23

I am a senior individual (i.e. hiring and firing power) in a large tech company. The job is stressful, though we actually pay well, which makes this place attractive to younger engineers.

One team that I help manage is having an issue with a junior-to-intermediate level engineer. We basically had planning meeting with 3 teams involved, and leads for the teams were having a debate on responsibilities and budgets for major components in a shared project. Our problem engineer, let's call him Zorp, advocated the the 2 other teams just go with what his own boss proposed, which drew the ire and scorn of other teams (and even some sighs from people on his own team, who weren't sold on their own boss's plan).

Zorp took it upon himself to reach out to the leads for these other teams later that day, schedule one-on-one meetings with each lead under false pretenses. Apparently he felt it was appropriate to schedule vaguely defined meeting invites with the tech leads, who are already very busy, and tell them that they should just do what his boss wants to do, for the sake of the project and the company, and then goes into some speech on how the tech leads could learn how to communicate and work better with others, like he's their manager or personal counsellor: very offputting. In both cases, the leads attempted to let him off easy and end the meeting early, but he wouldn't take the hint, and was pressing hard to convince the leads that he was right. These leads outrank Zorp by several levels, and are, less than impressed with his conduct. They are intelligent, courteous, and conscientious people, and do not deserve such disrespect.

Now, our company puts particular emphasis on diversity of backgrounds, which I find to be common in the tech industry, and I find to be a good thing in general. However, Zorp's actions strike me as extremely inappropriate. If a direct report of mine pulled that crap, I'd have given them 2 of their 3 strikes there and then, and his own direct manager is seriously considering giving 1 strike himself, which I might override and escalate to 2 strikes or even a firing.

To my question: is this sort of behavior at all common among younger engineers and students, or is this some sort of misguided approach to handling interpersonal conflict that is taught in schools these days? I've already had Zorp's manager go over this issue with Zorp, but our young Zorp seems to feel this behavior is "mostly appropriate". I don't want to leave someone jobless and without severance or a health care plan right before Christmas, especially with an already crazy and saturated job market for tech workers, but unless there's a particularly compelling reason I'm just not seeing here to justify Zorp's actions and idiosyncrasies, I'll have to simply put him on a PIP so we can fire him without severance by the holidays. We can't have a junior engineer of moderate productivity and talent riling up our leads and principal engineers.

Updated:

The issue resolved itself. Zorp resigned mid-way through a discussion involving him, his manager, and myself. Apparently he took offence at being "lectured". So, I offered him "garden leave", cut his check for 2 weeks plus/minus vacation pay overage/deficit, and he tries to withdraw his resignation when he realizes the months of severance payout doesn't apply to voluntary resignation. Had to get security to bring him down to the lobby, and paid for a cab out of pocket just to get the ordeal over with.

BSMP
  • 11,647
  • 6
  • 39
  • 54
Alois
  • 291
  • 2
  • 7
  • 21
    Based on the tone of your post I feel like you've already made up your mind. – Retired Ninja Dec 01 '22 at 02:45
  • 2
    @RetiredNinja No, not yet. If this is something taught in their "soft skill" courses in university, then I'm genuinely OK with having him attend mandatory company-sponsored courses in ethics and professional conduct, and letting him off with 1 strike. I'm literally reading up on the course curriculum from his university right now so I can check out the syllabus for specific courses. I generally believe in second chances. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 02:48
  • 16
    "I'll have to simply put him on a PIP". You are not his manager. Can you do that ? – Job_September_2020 Dec 01 '22 at 03:42
  • 1
    @Job_September_2020 I have that right, yes. I oversee multiple teams, and have fairly broad responsibilities (and authority). I provide guidance to Zorp's direct manager, and get puled in when inter-team conflict arises. If I catch wind of a third instance of this behavior, even if it occurred months ago, I'd be within my rights to 3-strike Zorp. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 03:44
  • 6
    What is the timeline on this? What has actually been tried? It sounds like you've received the first report of insufficient respect/professionalism, and now you're throwing up your hands and declaring "I've tried nothing, and I'm out of ideas!" There's also a lot of odd tone changes. In a few sentences you go from "don't want to fire him at the holidays without severance" to planning exactly that in exactly those terms, explicitly. And what is the relevance of the section beginning "I've had requests for[...]" It seems non sequitur. Are you saying this employee made all those requests? –  Dec 01 '22 at 04:48
  • 1
    @user137869 No, Zorp did not make those requests. They were made by numerous other (younger) engineers over the past couple years, and are examples of what I would deem unprofessional requests made by younger engineers that genuinely surprised me. My instinct is to bring the hammer down, but I'm attempting to be open-minded in case this is something Zorp learned in school and simply needs to un-learn in industry. This is important to me in case something like this comes up again, as we need to be open minded (but not to the point that our brains fall out). – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 04:53
  • 21
    This sounds like they've made one mistake, and now you're ready to get the PIP out? – matt freake Dec 01 '22 at 07:10
  • I think I'm still missing something. Why does anyone bother to attend these meetings? If they keep showing up after this pattern has been established there must be something they're getting out of it, even if it's just an hour's nap... Lecturing to an empty room tends to quickly cure people of inappropriate content. – keshlam Dec 01 '22 at 07:16
  • 5
    @keshlam The meetings occurred the same day, and were scheduled as urgent one-on-one meetings under false pretenses. The subject was "urgent technical discussion", when instead it was some junior engineer talking down to tech leads like he was their life coach. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 14:06
  • 2
    @mattfreake 2 severe transgressions, and an unwillingness to admit fault when disciplined by his direct manager. Sounds like 3 mistakes in my books. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 14:10
  • 13
    "requests for 'days to cry'" -- I hope you are not referring to something like bereavement? Because you could totally word bereavement that way. Also assuming you have PTO does it really matter what the request for a day off is as long as it uses the PTO? I find it hard to believe you have all these strange requests this frequently unless there are some serious issues with your hiring process. – Kupo Dec 01 '22 at 14:37
  • 28
    This reads more as a rant rather than a legitimate question. What on earth do other associates inappropriate requests have anything to do with the problem in question? –  Dec 01 '22 at 14:46
  • 4
    The last two paragraphs don't seem to match the rest of the body. – DKNguyen Dec 01 '22 at 15:00
  • 9
    Yeah, it doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion what other people have done. Focus on Zorp. Delete the para about other junior engineers, because it comes across as "here's why I'm prejudiced against Zorp". – pjc50 Dec 01 '22 at 15:05
  • 1
    @Kupo Not, not bereavement. Basically extra PTO to account for the stress and burden of cost of living, housing being unaffordable, etc. In that case, I offered additional mental health days, but it was declined by the people requesting it. My guess is some people see using such days as taboo. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 16:10
  • 1
    @pjc50 This info possibly benefits Zorp's case. It demonstrates that seemingly unprofessional behavior is not limited to just him; there is prior precedent. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 16:11
  • How would Zorp *personally* benefit in case he's successful and his boss's plan is actually adopted? – PM 77-1 Dec 01 '22 at 18:41
  • Can you add a country tag? – Sybille Peters Dec 11 '22 at 12:42
  • @Kupo I'm pretty sure they're complaining about people asking for a mental health day. – BSMP Dec 14 '22 at 18:27
  • Your update is setting up the deal for Zorp. He clearly showed an abusive behaviour in the process of resigning. Good riddance. Sometimes, the sure sign you should fire someone appears after the person already left.

    That being said, It could have been otherwise with another youngster, just eager to do his job well.

     – gazzz0x2z Dec 15 '22 at 11:05

9 Answers9

46

This is quite the tricky issue.

Firstly, I break no bread with some of the things you mentioned such as Safe Spaces, days to Cry, asking to break Corp IT policy etc.

However, I feel the need to play a little Devil's advocate for young Zorp, because in many ways, I've been Zorp and pulled Rank that I didn't have and gotten my fingers metaphorically whacked. Those experiences have helped me in knowing both the location of the line and how far I can push it before it breaks.

So, to advocate for Mr Zorp:

1: He clearly has initiative. Regardless of how appropriate it may or may not have been, the drive to get stuff done and to seek out ways to achieve a desired outcome are highly desirable.

2: He's not afraid to speak up and challenge on an issue. Lord knows this is a frustrating one when it's not carefully honed with experience, however if everyone is hurtling towards the Cliff, having the minerals to say 'You are all being Idiots' is something highly valued.

3: He's a Team player... Of Sorts. Hear me out here - The guy has a solution from his manager, that he thinks will work. Whether that is genuine belief in the solution or simply wanting to brown-nose his Manager, I'm not sure - but my gut feel is that because this is a Technical role and you've mentioned he didn't get hints, I'm picking that he's not Mr Office Politics - so likely the former. And so, as a good team player, he's trying to get the Team to make the game winning play.

That's my Advocacy for him, because I've done things similar and I've learnt.

What should you do with him?

The first thing is that you need to reprimand him, Significantly. If Mr Zorp has the character traits that I think he does (Engineer, bad at social cues, single-minded focus on an issue - do I need to elaborate?) - then you need to give him an unequivocal 'This is not, nor will it ever be acceptable. You do not do X, you do not do Y, you do not do Z' - This needs to be done with absoluteness, in Binary, with zero grey area.

You need to carve off a range of actions that are never acceptable. You also need to make it clear what the consequences of repeat offending will be: "If I hear that you have done this again, I will consider this Gross Insubordination and fire you on the spot" (insert correct justification), again, think binary - there is no room for negotiation, automatic firing if X, Y or Z conditions are matched.

Once done, that is the Stick part of your actions. I will say that this element is probably the most important, because you need to make sure that there is zero ambiguity in just how badly he screwed up.

Now for the Carrot. With his Manager, you need to give him a set of rules and or guidelines so that should he find himself in a similar position where he is thinking about taking initiative on his own, he has something to refer to, to help ensure he doesn't piss people off

Things like: "Any meeting requests you want to schedule must first be run by and approved by your Manager, until further notice" Basically, each area where he fu-bar'd needs it's own set of rules, so that he can keep on the straight and narrow.

Then the ball is in his court, he's been told what is not acceptable, what to do if he's confused, a set of guidelines and the ultimate consequence.

If Mr Zorp is like me, he'll be salty about it, but he'll learn and become a valued member of your team (as well as the occasional PiTA - can't have an Omlette without breaking an Egg).

If not, then perhaps your company isn't the environment for him to learn to refine these character traits.

TheDemonLord
  • 33,706
  • 10
  • 67
  • 138
  • 8
    I get where you are coming from, and agree with virtually everything else in your post, but would not consider "your meeting requests will be micromanaged now" a Carrot, in the sense that it is in no way rewarding those positive traits that he exhibited. Rather, it is just an adjustment of the usual process "you can freely schedule meetings with other people". It at least needs to be presented as "We get you are trying to change things, and this is how we are helping you to do that without stepping on people's toes too much". – LokiRagnarok Dec 01 '22 at 08:24
  • 5
    So, true story - once, when I was new into the Corporate world, I used 'Reply All' to Banter a bit too much, since some of the more senior staff did... I got told that I no longer could use Reply All, in hindsight - it was more about knowing when and where banter was appropriate and to whom. That helped teach me where the limits of acceptable behavior was - and so likewise, with scheduling meetings, Zorp needs a similar lesson - but perhaps there are other options available. – TheDemonLord Dec 01 '22 at 09:00
  • 10
    "I feel the need to play a little Devil's advocate" -- TheDemonLord –  Dec 01 '22 at 15:43
  • 1
    I really like this. You made some good points. Some of what you wrote reads a little like hinting as Aspergers / Autism spectrum, not sure if that was intentional (we do have a lot of overlap with some of the typical traits in tech people.) – Sybille Peters Dec 11 '22 at 13:06
  • 1
    @SybillePeters It was definitely intentional, at a certain level of IT being on one of the Spectrums is practically a Job requirement. I've made that joke and observation often (and include myself in it - Dyspraxia fo lyfe yo!) – TheDemonLord Dec 13 '22 at 23:47
  • This answer is just what I came here to say. This kind of behavior is common and even encouraged in start-ups and other smaller, flatter organizations. In these places, it works well to drive creativity and solve problems fast. Given how they set trends, it is no surprise many new graduates do so. Notably, it may not scale well to more hierarchical, larger organizations. Quite often, it can be solved by feedback and mentorship. – 白迪孜 Dec 22 '22 at 17:53
36

I wouldn't give this person strikes. I'd give them feedback. Not all feedback has to be related to "this is a performance issue and repeated instances will result in further disciplonary action up to and including termination." Feedback is best given as a gift, not as a hammer. Do it because they need it, and you want to see them succeed, because you care about them as a person and about the success of the organization.

Anyone can do this (assuming they have the skills; this frankly is not a strong point of the skill sets of most coders).

"Xorp, it's great you are taking the initiative to get things done, but this is not how things get done here. People understand the issue and have different opinions. As the FNG (Freaking New Guy) you should probably not assume that your opinion is the one that will hold sway. This company is filled with smart people. Keep this up and none of them will talk to you."

Tiger Guy
  • 10,611
  • 22
  • 37
  • 8
    I feel this is the right answer, and most of the beahviours OP considers "unprofessional/inappropriate", are not really unprofessional, they are inappropriate in their company. There are many companies nowadays that love a flat structure. OP also sounds generally annyed by the younger generation which is a bit unfair to Zorp, who was not the one requesting to use Steam – rosysnake Dec 01 '22 at 15:13
25

is this sort of behavior at all common among younger engineers and students, or is this some sort of misguided approach to handling interpersonal conflict that is taught in schools these days?

It's a little of both. I suggest reading https://www.thecoddling.com/ (no affiliation). These days, specifically American colleges focus a lot more on the "student experience" and less on academics, job skills and employability. They are NOT doing the students a favor.

Two of the more interesting examples I've seen an interviews

  • A professor at a well known university was an excellent communicator, but was seriously lacking technical knowledge of the the class they were actually teaching. Think of a math professor who can speak eloquently about the benefits of math to society, but can't do basic algebra.
  • We interviewed a PhD student who turned out to be a one-trick pony. No harm, no foul. However, when checking in at the end of the day they bitterly complained "How dare we ask them questions outside of their direct field of expertise. They felt personally offended"

Needless to say we didn't proceed with these candidates and that's actually your best line of defense going forward. Make sure you tighten up your interview processes to weed out the worst cases of entitlement and self-centeredness BEFORE you make an offer. Good options are "Give me a specific example of how you handled a conflict" "Tell me about a time you had to deal with adversity".

So what to do about Zorp:

  • I think you and/or their direct manager need to sit them down for a serious conversation
  • Give them a chance to explain (or hang) themselves: "Why do you feel that was appropriate?" "Why do you think you are better qualified to choose a course of action then a group of highly experienced and respected technical leads?"
  • Then read them the law of the land in no uncertain terms.

Take you cues from there: If they are starting to understand and show signs of actual insights and willingness to accept a mistake and learn from it, you can put a coaching plan together to work the problem. If they are stubborn or stand-offish, you probably should go ahead with the PIP. Not because setting up the meetings was a fireable offense in itself, but because the personality and attitude will prevent them from being successful at your company and in that case it's better for all parties to get it over with quickly.

Mark Rotteveel
  • 1,782
  • 2
  • 12
  • 16
Hilmar
  • 120,104
  • 36
  • 233
  • 374
  • 1
    That book you noted, just read the summary. Sounds like a dystopian sequel to Richard Hofstadter's book on anti-intellectualism. Depressing. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 04:42
  • Thanks: I'll consider this. His own manager had a sit-down with him, but he wouldn't admit fault. Looks like I get to step in and "lay down the law" tomorrow. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 04:43
  • 1
    Think of a math professor who can speak eloquently about the benefits of math to society, but can't do basic algebra. - Sounds atrocious. "How dare we ask them questions outside of their direct field of expertise. They felt personally offended" - Christ. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 04:58
  • 13
    "Looks like I get to step in and "lay down the law" tomorrow." I would seriously suggest not doing this as it undermines Zorp's manager. Empower Zorp's manager to lay down the law, don't do it yourself. – Philip Kendall Dec 01 '22 at 05:36
  • 8
    @PhilipKendall: Not necessarily. You can play this as good cop/bad cop. Grandboss can be a little rougher so boss can maintain at least a cordial relationship for the day to day business. – Hilmar Dec 01 '22 at 07:28
  • I think the quoted question and the first paragraph in the answer are not relevant to this website, this could be tackled in more details and rigor in its own post elsewhere (see https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/search?q=Jonathan+Haidt) – coredump Dec 01 '22 at 15:22
  • 6
    The issue resolved itself. Zorp resigned mid-way through a discussion involving him, his manager, and myself. Apparently he took offence at being "lectured". So, I offered him "garden leave", cut his check for 2 weeks plus/minus vacation pay overage/deficit, and he tries to withdraw his resignation when he realizes the months of severance payout doesn't apply to voluntary resignation. Had to get security to bring him down to the lobby, and paid for a cab out of pocket just to get the ordeal over with. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 15:24
  • 1
    This is unfortunate, all things considered. Do schools not teach the basics of labor law in their own country/state anymore? Law and ethics is still part of the average undergraduate curriculum. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 15:29
  • 4
    @Alois I disgree with one of the three points - that which doesn't kill you sometimes does make you weaker (repetitive stress injury comes to mind). But I would say that a bigger issue with education is that consumers are treating themselves as the boss, which they are, but they are often very poor bosses, demanding good grades over an actual decent education. –  Dec 01 '22 at 15:50
  • 7
    @Alois Also, I can understand being offended by something, but the ability to not let people know when you are offended, especially when it could work against you, seems to be in decline. It seems like a basic part of professionalism to me. –  Dec 01 '22 at 15:54
  • 1
    @Alois I can only offer 1 dated sample point, but that wasn't part of my 20 year old curriculum. But, based on continuing complaints about education not preparing people for the real world, suspect it's still not the case. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Dec 01 '22 at 17:36
  • @Alois, I was just wondering about the nature of that meeting.... In that meeting, did you present him with an official PIP ? or did you give him 1 strike out of 3 ? or did you simply ask him not to schedule an "urgent meeting with a team lead for trivial issues that were already decided by team leads ? – Job_September_2020 Dec 02 '22 at 00:46
  • 1
    4 big lessons: (1) Be careful when you take initiatives, i.e. know the company's culture, processes and seniority ranks. -- (2) Be calm and don't let your emotion take control of your course of action. -- (3) Don't quit your job while feeling upset. -- (4) Don't quit your job unless you already get an offer from another company (if possible). – Job_September_2020 Dec 02 '22 at 22:34
  • 2
    @Job_September_2020: Re (1): Do your frigging home work first. I have seen a lot of passionate people having great ideas which unfortunately implode on first contact with reality. Before you can make a statement that "B is better than A" you need to first understand WHY A is currently being done then do a data driven analysis that shows that B is better in the MAJORITY of important aspects not just the one that you are currently thinking about or aware of. – Hilmar Dec 03 '22 at 15:26
  • 5
    Old people who're sad about their lives have always moaned about the young being idle, while failing to note just how entitled they were. And the person described here is far from feckless. People came out of uni 30 or 50 years ago expecting a job for life, a good salary, a house, a car, and now they're likely to get none of that. Students are far more focused on value for money now because they need to get a good education if they want a chance at life. Most college courses are far more focused on real life than 50 years ago, and far more people are studying vocational courses now. – Stuart F Dec 05 '22 at 12:50
5

Can't it all be written off as a laughing matter? To me it sounds like an absolute hoot!

You are emphatic that there is considerable distance in age and seniority; so more than enough that sensible people would not be disturbed by this whole episode. Even if his arguments were ridiculous and quite misconceived, that would only make the whole affair more amusing.

Also, was there any merit at all, either in his arguments and advice, or in the performance and delivery?

Presumably the position he is fighting for cannot be totally unfounded - after all, his boss is for the same idea! Also, his involvement in meetings as an advocate in the first place, seems to have been legitimate (otherwise what was he doing there?), even if the follow-ups were pushing too far.

You also say meetings were arranged "under false pretenses", but there's certainly a difference between "vagueness" (especially just a single instance of it) and downright falsehood.

You really could deal with this by simply saying there firstly needs to be stronger coordination with his manager in future, and secondly that any meeting requests with others must have a clear agenda.

Steve
  • 11,560
  • 1
  • 16
  • 42
5

I have looked at this question and I fear that young Zorp was setup to fail.

I knew a manager who did something repeatedly over many years. They would gather a couple of young employees and tell them a tale: I had an idea to do X. He knows that nobody in the organization is doing X. Nobody had even thought of doing X. If we do X, we will attract all kinds of attention, and the project will win awards. But most important they are probably the only people in the organization with the skill set to do the work. It is only through his genius that he hired them and found the perfect thing for them to succeed.

The truth was that somebody was already doing X and their project was very successful. The manager wanted to take over the task and steal their budget so he could grow his footprint.

The young engineers would eventually find the other team. But the manager had an answer: the other team isn't doing it right. He would then send the young engineers to spy on the other team to find out exactly what they were doing. Every time it ended in the young engineers clashing with the other team, because they believed they were the only one who could do the job and the other team was incompetent. They did everything their boss wanted them to do.

The manager's boss loved this aggressiveness. They both considered the young engineers expendable. If they left because of the incident there was no great concern. Lather rinse repeat.

The clue was here:

Our problem engineer, let's call him Zorp, advocated the the 2 other teams just go with what his own boss proposed, which drew the ire and scorn of other teams (and even some sighs from people on his own team, who weren't sold on their own boss's plan).

Where was Zorp's manager? They are responsible to the company to not let this spin out of control. They are responsible to the employee to not let them get into this situation.

It might be time for the organization to make sure they aren't the problem.

mhoran_psprep
  • 72,299
  • 8
  • 131
  • 233
4

As a former hiring manager and current senior engineer of 25 years, I have run into a few Zorps in my day. Personally, I don't suffer fools and if he was to approach me with these antics I would have put him in his place and proceeded to ignore his future meeting requests as well as make a complaint to his manager. If I were in a supervisory role above him, I most certainly would write him up and provide however many strikes he has earned. I can appreciate the empathy of not wanting to see someone terminated but that isn't really your problem. I once took some supervisory training and the instructor told us that you never need to fire anyone... they choose to fire themselves and it sounds like Zorp is making that choice for himself. The truth is that being fired may be the best thing for him since life is a cruel tutor and it might aid in changing his outlook on his place in the world and could lead to a more fruitful and conflict-free career. Otherwise, he will continue to be emboldened by the lack of consequences and continue to think that this behavior is acceptable and then bounce from job to job always wondering why everyone ELSE is a jerk. Stick to the facts, be professional, lay down the law and let the chips fall where they may.

rhoonah
  • 1,369
  • 9
  • 15
  • 2
    Thank you. I'll think over this. – Alois Dec 01 '22 at 03:21
  • 7
    Come on, I agree with the gist of the answer, but "the instructor told us that you never need to fire anyone... they choose to fire themselves" is hogwash for the faint of heart. The manager fires the person. This is basic logic and grammar. Yes, the fired person is most likely responsible for being fired, but one doesn't fire oneself. – LoremIpsum Dec 01 '22 at 21:05
  • 1
    @LoremIpsum I can add one caveat to that... lay offs. In that case, the employee has probably done nothing wrong to deserve the termination. Aside from that, I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. Employees choose to either follow policy or they don't. When they choose to not follow policy then they choose the consequences of their actions. THEY fire themselves... it is simply the manager that makes it official but it was the employee who chose to violate policies and fire themselves. – rhoonah Dec 02 '22 at 12:41
  • 1
    @rhoonah, it's not clear that Zorp violated policy (at least not a written one with explicit application here). At any rate, it is still a warped perception to think that the employee is performing their own firing, rather than you standing in judgement and then performing their firing. And to say some employees deserve to be fired is trite. – Steve Dec 02 '22 at 13:18
  • @Steve That's a fair point about whether or not be violated any policy so unless that happened then a write-up may not be warranted however his actions may still call for a verbal discussion on how his actions are adding to conflict on the team. As to your final point, I'm not sure what to say. You choose to follow the rules or you don't. When I was in 7th grade, I had an algebra teacher who had a zero tolerance policy with gum chewing. She would say "if you choose to chew, you choose to stay" referring to detention. Follow the rules or choose the consequences. The same holds true here. – rhoonah Dec 05 '22 at 17:26
  • @rhoonah, the fact remains that it is the teacher that sets the rules, stands in judgment about their violation, and doles out punishments. Rhetorical flourishes do not alter it. And as you concede, it's far from clear (and fairly unlikely) that any explicit directions were violated here. – Steve Dec 05 '22 at 17:59
  • @Steve We are talking about 2 cases. If the employee did not violate any rules, then there is little to be done except for some counseling on interpersonal relationships. Now onto a hypothetical instance where an employee did in fact violate a set of rules laid out by whoever is in authority to enforce them, then the employee has chosen their fate. Each person makes their own choices and in turn, chooses their own outcome. – rhoonah Dec 05 '22 at 19:15
  • 2
    @rhoonah, the confusion in your approach is that it is the employer who has chosen to set those rules, it is the employer who has chosen a scheme of punishments for their violation, it is the employer who chooses whether there has been a violation, and it is the employer who chooses to apply the punishment in the end. If the employee had the real control, then they would simply choose to misbehave and choose not to be punished for it. This is the error in the argument you are trying to make. (1/2) – Steve Dec 06 '22 at 07:49
  • 2
    Also, we usually accept that there can be a violation even through thoughtlessness or ignorance - so there need be no choice at all by the employee. The function of punishment in such cases is to remind the workforce of the policy, or even (with stronger tones of arbitrary rule...) to announce a policy for the first time. (2/2) – Steve Dec 06 '22 at 07:49
  • @Steve We are clearly talking past each other so there is no point in continuing this conversation. Have a nice day. – rhoonah Dec 06 '22 at 17:42
4

Sounds like Zorp needs to be held to a code of conduct appropriate to his level, after the boundaries clearly explained: this is not acceptable, this is okay. Not debated, told. This is your job, these are your boundaries.

Zorp's love to debate and explain why they can and enter circular arguements to avoid conceding a point, so don't bother trying. Give the rule, deal with infractions.

Chris
  • 3,960
  • 13
  • 22
4

Well, first of all, i find it bewildering that you are labeling the person "Zorp" and at the same time speak about respect and manners. Maybe you are letting your own emotions off the leash here.

You are facing an employee who shows initiative, will to communicate and loyalty to his department. You can see these aspects as negatives or positives. You obviously chose the negative.

Instead of seeing the potential of the candidate and trying to make the best use of it, you are focusing on the negative interpretation, foster your annoyance and even think about firing. Where on earth is asking for a one-on-one meeting a reason to get fired? Where on earth is challenging a decision reason to get fired? Are you in the military or the CCCP? If not, then maybe you should step from your high horse.

If the employee challenges a decision, then he should receive the means to come to the same conclusion as the rest of you (assuming the decision is correct) or he should be put in a position to correct the rest of you (assuming the decision is incorrect). There is also a third option that both possible solutions are viable and it is down to politics/preference/strategy which one is chosen. In those cases it also would not hurt to simply explain these aspects to the employee. Do you want a following foot soldier or a conscious co-worker?

If all those things already happened, it might be time for a warning shot, a meeting with clear communication. Would this be a "strike"? No! Because the employee did act on good faith. After you have told him the limits, you can start handing out strikes.

Every company has slightly different dynamics. Maybe he came out of a company with flat hierarchies and your company is more vertically structured. Maybe he is not aware of this different dynamic. Does it make him a bad employee? Certainly not.

In our field people have their strong suits and the weak suits. Some are excellent developers but bad communicators. Some are perfect designers but fail when taking them into real life contexts. As a manager you should accept the challenge to endorse their strong sides and to empower them to compensate their weaker characteristics. And every once in a while even one of those "weaker" characteristics will help you find a solution to a problem.

You are putting out all these plans of terminating him right before christmas. And not a single line of your post suggests that you or your company have ever attempted to address the "issue" and coach (as indicated by your tag) the employee. If your technical leads are so overworked that they cannot coach and communicate with your junior employees, you might want to consider other problems in your company. Dont take your companies problems out on a motivated junior.

BestGuess
  • 584
  • 2
  • 7
  • I'm not understanding it the same way: OP says that 'Zorp' strongly disagrees with a management decision, refuses it, upsets colleagues and other teams, and tries to have others to change their minds. That's not that they 'obviously chose the negative', but rather that they can't let this negative attitude happen. You can always discuss the pros and cons, but once management decides and sets a line of action, you move on and do your job (or anything else but not discuss it, as it's too late...) – OldPadawan Dec 02 '22 at 15:29
  • "Are you in the military or the CCCP? If not, then maybe you should step from your high horse." The irony. – rhoonah Mar 21 '23 at 20:28
1

Another angle here. To me this sounds like he has read way too much inspirational BS on LinkedIn. Empty confidence, moves to make him look import and visible, and half baked office politics.

Not that it excuses his massive step in the salad (to use a Norwegian term).

Petter TB
  • 428
  • 2
  • 6