing concern about.
(And if you think it's bad to have complainers, wait until the complainers realize that no change is forthcoming, and either stop engaging at all, or go find work somewhere better.)
Well, are the timelines too short? Is the team member complaining, or are they pointing out actual problems with the proposed timeline? And if the complaining gets the timeline extended to something reasonable, is there a problem with it being a negotiation tactic if it works?
> Learned helplessness: complaint as despair
> Leadership move: Restore agency through small wins.
This feels like when we'd let our five year old pick out what clothes she wanted to wear. Shouldn't the leadership move here be to try to solve the source of the despair?
This article focuses on dealing with the team member, and not the sources of the complaints. Sure, some people are just negative downers. But the first three examples on the page seem like actual external problems that the complainers are noticing and voicing concern about.
(And if you think it's bad to have complainers, wait until the complainers realize that no change is forthcoming, and either stop engaging at all, or go find work somewhere better.)
It seems as if the leadership in this situation hasn't even considered that they may be in the wrong and the points brought up maybe valid. So many teams set unrealistic deadlines or expectations based on dates plucked from the air and then wonder why work can't be completed on time.
How does this font achieve the awful "shifting baseline" effect?
I assume that it is using a ton of ligatures, because consecutive letters always look different, but is that the only thing going on or is there something even more pernicious happening?
I assume that it is using a ton of ligatures, because consecutive letters always look different, but is that the only thing going on or is there something even more pernicious happening?
The one time I visited Google for a round of interviews, they assigned the complainer to take interviewees to lunch. It was enough to keep any interest I had in Google at bay forever.
For wathever reason, some people are just better at analysing complex situations, systems and outcomes.
So when a proposal is tabled, they will point out non obvious shortcomings and unintended concequences.
This is not 'complaining'.
Neither does this mean you immediatly have to keel over and ditch the plan. Plenty of times something can succeed against all odds.
But smart management will take into account the information provided, rather tjan labeling it as something to ignore without furter thought.
So when a proposal is tabled, they will point out non obvious shortcomings and unintended concequences.
This is not 'complaining'.
Neither does this mean you immediatly have to keel over and ditch the plan. Plenty of times something can succeed against all odds.
But smart management will take into account the information provided, rather tjan labeling it as something to ignore without furter thought.
Sketchnote Bold is the new Comic Sans!
(Not complaining, just observing. I shipped a top selling title that used Comic Sans exclusively!)
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-comic-sans-asshole
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11466122
(Not complaining, just observing. I shipped a top selling title that used Comic Sans exclusively!)
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-comic-sans-asshole
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11466122
That first link is on point in calling out "uptight armchair typographer cock-hats."
Comic Sans' only sin was being such a good font that it became "too popular".
Really, Helvetica and Times Roman should get at least as much criticism, but they get a pass for being suitably boring.
Comic Sans' only sin was being such a good font that it became "too popular".
Really, Helvetica and Times Roman should get at least as much criticism, but they get a pass for being suitably boring.
In my experience, people complain because they don't feel heard or they feel ignored (different feelings). Some people are also wired to complain; it's therapeutic to them. Both are coachable.
That font!
I guess that the person who complained that it is hard to read was treated as an issue and told they are slowing the execution.
That enormous sticky header!
Not comic sans at least.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Slightly OT but the font on that site is terrific. I don’t think I’ve ever seen something cursive (ish) that’s so legible.
> Why people complain: Psychological lenses
They left off one critical reason:
The person is a problem solver and is correct
They left off one critical reason:
The person is a problem solver and is correct
Am I the only one who doesn’t care if the team has one individual with such traits? Like, if it slows down execution, well, I’m not into squeezing the last drop of speed of everyone. Also, people like that always give you the chance to show how good you are (supposedly): you can support them with potential fixes, you can support the team by saying perhaps that the complaint is not a big deal because data says so, whatever.
It’s like those people who are racist: they always make me feel better with myself because I don’t hold such beliefs. If everyone would be a saint, I would feel a bit down (because I’m not one).
It’s like those people who are racist: they always make me feel better with myself because I don’t hold such beliefs. If everyone would be a saint, I would feel a bit down (because I’m not one).
It's fine if you can ignore them and don't have to work with them. If you do it's really draining. Constant negativity is not fun to be around.
I have only worked with one person in my life who was really like this though, so maybe you're just lucky and haven't experienced a truly committed negative Nancy.
I have only worked with one person in my life who was really like this though, so maybe you're just lucky and haven't experienced a truly committed negative Nancy.
[deleted]
A good way to partition the complainers into serious and unserious groups is to ask for a written plan. Unserious complainers backoff quickly, while serious complainers will be glad someone is taking their suggestion seriously.