Current Events > Thinking about promoting the "wrong" person, should I?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you don't want guy 1, then find someone else. Guy 2 will probably make a big hit on morale and if he understands the game well enough, he knows that you're to blame and will use that against you.

If the other employees don't have a good opinion of Guy #2 (because he's not that good at his job) I don't think they're going to respect him as a manager and that will probably be a problem.

Also everyone will be demotivated if the mediocre employee is the one getting promoted.

If you're seriously considering guy #2 here, then that just tells me that you shouldn't be in the position you're in.

CE hates managers almost as much as cops and pitbulls so Im not sure if this is a bait topic

TC makes really good bait topics

@Chunky

what is your position? You never told us, so we can have an idea what your field is like.

also you said person 2 never wanted the job, so would they actually want to be manager? Lets say if they get promoted and they dont want the extra responsibilities, then what?

He works in the paper sales industry.

the message is if you don't promote guy #1 your company doesn't care how hard or diligently you work

Chunky posted...

He calls off on occasion, he sometimes argues with me and others in management, he's been written up a few times, and tbh he's really not all that great at the job.

Chunky posted...

he has management written all over him.

Looks about right.

If you are truly a manager yourself and this is not a bait topic, you should grow people into what they want to be instead of taking the easy way out to force a job on to someone who doesn't want it.

Unless you want to send the message that hard work doesn't pay off, it should be guy #1. Should at least be given a chance to learn to be a manager.

Wedge_Antilles posted...

Unless you want to send the message that hard work doesn't pay off, it should be guy #1. Should at least be given a chance to learn to be a manager.

It depends on if the only progression for the role is management bit that isnt always the case.

Fluttershy posted...

the message is if you don't promote guy #1 your company doesn't care how hard or diligently you work

Wedge_Antilles posted...

Unless you want to send the message that hard work doesn't pay off, it should be guy #1. Should at least be given a chance to learn to be a manager.

This

i think this topic is bait but it's kinda fun anyway lol

being loud =/= having balls
having knowledge of a hierarchy =/= more qualified
difficult to work with =/= management potential

why do you say he knows everything, yet he doesn't seem to know how to do his own role efficiently and well. management also shouldn't get written up, pretty much ever, so that's a huge strike.

where's the good part? lol

Go with whichever one has straight hair.

Does management skills include polling CE for feedback? Anyone can learn that.

Unknown5uspect posted...

If you're seriously considering guy #2 here, then that just tells me that you shouldn't be in the position you're in.

well ya

but that is the cycle, he is about to promote someone else just like himself because he doesn't know what it really takes to be a good manager himself

RlP posted...

If you are truly a manager yourself and this is not a bait topic, you should grow people into what they want to be instead of taking the easy way out to force a job on to someone who doesn't want it.

This so hard. Talk to them first.
I would also not give guy #2 a free pass, because like others said.. just because he has management potential with leading, doesn't mean he will be good or has earned it. I've seen a lot of mediocre employees who have been promoted while I bust my ass, and it's frustrating. Shit like that builds resentment and it will look like favoritism.

Why not promote guy #1 to a Lead role at least? Coach the guy and give him tasks on how to lead his team. An assistant manager is different from a lead role since the latter is basically a supervisor role on path to management roles. I would ask him if he is interested first if he is even interested in managing people. Not everyone wants to, but it can be learned.

You can talk to guy #2 about his problem solving and leadership, but talk to him about his performance as well... And then mention a path where he could become an assistant, if he improves his performance and is more reliable and professional, like in a year or whatever. But do not give him a free pass/without merit. He needs to earn it.

But yeah, good managers mentor their employees.

Sounds like you need an assistant and not another manager

Chunky posted...

a different manager was abusing his power and having his subordinates do things that were not their job. guy #1 wasn't happy with it, but he always did what he was told, never asked any questions. it was actually guy #2 that reported the issue and had the manager held accountable.

not sure if this counts as a "yes man" or not, but guy #1 doesn't adapt too well to change. if i have him do anything that is kinda different from his normal work, he gets stuck easily. in general he's a slow learner. some of my other employees can adapt to change much easier.

What's the difference between these two examples? That's it bad when another manager has a worker do something that isn't their job, but it's all good if you ask them?

Chunky posted...

So everyone who thinks I should promote guy #1 (so basically everyone lol):

Remember in Office Space when Peter was considered over the other employees because of his management potential? Same situation here.

Yeah, how'd that movie end?

Peter stole a bunch of money from the company and the building ended up being burned down

Maybe I'm just mildly sleep deprived, but isn't this the plot of the Spongebob movie? Mr. Krabs opens a second restaurant and promotes Squidward instead of Spongebob? The descriptions of Guys 1 and 2 sound like they could be Spongebob and Squidward.

yeah i'm sure this is a bait topic. But hire employee #2. No reason other than I wanna hear about it when shit goes south at your workplace

Akagami_Shanks posted...

yeah i'm sure this is a bait topic.

tbf, it doesn't tickle me because i don't work

pegusus123456 posted...

Maybe I'm just mildly sleep deprived, but isn't this the plot of the Spongebob movie? Mr. Krabs opens a second restaurant and promotes Squidward instead of Spongebob? The descriptions of Guys 1 and 2 sound like they could be Spongebob and Squidward.

Thats part of the movie, but not really the plot of it tbh.

#1

He cares about his job and is easy to get along with. If you train him, hell be fine.

Guy #2 already has problems getting along with people, so yeah, nobody wants to answer to that.

when you break it down, TC is just saying guy one has positive traits but i'll tear him down because he's not willing to get fired over insubordination, and guy 2 is the employee everyone hates but i wanna promote him because he couldn't care less about the job

Ca n you put guy 1 into a position where they are managing without the title? Give them charge of a project and see how they do.

guy #1 is clearly dedicated to his job. how do you expect him to become manager material if you're not willing to take him on and train him in a managerial role? leave for another company, then come back later when there's (another, maybe) management position available? that's stupid and disrepectful. he's invested himself fully in the job, do you not think you should invest in him too?

guy #2 has personality issues, which will be hearder to unlearn than to teach another employee management skills. his promotion will also most likely have a negative impact on morale, and remember, people leave managers, not jobs.

TwoDoorPC posted...

guy #1 is clearly dedicated to his job. how do you expect him to become manager material if you're not willing to take him on and train him in a managerial role? leave for another company, then come back later when there's (another, maybe) management position available? that's stupid and disrepectful. he's invested himself fully in the job, do you not think you should invest in him too?

guy #2 has personality issues, which will be hearder to unlearn than to teach another employee management skills. his promotion will also most likely have a negative impact on morale, and remember, people leave managers, not jobs.

Why is the assumption that the only way to progress is to join management. Maybe there are other avenues available to him.

Did guy 1 come before person a?

I feel like this topic is a great example of how little most people know about management.

#1 knows how to do his job, knows what can be done in what time, knows what it looks like when someone in his position is working hard and when they aren't.

#2 is not motivated and if he's an ass in 1 old position, he'll just be an ass with power. This hurts everyone beneath him when he's in a management position.

Chunky posted...

No, I don't expect people to understand management roles that well...which is why i'm really impressed with guy #2.

guy #1 is a great employee, but like I mentioned he's a "yes man". i'll go over some examples:

* a different manager was abusing his power and having his subordinates do things that were not their job. guy #1 wasn't happy with it, but he always did what he was told, never asked any questions. it was actually guy #2 that reported the issue and had the manager held accountable.
* i like being critiqued for things. guy #2 has spoke out about some things i did wrong, which ended up being important things that i fixed, and it helped our team as a whole. guy #1 has always just listened and agreed with everything i said.
* not sure if this counts as a "yes man" or not, but guy #1 doesn't adapt too well to change. if i have him do anything that is kinda different from his normal work, he gets stuck easily. in general he's a slow learner. some of my other employees can adapt to change much easier.
* guy #1 in general is just very timid. no backbone. you can tell whenever you have a 1-on-1 meeting with him. he always agrees with whoever is conducting the meeting, even if he doesn't really agree.

As with other things people have pointed out, these can be learned

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy. VERY surprised this topic is still up, thanks for bumping it for me, lol. I'll try to reply to everything I can.

Chrknu posted...

If you don't want guy 1, then find someone else. Guy 2 will probably make a big hit on morale and if he understands the game well enough, he knows that you're to blame and will use that against you.

Someone else for the promotion? Yeah I can understand that. Guy #1 does a great job in his own position and he should stay there. I don't want him to leave the whole company or anything. Guy #2 is kinda mediocre at his job, and I feel like would be better suited in a management position. He's not the first person I would promote, but he's the lesser of the 2 evils.

CrestedTax posted...

If the other employees don't have a good opinion of Guy #2 (because he's not that good at his job) I don't think they're going to respect him as a manager and that will probably be a problem.

Also everyone will be demotivated if the mediocre employee is the one getting promoted.

I should probably explain, guy #2 knows how to do the job, he's just sometimes unreliable. guy #1 is much better at the entry level job, but that's all he really knows. I still don't understand why CE thinks being good at your job automatically means you get a promotion lol, as if being good at your job means you automatically are good at being a manager.

Unknown5uspect posted...

If you're seriously considering guy #2 here, then that just tells me that you shouldn't be in the position you're in.

Explain to me why I would promote someone who isn't qualified for the position (in this case, guy #1). If you're good at a particular job, that means you good at THAT job, not other jobs within that company. This is a common practice at many companies, I didn't invent this way of thinking.

Zeeak4444 posted...

I feel like this topic is a great example of how little most people know about management.

I think many people in this topic are entry level workers, which is why they're siding with guy #1. Entry level workers are generally not going to understand management, which is why they usually side with the person who is good at their job. I'm not hating or anything, but it's a common practice to promote people who are qualified to be a manager, not people who are simply good at their current job.

Think about someone who is a computer engineer. Can they build a computer from scratch? Yes. Does that mean they can effectively teach others how to build a computer then? No.

Chunky posted...

Think about someone who is a computer engineer. Can they build a computer from scratch? Yes. Does that mean they can effectively teach others how to build a computer then? No.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/6/9/AAZ897AAENpV.jpg

Chunky posted...

Guy #1 does a great job in his own position and he should stay there

In my experience, this is the view of shitty managers. They want to keep the good employees under them, so they can keep them doing their work and make the department look good. Busting your ass gets you more work, sucking up to your boss gets you a promotion.

You think Guy 1 is incapable of learning?

Chunky posted...

I think many people in this topic are entry level workers, which is why they're siding with guy #1. Entry level workers are generally not going to understand management, which is why they usually side with the person who is good at their job. I'm not hating or anything, but it's a common practice to promote people who are qualified to be a manager, not people who are simply good at their current job.

Think about someone who is a computer engineer. Can they build a computer from scratch? Yes. Does that mean they can effectively teach others how to build a computer then? No.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up, so why are you even asking? It's your position to fuck up. Hundreds of people both close and just familiar with the situation are telling you number 1, but you ain't tryin' to hear it...hubris...

TC why don't we do this: promote guy #2, but give guy #1 a raise.

Does your company like, have any sort of professional development or what? It seems like both candidates would get a lot out of different Pd focuses

There is nothing worse than a manager who knows nothing about the job of the people they're managing, or sucked at said job when they had it. Those are the managers that end up totally disconnected from reality, and just end up cracking the Metrics whip.

Nobody will want to work for guy #2. You will be sending a clear message to your employees that hard work, skill, a good attitude, etc is worth absolutely nothing, because you won't be rewarded appropriately for it. Guy #1 will almost certainly quit, and will probably take a few other top performers with him. You'll make yourself look bad, set up guy #2 to be hated, lose good employees, cripple morale, all over some nebulous "X factor" that may not even work - after all, there's nothing even suggesting that guy #2 will stop being lazy and argumentative after getting promoted. Most people like him don't.

And don't come at me with your "entry level worker" nonsense. I AM a computer engineer, and I've seen multiple managers get hoisted by their own petard pulling crap like this. I've watched multiple top-performing departments crash, burn, and empty over the course of a month over promoting the "management material" person over the one who earned it.

By all means, do what you want. But nonsense like this is straight up why trends like "quiet quitting" are becoming a thing. If having the right attitude and being good at your job just means you're locked at the bottom forever just because you aren't enough of a lazy, sassy asshole to the boss, then fuck it; why bother?

why would #2 be better at a job with more responsibilities when he's already worse at the one with less?

This topic is straight-up bait after seeing some of the follow-up posts TC made.

If I suck at my job, and get promoted because of it, that tells me what sort of work ethics leads to bigger and brighter things.

Guy #2 is the type of person that everyone always hates, and objectively makes their work lives all the worse for it.

Candidate 1 is named Dwight, candidate 2 is named Jim.

I completely get it and in your shoes I would probably go with person 2 (or outhire if possible) but this is why people hate management, lol

Norman_Smiley posted...

Candidate 1 is named Dwight, candidate 2 is named Jim.

But people like guy 1

Sorry if I missed any replies, still going through this.

loafy013 posted...

In my experience, this is the view of shitty managers. They want to keep the good employees under them, so they can keep them doing their work and make the department look good. Busting your ass gets you more work, sucking up to your boss gets you a promotion.

Michael Jordan was one of the best basketball players in NBA history. When he became the front office for the Washington Wizards...he was one of the worst front office members in NBA history.

Playing basketball and a front office role are way different, the same way that an entry level position and management are two different ball games.

I get what you're saying that a lot of employees hate this way of thinking, but it's business. In the end, we have to make decisions that are good and profitable for the business.

St0rmFury posted...

TC why don't we do this: promote guy #2, but give guy #1 a raise.

This is exactly what I'm saying, actually. Guy #1 is a hard worker, and I think that means he should get a raise rather than a promotion.

Cocytus posted...

You think Guy 1 is incapable of learning?

He learns very slowly, and I seriously doubt he would be able to handle being a manager. Even just going a little bit off-script really messes him up.

Cocytus posted...

It sounds like you already have your mind made up, so why are you even asking? It's your position to fuck up. Hundreds of people both close and just familiar with the situation are telling you number 1, but you ain't tryin' to hear it...hubris...

So you're saying "I gave you advice, you must follow it, no matter what" lol. I've been very open-minded in my posts, and I've given credit to a few posters here.

BTH_Phoenix posted...

why would #2 be better at a job with more responsibilities when he's already worse at the one with less?

You do make a good point, and tbh I'm not even sure if he want's the role. If I did promote him, I would closely monitor him and make sure he's doing what he's supposed to. It may even be a makeshift promotion for the first couple weeks, where he doesn't actually have the role yet, but he's doing the responsibilities, as a "test run".

Guy #2 would not be my first choice, but these are the cards I've been dealt with.