
Can't fire a brilliant employee, but he is late every day - Shihan
http://www.quora.com/I-have-a-staff-member-who-produces-brilliant-work-but-is-consistently-late-every-single-day-I-cant-fire-him-because-it-will-take-months-to-find-someone-to-fill-his-position-What-can-I-do?share=1
======
jdalgetty
I dealt with this for years and it was incredibly frustrating. The problem
wasn't so much with me and the employee (I didn't like it but he performed so
I could look past it) it was more with the team and upper management. It
looked poorly on me that one of my employees disregarded direct instruction
(and obviously showed lack of respect) and it was difficult to justify the
behaviour to the other employees who thought it wasn't fair and that they also
should not have to come in on time.

I do agree that special employees deserve special treatment, but there are
certain things that should be fair across the board, especially in small
teams.

~~~
kstenerud
Yup. At the end of the day, morale is king. Kill morale and you kill
everything.

This means that whatever across-the-board rules you have MUST APPLY ACROSS THE
BOARD. Make exceptions and you start a morale slide, starting with people
being miffed that one "star" employee receives special treatment. They
eventually get pissed off enough at his prima donna status that they start
ostracizing him in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, and the workplace gradually
becomes toxic for everyone (including the boss).

Of course, it would be better to simply relax lateness rules across the board
if such a thing can be done, but when that's not possible, you must remain
disciplined and enforce equally to everyone, regardless of their performance
(because this is no longer about performance; it's about morale).

------
dragonwriter
If the position really requires the kind of punctuality he doesn't have, then
you _need_ to replace him. "Can't fire him because we would struggle for
months if he was gone" is just bad management. If you need to replace him, and
the barrier is the service hit that it would take getting someone new up to
speed after doing that, then hire the additional person _now_ , get them up to
speed, and _then_ fire the person who isn't there when you need them.

OTOH, there's no indication that the supervisor here has done anything but
give verbal warnings to try to change the behavior, particularly, no
indication of an attempt to determine if there was a problem that the employee
was having that was causing the problem and attempt to work with the employee
to identify a solution. Warnings aren't a serious effort to deal with the
problem, especially when the "warnings" aren't backed by any consequences that
the employer is willing and able to impose.

Its also unclear if the problem is uncertainty as to the employees schedule or
a real need for the specific currently scheduled start time -- potential
resolutions differ between these two scenarios (in the former case you might
change the set schedule, in the latter case solutions are constrained to those
that actually get the employee there at 9 -- or get someone else there in his
place.)

------
subhobroto
I see many responses but no one seems to have asked a question that I view as
fundamental: what's the role of that employee in that company?

1\. Is this employee supposed to man the lines? Is he a support line person
who has to answer phones? WHAT are his primary (and secondary)
responsibilities? Is he there to help manage the infrastructure of the company
so that his teammates can continue to focus on customer support tasks?

2\. What are the specific task(s) that he does that the manger is impressed
with and that he so good in? Is it his ability to grasp customer tech problems
and provide resolution in a manner that no one else in the company can do? Or
is he doing something else entirely like developing solutions that enable his
company to enter new verticals or automating infrastructure provisioning and
monitoring?

It seems like most of the answers on that post seem to assume that the person
in question is in a developer kind of a role and then go on to enumerate the
merits of productivity over timeliness, but I am yet to see a confirmation of
that assumption. The answers will vary wildly depending on the role the person
is supposed to serve.

------
serve_yay
Working in corporate America is such a disaster. 10 freaking minutes, really?!

------
swasheck
a classic example of perception over production. on the one hand, if the guy
is "the best" and is delivering at a much higher level of quality then what's
the problem? on the other hand, (for better or for worse) management's
perception carries tremendous weight when making decisions. we've all seen it
with purchasing decisions and personnel decisions are usually treated within
the same jurisdiction.

additionally, there's the overall team health that this person must consider.
if "everyone else" is punctual and the superstar isn't, then this could affect
team morale and degrade overall team output.

ultimately though, it sounds like this manager has only considered negative
reinforcement - a poor strategy. i didn't see much discussion of how he's
tried to offer alternative incentive(s) to this one employee to reward them
for their contribution relative to the team (and it doesn't have to be
monetary, as Patricia Lynn posted). a consistent benefit for that level of
production may be something that could be used a method of collaborating
toward a punctuality agreement.

in the end, it sounds like this person knows how much value they bring to the
organization and probably believes that they're not being rewarded
appropriately for it and is, therefore, creating their own reward.

finally, an invective against this manager - they sound awful. a distinct lack
of creative personnel management, a reluctance to provide alternative
perspective to their boss (inability to "manage up"), and a generally whiny
attitude is not a person for whom i'd work for very long if i was a high
producer.

dont worry, mr. manager, your employee will be gone before long anyway.

------
dooptroop
What the hell is this obsessing over 10 minutes?

~~~
yokohama11
It seems like it's a direct IT support position. Meaning that someone is
supposed to be there ready to answer calls/problems from 9AM to whenever.
Clients, whether internal or external do _not_ want to call in at 9:15 and
hear that they can't be helped because XXX hasn't come to work yet, especially
when they've got an agreement from you that you will be open at 9AM every day.

If you are in support like that, you generally _do_ need to be at work exactly
on time. Same as being a cashier, factory worker, etc.

It's not like being a programmer, sysadmin, etc where exact hours typically
don't matter much as long as you're available for meetings and the work gets
done.

~~~
dooptroop
Sure, it's unfortunate if nobody answers the phone, or is not there to open a
franchised store etc.

I just don't buy into the whole 11 workers do 10% more work than 10, or that 8
hours is more productive than 7.5. In any business that is, not just "brain
work". Far-east sweat shop exempt.

~~~
emir_
I don't know. I've worked for grocery stores when I was in high school and one
cashier running 15 minutes late was always noticeable, especially early in the
mornings and late at night.

------
Joof
Ask him to come in 10 minutes earlier than he is needed?

If lateness doesn't actually change the job output, then is it actually a
problem?

------
ilaksh
I hope that guy got a better job. His managers sound clueless.

Maybe he got a job working from home.

~~~
mryan
It's not clueless to expect employees to show up at the pre-agreed time. The
post goes in to some detail about why this is important - it's not just a case
of a manager demanding he be at his desk for no reason.

Let's say you are responsible for four team members who share support tickets.
Support tickets begin arriving at 9am. One of the team is consistently ten
minutes late, meaning the other three need to pick up the slack for him.

Forget about the management - this is unfair to his colleagues.

~~~
dragonwriter
Its clueless to issue "verbal warnings" when there are no consequences that
the manager is willing to follow through on beyond those warnings. And
clueless, as seems to be the case here, to use "verbal warnings" _in place of_
, rather than alongside or in response to failure of, efforts to diagnose and
resolve problems with an otherwise brilliant employee that apparently the
company is so dependent on that firing him, in the manager's eyes, _literally_
is not an option.

So, regardless of the reasonableness of the expectation of timeliness, yes,
the manager here seems rather clueless, from their own presentation of the
situation.

------
ryandrake
My advice would be to fire the guy. It would make your timekeeper boss happy,
and it would make some other company very happy to be able to hire a brilliant
employee. A win-win situation.

------
chrisbennet
"Poor cultural fit" perhaps? :-)

------
sqldba
We had this "problem" at two of my workplaces; one where I was the one doing
it and the other where someone else was doing it.

In my case I lived nearby but sometimes was 5-10 minutes late despite having
moved to live literally 5 minutes walk away. Why was I coming in late? Because
while my direct coworkers and manager were amazing, we had been acquired by an
evil company, and being ordered by senior management (from the safety of
another state) to treat customers without human decency.

The only way I could continue to work, aside from the feeling that I was in
the belly of the beast and secretly helping all the customers that I could,
was that I was in control of that 5-10 minutes in the morning. I was the one
doing it, they weren't doing it to me.

After some poking and prodding my boss decided it was not a big deal. Yes the
phones had to be answered, but it wasn't an issue when a few people were
likely in the office, they can call back a minute later and have someone, and
my mobile number was also published for outside of hours contact. No big deal,
no internet post, no ego, no whinging.

At another company an employee was even more late; 30-60 minutes every day. I
wasn't privy to the conversations about why (I think it was just more
convenient because they had kids and both partners worked) but the boss had a
talk with them and changed their working hours to start at 9:30. Again, the
phones have to be answered, but it's also useful to have someone who stays
later in the day. No big deal, no internet post, no ego, no whinging.

Do you see the pattern here? An employer and employee talking about something,
realising they both want different things, and deciding well it's worth it to
retain the talent. The idea of a manager and their bruised ego trying to force
everyone to fall into line as if workers were cattle is disgusting.

What amazes me from the post is the number of managers (or manager wannabes)
who insist that the employees are either insulting them, insulting co-workers,
refusing orders, or failing to meet a contract.

* I can guarantee at every company, anyone with kids, comes late at some times and leaves early to pick the kids up. Nobody bats an eye.

* Coming late has nothing to do with you, the company, or the job. Some people just work this way and you can judge them on the work or be pig-headed and lose their talents. (There may be a slight correlation to being a bad boss and having employees come in late because they hate dealing with you.)

* As for not fulfilling a contract, if your lawn gets mowed once a week, or the paper or milk is delivered, or you're in the doctor or dentist's waiting room and they're ten minutes late - try refusing the bill and tell me how it goes. Good luck.

* You may write a cheque but you will never own a person and get to push them around however you like. Let them go if you must. But if doing so doesn't strongly benefit the business to the tune of the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars of investment it costs to retain an employee - versus ten minutes a day - then if you do it you're just a bad manager.

