My guess is that when some chose "insufficient recognition", a possible reason was that someone else was taking that recognition. Having a site that allows people to recognize others for their achievements could just as easily compound the issue. For example:
Susan wants a new application, so Jim tells Bob to write it. When the application is complete, Jim shows it to Susan, and Susan praises Jim rather than Bob, because as far as she is concerned, Jim made it happen. Yet, Jim did little more than tell Bob to do it and show the result to Susan. If recognition requires little work, Susan will praise Jim more often (if she is not aware of Bob, or chooses not to recognize him). If Bob sees this praise of Jim by Susan for his work enough times, he may leave the company one day citing "insufficient recognition", when, in fact, more recognition was being given, albeit to the wrong person.
I hear a common theme that I've seen among tech folks (and probably a theme that I subscribed to early in my career).
If Jim "made it happen", he has actually earned some of that praise. As a good manager, his very next step should be to transmit and amplify that praise so that Bob also can bask in it, but also to educate/remind Susan that Jim has an entire team that is delivering behind the scenes. It's quite effective to accomplish both of those in one communication (when praise is in email form), by forwarding on to Bob, cc'ing Susan, adding his own praise and reminding Susan (in the clear) that Bob is the one who actually did the programming.
I don't believe that there's some natural conservation of credit/recognition. By sharing as above, Jim doesn't reduce his standing in Susan's eyes, because from her point of view, it's still Jim that "made it happen" and he's being gracious in recognizing his team. Bob now sees the praise that he's earned, may realize that Jim probably added some value along the way, and even if Bob is hardcore "only coding matters", at least Jim has set the record straight.
When done even halfway well, I don't think that pattern results in employees leaving over recognition.
I think the first thing you need to recognize when you become a manager is that making your technical underlings look good makes you look good. I mean, as a manager, nobody expects you to get things done yourself; your job is to find good people, keep them, and motivate them to do the things that need to get done. Especially if your tech is in the room, publicly give your tech credit for getting it done. Nobody sane is going to fire the manager with a bunch of high-performing underlings in favor of the manager who has a bunch of mediocre dullards.
the thing is, the manager and the (good) tech are only very rarely in competition for the same promotions. Technical folks, generally speaking, move into management after they've gone as far as they think they can go as technical people.
Comments
My guess is that when some chose "insufficient recognition", a possible reason was that someone else was taking that recognition. Having a site that allows people to recognize others for their achievements could just as easily compound the issue. For example:
Susan wants a new application, so Jim tells Bob to write it. When the application is complete, Jim shows it to Susan, and Susan praises Jim rather than Bob, because as far as she is concerned, Jim made it happen. Yet, Jim did little more than tell Bob to do it and show the result to Susan. If recognition requires little work, Susan will praise Jim more often (if she is not aware of Bob, or chooses not to recognize him). If Bob sees this praise of Jim by Susan for his work enough times, he may leave the company one day citing "insufficient recognition", when, in fact, more recognition was being given, albeit to the wrong person.
I hear a common theme that I've seen among tech folks (and probably a theme that I subscribed to early in my career).
If Jim "made it happen", he has actually earned some of that praise. As a good manager, his very next step should be to transmit and amplify that praise so that Bob also can bask in it, but also to educate/remind Susan that Jim has an entire team that is delivering behind the scenes. It's quite effective to accomplish both of those in one communication (when praise is in email form), by forwarding on to Bob, cc'ing Susan, adding his own praise and reminding Susan (in the clear) that Bob is the one who actually did the programming.
I don't believe that there's some natural conservation of credit/recognition. By sharing as above, Jim doesn't reduce his standing in Susan's eyes, because from her point of view, it's still Jim that "made it happen" and he's being gracious in recognizing his team. Bob now sees the praise that he's earned, may realize that Jim probably added some value along the way, and even if Bob is hardcore "only coding matters", at least Jim has set the record straight.
When done even halfway well, I don't think that pattern results in employees leaving over recognition.
I think the first thing you need to recognize when you become a manager is that making your technical underlings look good makes you look good. I mean, as a manager, nobody expects you to get things done yourself; your job is to find good people, keep them, and motivate them to do the things that need to get done. Especially if your tech is in the room, publicly give your tech credit for getting it done. Nobody sane is going to fire the manager with a bunch of high-performing underlings in favor of the manager who has a bunch of mediocre dullards.
the thing is, the manager and the (good) tech are only very rarely in competition for the same promotions. Technical folks, generally speaking, move into management after they've gone as far as they think they can go as technical people.