I want to share a story about a brilliant engineer whose personality, while unique and engaging, ultimately presented significant challenges within our team. This experience served as a powerful reminder of the importance of setting clear boundaries and navigating complex interpersonal dynamics when managing individuals.

By late 2023, our Ruby on Rails application had become increasingly fragile and difficult to maintain. Recognizing the need to enhance our team’s engineering fundamentals, we decided to shift our hiring strategy to attract individuals with a stronger foundation in core engineering principles.

Note: Rails facilitates rapid application development, which is a significant advantage. However, a team lacking strong engineering fundamentals can quickly encounter limitations as the application grows in complexity. This can lead to technical debt and hinder future development efforts.

Both the engineer and I tend to be quite expressive in our communication style. This shared characteristic fostered a sense of camaraderie, allowing for open and candid conversations in private. However, our more direct communication style sometimes clashed with the expectations of the broader team. I recognized this early on and began to gently guide her on the importance of adjusting the communication style in public settings.

While it’s generally advisable to maintain consistency in one’s communication, the engineer’s conversational style felt familiar and comfortable to me, making it difficult to consistently enforce professional communication standards.

She quickly adjusted her communication style, and the initial interactions seemed promising. I believe in providing challenging opportunities for my team members to grow, so I entrusted them with our most critical project of the year. I was eager to see them excel and showcase their talent. However, it quickly became apparent that the high-pressure nature of this project was exacerbating the existing tensions.

As the research progressed, I observed a gradual increase in the engineer’s stress levels. This became a recurring pattern: I would address their concerns, offer reassurance, and express confidence in their abilities, which would temporarily alleviate the pressure. However, within a week, the stress would resurface, creating a cyclical and unproductive dynamic. In retrospect, I realize I should have recognized the severity of the situation much earlier, but my own biases and a desire to support their success likely blinded me to the escalating issues.

I believe my shared background and generational similarities with the engineer may have inadvertently led to an overestimation of our compatibility and a reluctance to address the escalating issues more directly. I inadvertently granted more latitude than was appropriate, failing to recognize the severity of the situation until it reached a critical point.

It’s important to note that I value open and authentic communication in private settings. My primary objective is to understand and support my team members, and I believe that effective communication can take many forms.

While I am open to direct and even passionate communication in private settings, I cannot tolerate disruptive behavior in public forums. This includes raising one’s voice or engaging in disrespectful language during team meetings. Unfortunately, this is what happened during a code review session.

I had presented a code solution that did not align with the engineer’s preferred approach, and they proceeded to express their disagreement in a highly emotional and disruptive manner, raising their voice in front of the entire team. The shock and discomfort on the faces of my colleagues were palpable. This incident marked a significant turning point in the situation.

The following day, I issued a written warning along with a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The meeting that followed was understandably emotional. As always, I made a concerted effort to listen to the engineer’s concerns and perspectives. After a lengthy discussion, we concluded the meeting by outlining clear expectations for future behavior and performance. Unfortunately, the situation did not improve, and the employment relationship ultimately ended.

In retrospect, I realize that while I consistently listened to the engineer’s concerns, I failed to truly grasp the escalating severity of the situation. I did not fully recognize the extent of her frustration and the impact it was having on her well-being. This was a difficult and valuable lesson for me.

My previous approach, which emphasized a permissive environment for open communication, inadvertently failed to establish clear boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate behavior, particularly in public settings. I now approach private conversations with a greater emphasis on both empathy and clear expectations. While I still value open communication, I strive to maintain a balance between fostering an inclusive environment and upholding professional standards.