Tough Decision: Who Would You Let Go in a Recession—The Team Player or the Top Performer?

Situation 1:
You are the manager of a team of 3 (including you and 2 executives). One executive is hardworking, listens to you, follows your instructions, punctual, a team player, etc. His performance is in the range of 55-65%. The second executive is stubborn, doesn't listen to you, would never follow your instructions, never punctual, in no way a team player, etc. But his performance is always in the range of 85-90%.
Due to recession, the management has decided to cut costs, and that clearly means that your team will be reduced to two. Who is the person you would choose to lay off? And why?
Regards, Arun

This is quite an interesting situation. The decision to be taken is not so difficult. I will not lay off the person who is giving 85% performance because a recession is going on. We need the business, not just punctuality, but teamwork and all. So, the person who is giving 55% will be removed by me.

Hi Arun,

I would recommend laying off the second executive as he is stubborn, doesn't listen to you, never follows instructions, is never punctual, and is not a team player in any way.

It's easier to train or mentor an employee rather than trying to change an employee's nature or attitude. Employee performance can be improved by providing the required training.

Please share your views.

I would lay off the second person. I can always train a person to perform, but not to change his attitude.

If I lay off the first person - he will lose hope and start reacting negatively in his next job, and also underperform.

If I lay off the second person, he will learn that it's not just enough to give 85% productivity, but also attitude has to be changed, and he will do much better after that!

I agree with Shabz because we can train a person to our expected level, but we cannot change one person's attitude or behavior easily. So, I will keep the first person.

Good question. It depends on the situation. Today, a recession is ongoing, so obviously I would lay off the first person. But during a boom period, I would lay off the second person because of his attitude, and I would give training to the first person to perform better.

In both cases, the company is getting business. That's the only motto of the company. It has nothing to do with your attitude or nature.

As you know, a recession is ongoing, and the company is implementing cost-cutting measures. How will you manage to provide training to your employees under these circumstances? You need to ensure the business stands strong in the market during this period.

I support the decision to retain the person who is delivering an 85% performance. Certainly, if it were not a recessionary period, I would consider laying off only the second person.

If u r thinking like ths then u will find second peron is totally dependent on his boss (this is one of the attitude man) but other one is not so dependent on his boss as he is not following instruction and all….and as a HR u hv to improve them and attitude can be change after motivation after training …..so if u r talking abt abt attitude ..both r hving attitude prob…

Hi Arun,

During a recession, what matters more to a company is good performance rather than an average performer. So, I believe that due to the need of the hour, I would choose the second executive and lay off the first one. Sometimes in business, we have to make tough decisions, but that's what is required.

And remember, to survive in this world of instability, you have to give your best.

Regards,
Niharika

I won't lay off any of them at random. I will give both of them the combined target so that they need to achieve that in a one-month period as a team under these conditions:

[The first guy's productivity is 55-65%, let's say 60 out of 100, and the second guy's productivity is 85-90%, let's say 90 out of 100.]

Their combined target would be 160 out of 200.
Condition 1: If the complete target is not achieved, both of them will be fired.
Condition 2: If the target is achieved, they will be rewarded with valuables. The person who performed comparatively less will have to present the valuable gifts to his counterpart. The company can bear one month's salary of two executives at least.

Ashfaque.

Hi Arun,

If a guy is stubborn, won't hear anything, not punctual, did not follow your instructions - even if he performs at 100%, it's always a danger for your position and for the company. So, it's better to retain the first employee. Productivity is not a big issue. If a person will obey your instructions, be punctual, and work hard, then automatically productivity can increase from 0 to 100%. Let's make a better decision and take appropriate action.

Regards,
Venkatesh

The situation is tricky.

What happens if we speak with both employees about the situation that we are going to lose our jobs if we don't perform? I think it is the manager's duty to have an open chat about attitude problems at the first instance and be prepared to lose if he is not going to change. In my experience, most of them fear and change. It would then require monitoring for a period of time until you are comfortable allowing people to be on their own.

To solve the problem here depends on the manager and not on the two employees. If the manager is good, he must be able to own up to the work, hire fresh talent, and train to meet productivity. If speed is a problem, address it. If attitude is a problem, educate, educate, and eliminate! At the end of the day, from the organization's perspective, I would remove the manager and get a new one. Delivering with what we have is the job of the manager, not complaining about the subordinates having attitude or learning problems.

I quote from one of the blogs that I read regularly from Parkash Iyer: "I believe everyone has greatness inside of them. And we all owe it to ourselves to rise to our peak potential. There are a few quotes that probably sum up my thinking: 'If you think you can, you can. If you think you can't, you're right.' 'If it's to be, it's up to me.' 'It's never too late to become what you might have been.' 'Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.' 'On your deathbed, you could be saying one of two things: I wish I had. Or... I am glad I did.' 'You don't win a silver. You only lose the gold.' 'Leaders create leaders. Not followers.'"

Link: [The Salad Bar: Pig. And Other Games People Play!](http://blogspot.com) (Search on Cite | Search on Google)

Best regards, Harsha

One thing you need to understand is: recession is not the time for downsizing on employees. Don't ever think that a headcount reduction is the best way for cost-cutting!

Do you know that this is the best time for training?

How on earth do you want sales to happen when there are no orders? Where can this second guy perform when there is little to no work? You are only thinking about work taking place - I agree. But at this point, you are cutting people because of less work.

If you need the business to stand strong, you need good people.

And... being in recruitment, I know that companies hire 80% based on attitude and 20% based on skills. A good company values the importance of a positive attitude. This insight comes not only from experience but also from discussions with very senior individuals involved in hiring top talent (CXO levels) as well as junior-level recruiters.

It's sad that some companies don't realize that this recession is the time for training. Without a steady flow of business, where do you expect employees to find success? Concentrate on training.

I would suggest reading the Opportunities section in the Hindu Wednesday Supplement. I recommend going through all the material that has been published since December 1, 2008. You will understand why retaining the second person will only hinder the business.

"As you know, recession is ongoing, and the company is implementing cost-cutting measures. How will you manage to provide training to your employees during this time when you need the business to sustain your market position?

I support the person who is delivering an 85% performance. Surely, if it were not a recession period, I would consider laying off the first person only."

"as a HR u hv to improve them and attitude can be change after motivation after training"...
Abhi.....???? u said we hve no time for training and u prefer motivating n trainig for change of attitude...
Sheeesh, thats a waste of time.
I can train on skills... training onm attitude suld have been concentrated at School, home or College.. not at work.
At work - expect to be motivated to get the work done - nt to chaneg the attitude.!!!
--------------------------------------

@@@ DON'T EVER THINK THAT HEAD CUT IS THE BEST WAY FOR COST CUTTING!!!

Condition is given there, so we have to discuss based on that condition only...

@@ Do you know that this is the BEST TIME FOR TRAINING?

You mean recession is the best time for training when the company is looking to cut costs? One side you are doing cost-cutting, and on the other side, you are spending money on training...

@@ How on earth do you want sales to happen when there are no orders? Where can this second guy PERFORM when there is no or less work?

The first salesperson is giving 85%, and the other one is giving 55%. What will happen to the second guy if a recession is going on? He will not be able to perform, while the other one will definitely perform, maybe less than what he performed previously...

Dear, think like a businessman... all other things are philosophy only.

@@ And... being in recruitment, I know that the company hires 80% based on attitude and 20% based on skills.

Hope you are doing like this. Man's attitude can be changed or corrected. If you need a scientist and you look at his attitude 80% and skills 20%, how will he be able to perform? Attitude and these are secondary things while skills are primary.

Dear, talent never cares about their attitude and all. They have to focus on work only.

1) Condition is given - that is the ultimate solution of no business. U simply dont go and remove people if business is doing good

2) Havent u heard of Internal Training?

3) Sales dont happen if there is no need for the buyer. At this point, orders have reduced. No matter how hard one tries - people are reluctant to give u orders - (this is how it is linked to teh condition - No Business... so cut on people)

4) Think like a business man - I am saying DONT THINKL - ACT!!

5) I am sorry for you that u have missed on important points in the field of Human Resources. Its simple like this - I can train u on technical skills - but I cannot still change ur attitude abt Recession and why its necessary to hire on attitude.

Understand - the condition here is cost cutting, thru manpower reduction. And this happened only becos of no business.

Even if u r looking at a scientist - u will first of all call him for an interview only based on his research experience. U CALL HIM FOR AN INTERVIEW to chk if his attitude matches ur culture.

Else be prepared to lose!

And please please read abt Recession and suggestion from experts. U will get to know hw training has a major role to play at this time.
Training is nt expensive - if u think so, its ur ignorance.

Again - arguing on this WITH U is a waste of time - coz u know why, I cant change ur ATTITUDE!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

This is a very good question. In my opinion, I would have to lay off the first person. Since it's a recession, we need higher performance, and higher performance is delivered by the second person. As an HR Manager, I would like my company to grow even during a recession.

Supriya

I will go with Abhi. I will lay off the 55% performer because at the time of a recession, company performance is more important. Nobody can waste time on training and all.

This is my personal opinion and doesn't relate to any of the situation.
When it comes to Layoffs in the orgs, it's very likely decisions to be diagonal in nature on the ground that everybody being human, wants to be in comfort zone for most of the time. Very rarely people show the guts to sustain for the long time in uncomfortable zone.
The second fellow being an every time threads for his/her manager will not be the first choice to be retained; from this angle the first will get priority over the other one. Also, since he is able to perform and giving the good results without manger's advice and instructions- he does not need a manager, which makes a manager role as redundant.
However here in one important point which needs consideration-If you keep on accepting such behavior for the long time- others who are not performing at par will get wrong message.
Hence I would like to conclude if Manager feels he /she can not correct the second fellow; there is no point to retain him.

I think it is an interesting situation. I also strongly believe that attitude is more important than performance. Performance can be improved by giving training. But this is a very interesting application. I agree with Ashfaque.

Thanks & Regards, Gayathri

Hi all,

First of all, I would lay off the second person since he is not a good team player. Secondly, I will reduce the compensation payable to the first employee, as he is an average performer. Double benefit to the company...

Answer = None

Reason : Keep both the executives, but slash their salary.

Reason for Executive 1 – He should increase his performance to a level of 70-80 if not 90%, and then he should deserve a hike.
Reason for Executive 2 – He should be much more team oriented, should follow instruction, be punctual and flexible-performance is not the only parameter.

Rational Assumption: In this recession period none of them will take the risk to seek for another job, rather they would try to improve upon there area of weakness.

Outcome- Management gains.

Dear Arun,

The first person to be laid off as the performance of the second person is visibly better. The second person is not listening. It may be your perception, and it seems that you want a yes-man to be retained at the cost of performance.

Vinay

Hi there,

I think, after many under-the-table discussions, they will terminate the employee who doesn't have support from the top management. If you don't agree with them, you will find yourself flailing too.

Thanks

Dear All,

I am Satish Sharda, Manager HR in an Export House. Please tell me how we can cut the costs. It's very urgent.

Satish

Obviously, the 2nd fellow does not have team spirit and may be obnoxious due to his better performance. Anyway, the 1st person has all the requisites and only needs skill enhancements which can be provided. Look at it like this - more work is required on person 2, but cooperation and guaranteed performance are not assured. Person 1 has only one drawback which, when addressed, will ensure performance improvements and total satisfaction for both the organization and the individual. Think about it.

Regards,
Gogo

In any situation, whether it is a recession or a boom, I will lay off the second one. Such an attitude creates a negative working environment and reduces the productivity of others as well.

Dear all,

I think I must quit from the job, as being the HR, I am wholly responsible for this type of situation, i.e., performance vs. increment, promotion, pay package, retaining them, culture build-up, etc. I am not enabling the environment but seeing the same executives in different angles. Is it right?

I am a part of the culture builder in my organization. When I can't handle my own team as one better and the other worse, one good and the other poor (doing justification... GOD knows what is going on in the dept's???).

There is something wrong with me as, till the date, I have been carrying this type of executive under me and allowing them to work.

Lastly, can I see your Performance Appraisal Indicator questionnaire (whether it is on MBO, Individual, assessment, assessed by Immediate Supervisor (YOU), Evaluation... whatever method is done)? The reason being, when the second person does not listen to you, never follows instructions, is not punctual, nor a team player, then how come they are rated much more above the 85-90%??

Please, is it a guess or made-up story of our own where no logic I can find. Please.

With Regards,

Vivek

Even I feel Ashfaque is right, we can give a chance to do teamwork. The first person will try to overcome his underperformance problem, and the second person will have to adjust to the situation they might be in with their attitude.

Hi Arun,

I would suggest laying off the second person during this recession period. The nature of the person cannot be changed, but we can work on increasing the efficiency of the individual.

For the people who said that Training in Recession period is nt a good idea – kindly go thru the below links…

Progression in recession: why training is still crucial in a slump
It's natural to think staff training and development would be the first thing cut when budgets are tight. Yet it's more important than ever
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housinghorizons/recession


Fight recession by training staff: rewards and challenges
http://changeboard.com <link updated to site home> ( Search On Cite | Search On Google )


Infosys extends staff training period to deal with recession
http://news.in.msn.com/business/arti...mentid=1820331

Explore options, reduce hiring
<link updated to site home> ( Search On Cite | Search On Google )

It is time to tighten the belt, nurture talent
http://www.hinduonnet.com/jobs/0902/...1850060300.htm


For people who say attitude does nt matter in completion of task – one question.

Do you think that Psychometric tests / attitude tests / behavior analysis model test – is a waster of time? Good Hiring practices adopts these methods.

Technical is important – but Good Technical skills (know how skills) with the right attitude is the one that employers want. Remember – technical can be trained…attitude, is damn difficult to change.

What skills are gauged when a fresher is hired... he may know only theoretical part - but he is hired and chosen among others becos of his attitude.

I felt bad when HR ppl say that training is nt important at this point… guys – U think that Training is a waste of time so u can do it when things are in good shape, and forget it if we r in the middle of a financial crunch??? Pls think..

It depends on the situation. If it is the normal course of time, it is the second person who has to be terminated. When the recession is on, the need of the hour is performance. So the first person has to be terminated.

Moreover, when we have the positive mindset of improving the efficiency of an individual, why can't the attitude? Being an HR, we need to identify the person's problem and sort it out. This is not a rare case; every organization has people like this, and may have people like this in the future. So identify the problem, sort it out.

Regards, Prem

Option 1:
HR Manager
+ Stubborn Executive
- Team player
= Unbearable work atmosphere; either of them will leave; company will incur cost on replacement

Option 2:
HR Manager
+ Team player
- Stubborn Exec.
= Work atmosphere will improve; also, Performance bound to improve.

Hence, my vote goes for option 2 above.
Prashant Das

If the second executive is able to achieve 85-90% without listening to me and ignoring what I have to say, I would reconsider my leadership style and examine how it might be impacting the underperforming executive.

Both need training and coaching. I would like to suggest retaining the performer. Good performance is the result of some good strengths. To further coach and train such a performer is a better option rather than training a non-performer. Choosing to lay off the first one is the better choice.

Zahid Latif

Dear all,

I would like to propose the following:

1. If three members are in the team, I would suggest making two of them part-time executives. Their salary would be based on their performance.

2. I am willing to contribute to cost-cutting efforts by reducing my salary proportionally. For example, if the total cost to company (CTC) of the team is Rs. 60,000.00 per month and there is a need to cut costs by 25%, the adjusted total would be Rs. 45,000.00. I will strive to align my team's CTC within this revised budget in coordination with management.

This is a time for all of us to support each other and the company.

Amit Oza: Idea.

Hi,

As far as I am concerned, I would prefer to lay off the person with the attitude problem. Though performance also matters a lot, a person can be groomed to a great extent if they are very positive in all respects. Unless we have the right attitude towards work, we can't perform well.

Regards,
Prashant Jain

I won't lay off any of them at random. I will give both of them the combined target so that they need to achieve that in a one-month period as a team under these conditions:

- The first guy's productivity is 55-65%, let's say 60 out of 100, and the second guy's productivity is 85-90%, let's say 90 out of 100. Their combined target would be 160 out of 200.

Conditions:
1. If the complete target is not achieved, both of them will be fired.
2. If the target is achieved, they will be rewarded with valuables. The person who performed comparatively less will have to present the valuables and gifts to his counterpart.

The company can bear one month's salary for two executives at least.

Ashfaque.

Hi,

I will surely lay off the first person. In business, results matter more than anything else. When an individual is producing results by following the proper procedures, we need not involve ourselves in his activities. As you are not involved in his matters, you will not have any problems regardless of his nature. When it comes to training, no matter what technology you use, "boiling stones" is not possible. Moreover, we can't take risks at this point in time. We need to consider this aspect as well.

Harry

I would prefer to lay off the second person who is stubborn and doesn't take instructions. When he is not working as per your instructions, what is the point of keeping such a person? Moreover, performance can be improved with training and nurturing, as well as boosting. In fact, I went through exactly the same situation in my department.

Before I answer your question, I would like the following information from you:

- Can you provide the job descriptions for both of your juniors? In other words, is it a routine job or a challenging one with a volatile situation that requires quick responses?
- Please let me know if the sincere team member is underperforming solely due to a lack of certain skills that could be addressed through training or mentoring.
- Team members like the more efficient individual can sometimes be challenging and may not exhibit good teamwork. Have you attempted to counsel him to improve his team behavior, and if so, was it unsuccessful?
- Has your company issued any policy guidelines for reducing staff numbers? Typically, the least senior employees are let go first, all else being equal.
- If you have conducted performance appraisals in the past, please provide the ratings.

Thank you.

I completely agree with Ashfaque; this would resolve the problem, and the organization would benefit. Alongside, let us provide both of them with the necessary training on "Attitude," etc., which would be useful in their lifetime and make them remember us always.

One & Only

Raykumar

Very embarrassing question. First, being stubborn, disobedient, and unpunctual cannot result in an 85% performance. If we cannot motivate the second executive, either we have to let him go, or he has to be removed. This type of manpower always creates problems for the growth and development of the organization. We must consider our future growth and development. Instead of spoiling organizational discipline, please remove the second executive and improve the first one to achieve 90% performance.

Thanks,
Pramod Pandey
Head - Personnel & Admin.
The Crescent Group.
Mumbai.

Layoff is not the end result. Laying off an employee means losing an asset. In recession times, jobs can be shared. The first employee is delivering the output, not sitting idle. So I won't lay off the employee who is giving at least 50% and teamwork matters. :)

Thanks, guys. Now let me tweak the situation a little.

Situation 2:

After your request, Management gave both employees one more chance to prove themselves. They were given 2 months to improve on their drawbacks.

At the end of the 2 months:

The first executive was able to improve his performance marginally. He follows all your instructions without fail as he understands that it would help him do his job better. He stays in the office till late to finish the work allotted to him and ensures that he puts in that extra effort.

The second executive has shown a 10% improvement in his performance, but on the attitude front, he has become more stubborn. He doesn't follow the office discipline in terms of working hours, leaves the office early, and comes in late. Yet, his performance has shown an improvement.

Situation: Management has called an emergency meeting, and it's decided that your team has to let go of one person.

Who would be your choice and WHY?

Think... (There might not be a correct answer; it's all about ethics and attitude.)

Regards,

Arun

Are you writing a story?

Anyways....

I will still lay off the person who does not value company ethics and has a stubborn attitude.

I will continue to support the first employee as he is showing improvement. However, I will need to lay off the second employee who is creating negativity in my organization.

Hi,

Glad that people here are enjoying situational questions.

Situation 1: Well, I feel it's for the manager to decide whether they should be given another chance or if one of them should be taken out.

Attitude is something that needs a lot of effort to change. If you are keeping the employee with attitude problems, you may soon be seeing problems around you. The critical issue is the department this particular employee is serving. The HR department is more like a link between employees and employers. If you have someone with the wrong attitude as the link, then there are chances that the relationship between the employee and employer goes down the drain.

Now about the person whose performance is satisfactory. Well, he is listening to the manager, doing everything as per the instructions, and still is able to achieve only 50-60%. This is a case that would need a microscopic look. What are the reasons for him not being able to perform? Is he able to understand your instructions? Is he an active listener? What are his improvement areas? These would be about the employee... now about the manager: If the manager can communicate things correctly to the employee... If he is an effective communicator. Well... maybe the manager needs to improve his communication skills. Because the instructions given by him are heard by both executives, the one who listens to his manager performs at 50-60%, the one who doesn't perform at 70-80%. Surely there is an issue with the manager here.

Situation 2: Both employees are given a chance, and still, there is no significant improvement in their performance. In this case, it's not that the executives have failed, but surely the manager. The manager has not been able to bring any significant change in the performance of the first executive and the attitude of the second. In my view, the person who should be shown the door is the MANAGER.

This is my view.

Your comments are welcome.

Regards,

Arun

Hi Arun,

Earlier, your question was, who should be laid off by the manager among the 2 employees? So, I tried to draw a conclusion by analyzing the 2 employees. I supported the first employee who is obedient, a team player, but an average employee. I would still lay off the second employee who is unpunctual and ill-mannered.

In my opinion, both employees need training tailored to their Training Needs Analysis (TNA). Both of them work under the so-called Manager, and if they are lagging behind in performance or attitude, there seems to be a communication gap between the employees and the manager. The Manager may not be providing proper training.

Arun, I agree with you to some extent that he should be laid off, but I want to know about the recruiting cost of hiring an experienced sales manager during this recession. Will they be able to train both of these employees? Why would the second employee, who did not listen to their first (old) manager, listen to a newly recruited manager?

I am looking forward to your reply.

Thanks