It's a crazy world we live in where someone would post such a candid article about their own under-performance. This article is embarrassing to the individual, and more importantly, to the company that fired him. I think people need to think more carefully about what they post online especially when using real names. This is permanent now. Any potential employer who searches this man on the internet will see this and I don't think that's a good thing. While some might not be turned off by this person's honesty, I certainly would not hire him having read this article. If anything it shows a lack of a diplomatic filter, not only a lack of discipline.
I'm curious: what issues do you see with being honest about the ways that you failed, and how you're addressing them? I don't think it shows a lack of a filter, I think it shows an honesty and an awareness of my issues, and what I need to do to fix them.
I'm not particularly embarrassed by this article -- although it was hard to write -- and neither is the company that fired me (as they helped me write it). Although I do understand if you don't want to hire me after reading this.
I wrote at the bottom that they helped me write it. I literally showed early drafts of this to the guy that hired and fired me, and he urged me to be even more candid than I was originally. But then again, he has no problem admitting his own shortcomings either. For example:
I wrote this article - thanks, your comment means a lot to me. I thought exactly the same. Everyone who writes online is portraying only the best parts, the highlights, without admitting that sometimes, things suck. It's about time we were honest about things.
I think the guy's shed any ... people who would think his lack of candor is a defect. You would not believe the amount of time this will save you in the long run.
Look, if you enjoy dysfunction have at it. But my experience is that you have to defend yourself from it, and the best defense is simply identifying it rather loudly.
There are many, many, MANY more people for whom you do not want to work than that you do want to work for.
I hope you're right -- that's one of the reasons I wrote this. Since when is self-awareness a bad thing?
I mean, generally speaking the type of people who think this post is a bad idea are the type of people who, when asked in an interview what their biggest weakness is, will say things like "I'm a perfectionist" or "I work too hard".
Those are ridiculous platitudes that anyone can see past. I'm much more impressed by the person who admits a real issue, how they identified it, and what they're doing to mitigate it.
Hey, I wrote this article. Thanks - really glad you liked it. Remote jobs are fantastic for a lot of people, but they're not the be all and end all. Sometimes, they REALLY suck. Especially if you're not an introvert, and need other people around to recharge.
Signed up specifically to reply to this comment, and to add my thanks for your blog post :)
I'm going through a lot of exactly the same thing at the moment, though sans startup environment. I'm intrigued to read that you consider the root cause to be extroversion. I wouldn't call myself an extrovert at all, and would ascribe most of what you write about to anxiety (for which I've recently started seeing a CBT counsellor).
Do you think that having your coworkers available in-person would have changed things because 1) having them around would have "recharged your batteries", i.e. the extrovert theory, or 2) having them around would have added the pressure to counterbalance the procrastination (my situation a lot of the time), or 3) something else?
I don't consider the root cause to be extroversion at all. That's one particular reason why I don't like working at home, but I could (and did) just rent office space to deal with that. The problem is that I'm afraid of succeeding -- so, for example, when I rented office space, I didn't go all the time. Or when my company offered to move me from the UK to Austin to be around them all the time, I said no.
2) is correct. I would have felt like I needed to do everything to the best standard because the people I was working for were around around me. I'd feel a much more personal connection with them, and I wouldn't want to let them down, so I'd get my work done, and do it well. And I'd be less afraid about speaking up, or mentioning problems, in person. It's also a lot easier to demarcate between work and not-work time when you're working at an office.
We all have shortcomings. It is hard to work with people who refuse to acknowledge their shortcomings and then try to remediate or at least work around them. Even worse are those who seek to blame others for their circumstances or and arr not willing to admit anything personally embarassing.
I applaud the author and although I'm not in a position to hire anyone, I'd be more likely to hire him (ceteres paribus) because he's put this out there.
Author of this article here: thanks, that means a lot to me. I completely agree with you -- I'd much rather work with someone who acknowledges and admits their issues, so we can find a way to work around them, or make them non-issues. That's much easier than working with people who ignore problems, or try to patch over them, or try to mitigate all of their weaknesses without ever focusing on maximising their strengths.
He was set up to fail in this scenario. Lack of oversight and prompt feedback when he started slipping caused this situation to snowball.
Some personality types can handle this amount of autonomy, but most people cannot. Most people need more structure than what existed here. I also think highly creative people are even more likely to slip.
This is a reason why startups are so hard, it's really hard to put together an organization where people can be productive together.
I have three remote workers and I check in daily. When someone inevitably starts slipping, I try to let them know immediately. Otherwise it's my fault when I have to fire them and destroy value that I worked to create. It's throwing money down down the drain in the form of training, familiarity with the organization and acquired skills.
IMO, you have to be a bit... "spiky" ( as Eddie Izzard might say ) to work independently. It's worth being a bit paranoid about expectations. This means you have to manage expectations, design deliverables very carefully and perpetually review them.
And if you don't hand in progress reports, do them anyway and keep them for audit - you'll need them eventually whether there's any conflict or not.
It's nearly impossible to describe just how ambiguously most people communicate. I've been places where I was in-house and it got to the point where I simply made it a point to be as irritating and lawyerly as possible, not long before I left. It at least communicates "I'm not the one giving up here..."
This is a really good point. When I think of the people who I've worked with who are successful without structure are usually a little bit paranoid/neurotic. Even if no one has checked on them for months, in the back of their head, they are still concerned about the repercussions of slacking off.
I should note that people without this personality trait can be successful too. But in their case, the repercussions for slacking off must be real and immediate (usually just being verbally called out). As a business you must have systems in place to know when this is happening.
There is another type of person who cannot be successful at all in this scenario. They will do everything in their power and intellect to get away with slacking off. ...Oftentimes because they cannot stop themselves from slacking off so their options are either: quit, get fired, or try to get away with it. Most people don't quit.
You're totally right. You pretty much nailed it. I'm not one of those paranoid/neurotic people at all.
Funnily enough, this is why I've been a lot better at freelancing: I get instant feedback from the client if they're not happy, and I get instant rewards (payment) when I finish a job to a good standard.
I think it can be developed as habits. Really, it comes down to just another checklist, but it may be a checklist you have to sort of muse about now and again - "is that really done?"
Author of the article here -- I think you're right to some extent, but if you can't handle that amount of autonomy, you shouldn't be working in a remote role at a startup. Also, I did a pretty good job of performing just at the level where I wouldn't get fired (in the short-term), but that I wouldn't have to work that hard either.
reply