Hypothetical management/values question

[GandK]

You are a middle manager for company X. You have four direct reports.

Worker A produces roughly 50% of your team's work. He's young and on fire, but he's also a pompous know-it-all who sees no value in seniority or company culture and establishment. He is roundly hated (and maybe envied?) by the rest of the team, and he tends to treat them like idiots. Worker A has been at company X for 3 years. He makes $100k/year.

Worker B produces 25% of your team's work. Everyone likes worker B. He carries his load, follows the rules, doesn't make waves, and in your opinion would make an excellent manager someday. Worker B has also been at company X for 3 years. He makes $85k/year.

Worker C produces 15% of your team's work. He does his best, in your opinion, but he has a noticeably bad case of seasonal affective disorder that causes his winter output to drop by almost half. Worker C sometimes has a "woe is me" attitude. He has been there 8 years. He makes $87k/year.

Worker D produces 10% of your team's work. He's unambitious and set in his ways. He irritates the other team members with his constant stream of "back in the day" stories and his reluctance to embrace new technology. If you give him tasks he's unfamiliar with, he will insist that others walk him through them until he's comfortable, thus using up two people's time. He's been at company X for 22 years. He makes $95k/ year.

A coveted office with a window opens up, and it's yours to distribute to one of your four workers. All four express an interest in it.

Who gets it, and why?

Assumptions:
1. The office must go to one of your four workers.
2. It cannot be shared.
3. You can have no effect on your workers' salaries, as they are based on starting negotiated salary plus regular accumulated raises (seniority).
4. You can neither hire nor fire.
5. You cannot yet afford to resign/ERE.

[vexed87]

Just because someone is a good asset to the business in terms of productivity does not make them a good leader. Also, promoting him would mean a fall in his productivity as he deals with other more mundane line management duties. This wouldn't be best for overall company productivity. This rules out A. He also lacks the interpersonal skills to lead.

C is not fit for the role as he lacks the initiative and self motivation.

D hates change, therefore he will not adjust to changes in the market, he's not a pioneer and will eventually guide the team and possible the company to their demise failure.

B isn't an ideal candidate either, there's nothing here to says he has the skills to lead a team, other than a presumption that one day he may be up to the task. He's the best of a bad bunch though.

EDIT: Wait, this was about an office not a promotion? Sod it, you take the office!

[Ego]

[saving-10-years]

Would it help C to be more productive (more daylight)? Is that the thinking? I would need to be convinced that it would help C produce more. This might be the easiest sale to the rest of the team 'medical need' although getting them to get out of the office might help as much or more.

How concerned is B about the fact s/he makes less than A and C? Are they aware? Would this help show that as far as you are able you will reward the potential there even if pay is not related to ability. Losing this one would be a big loss. Giving them an office signals they have management potential.

Would A down tools (do less) in protest? That change in activity does not sound as though it would affect their salary and although they are highest paid they might see that they deserve this perk as they are so productive. In purely commercial terms they are producing as much as the rest for $100k (the rest cost $267). If they move into an office by themselves will it improve the working environment for all the others or make it worse.

D is clearer cut. If you gave it to this one then s/he and the others would be left thinking that it was down to seniority and not ability/contribution. That one is the clear 'No way' for me.

[Spartan_Warrior]

In a further demonstration of the uselessness of government middle managers, in the government, they wouldn't even have to make this decision. It would go to Worker D without a second thought or question based solely on seniority.

Beyond that, IMO, it kinda depends on the company goal and structure and the work the employees are actually doing.

I'm assuming that they don't know each other's salaries and that this would only be a change in their workspace, not their workload or assignments.

If this is the software development team for Initech or some other mega-corp, for instance, then the obvious answer is B because "Everyone likes worker B" and the decision will therefore have the least impact on morale. It sends the signal that you advance by doing average work, getting along with others, and being the boss's friend, which is the expected path of advancement in mega-corp.

However, if this were a start-up, say, or something like a sales team, where competition is more expected and/or the efforts of individual "superstars" could actually make or break the business, I would strongly consider Worker A. Not just because he sounds like a man after my own heart (company culture? establishment? Ha!), but because he is basically carrying all the weight of the team and I NEED to retain him more than I need the others.

TL;DR - If docile drones are the MVP as in large corporate structure, then it would go to Worker B. If highly skilled individuals are the MVP as in small start-ups or sales, then I would lean toward Worker A. If this is the government where all that matters is how many years you've been asleep at your cubicle, then it's Worker D.

If I were one of the workers and I wanted a fair decision, FYI, the main thing would be having the decision criteria clear BEFORE the office even came available, e.g. knowing what the manager needs/values so no one is surprised when the manager rewards employees who provide it. I think any of these decisions could be "fair" assuming that the employees understand the rules of the game in advance.

[IlliniDave]

Whoever you put in the office will be subtly elevated above the other teammates. The least impact would be to give it to A, since he already believes this to be the case, his output is a piece of supporting evidence, and everyone already hates him anyway. So the dynamics of the team would largely stay intact.

You like B better, obviously, and to put B in the office would probably create additional tension between A and B. It would also be a not very subtle public humbling of B and could be seen favoritism.

You mention the company culture. Company culture would often dictate who gets the office. Who moved out of the office and what was their role?

In my company, all people of the same pay grade have essentially identical offices, and only the highest one or two have any access to "nicer" accommodations than the standard cube and then only if their job function meets certain criteria (they are a manager or a "lead" of some sort) would they wind up in something like a window office. If no one currently meets the criteria nicer offices will remain empty until someone does.

[1taskaday]

To me it is clear.
Worker B.
All the rest I would have to carry/manage in some way.
Worker B would carry him/her self.
As a manager all I ever wanted was people to do their work and leave me alone.

Isn't obvious why I failed...

[jennypenny]

5. You cannot yet afford to resign/ERE.

Then give it to whoever pays you the biggest bribe for it.

[Dragline]

I would not give it to any of them for the reasons Illini Dave cites. Giving the office to any one of them is bad management, unless they are also being promoted. And D really needs to be talked to and let go/replaced if he doesn't improve in a year or so, which probably should have been dealt with long ago.

You could take the office yourself, though.

[Dragline]

You could end up with lots of unintended consequences in this kind of scenario:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/busin ... tw-nytimes

"Two of Mr. Price’s most valued employees quit, spurred in part by their view that it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises. Some friends and associates in Seattle’s close-knit entrepreneurial network were also piqued that Mr. Price’s action made them look stingy in front of their own employees."

[Riggerjack]

A gets the office. No question. He gets it done, he gets the perk. That's what we are talking about, a perk, not a promotion.

B gets mentoring, when B gets his numbers up, maybe additional rewards are in line, but all he is doing is making the right moves and carrying his weight.

C and D need to find somewhere else to be. If you can't fire them, you can help them make the decision to find somewhere else to be on their own.

I would volunteer for extra work, it would all go to C and D. Bury them in work. Hound them about backlog.Any training would be done by me, and no effort would be spared to communicate that this is the best they could hope for.

Personal reviews should reflect all improvement in paperwork, and all bad news should be in verbal form. D picks up 2% more of the workload, should be extoled as a 20% productivity improvement, while verbally explaining that he still is a half speed, maybe 80 hr weeks would help him keep up.

This should help them find the motivation to find a way to be someone else's problem. That is much more efficient than finding them homes yourself.

Mind you, having been this kind of boss, and doing and saying all of those things; I really like my soft desk job, where I don't have any responsibility, or authority, anymore. And I hang out here, working to avoid working...

[billc]

I'm with Riggerjack on this. The best producer gets the perk. Unless you have a good replacement for him the output of your team goes down if he leaves. As long as him being a prick doesn't reduce the production of the rest of the team I wouldn't be too upset about his attitude. You should watch him though, he might be gunning for your job.

I was once in a situation where I managed a small team of 4 people plus me. One of the workers was dead weight but had close personal ties to the small family business. I presented a business case to the owner that our team would produce more if we got rid of the overpaid dead weight and used 75% of her salary as financial incentive to the rest of the team. The other 25% was savings to the company. Yes this was a sociopath move and I felt like an asshole, but it sent a message to the rest of the team and they worked harder and we all got paid more. And the lazy person was let go, which I my view is fair given the several chances we gave her to improve.

Even if you don't want to take that direct of an approach in removing D, I would start documenting the lack of performance in official reviews. I would basically try to get them worried enough about being fired that they will either improve their output or they will look for another job and quit.

[Riggerjack]

"Even if you don't want to take that direct of an approach in removing D, I would start documenting the lack of performance in official reviews. I would basically try to get them worried enough about being fired that they will either improve their output or they will look for another job and quit."

This method may be counter productive. OP kept mentioning seniority, as though it is a factor. I am guessing that means turnover is very limited. If you can't move a speed bump type of employee to the unemployment line, you can still move them to someone else's team. Negative reviews can make this more difficult. That is why I would give a glowing review, with a verbal communication of deficiency. Letting him know that I "reviewed him under the old system, and the new rules are X, and your performance will either conform to the standard, or define the consequences. If you aren't comfortable with that, here is your last review under the old rules to help you find someplace you will be more comfortable."

As I explained to a member of my crew, who thought he could shoot for "doing as good as average" as a justification for keeping his job: Failure to excel is above all, failure. Nobody is great at every aspect of the job, but if your strengths don't heavily outweigh your weaknesses, I will replace you with someone stronger.