Here's the setting; You have an organization...this organization is broken down into a handful of separate divisions. Division A is struggling and the "bottom dweller" in the organization. They have a couple of bad employees they want to get rid of. These employees for certain reasons can't be fired. So, the overall leader of the organization has an idea. Ship the bad employees from Division A (bottom dweller division) to Division B, who is the "shinning star" of the organization and helps make the overall organization look good, and who just happened to have 2 job openings come open that they were going to interview for. Now, they are being told to take the "bad" employees to fill these jobs.

 

So, the question is, does this make any sense to anyone? You have one division who is humming along and who does a great job, then the leader of the organization decides to dump 2 bad, disgruntled employees from the "bad" division into the "good" divisions lap and effectively say "here, you deal with them". What effective organization does that?

Makes sense on some level. Put the bad in with the good, makes the bad look worse, opens eyes of others that can make decisions, perhaps the bad disappear for good.

Makes sense to me. You take the bad employees from a bad division to a good thriving one, and hope that the work ethic and attitudes of the good employees helps change the 2 bad workers attitudes or behavior.

 

What doesn't make sense about it to you?

Makes sense to me. You take the bad employees from a bad division to a good thriving one, and hope that the work ethic and attitudes of the good employees helps change the 2 bad workers attitudes or behavior.

What doesn't make sense about it to you?

 

That works in Utopia. Well, actually I guess in Utopia you wouldn't have the bad employees to start with. Unfortunately though that's not usually how it ends up working out. I have personally seen it before, several times. Sure, it's great for the "bad" division, just a couple more issues they don't have to deal with.

 

What doesn't make sense is putting 2 known "cancers" in with the good division just for the purpose of shipping them out of the "bad" division so they don't have to deal with them any longer. It ultimately more likely than not will weaken the strong division and not really do much to strengthen the "bad" division. Lets just say the problems run much deeper in the "bad" division than just a couple of bad employees.

That works in Utopia. Well, actually I guess in Utopia you wouldn't have the bad employees to start with. Unfortunately though that's not usually how it ends up working out. I have personally seen it before, several times. Sure, it's great for the "bad" division, just a couple more issues they don't have to deal with.

 

What doesn't make sense is putting 2 known "cancers" in with the good division just for the purpose of shipping them out of the "bad" division so they don't have to deal with them any longer. It ultimately more likely than not will weaken the strong division and not really do much to strengthen the "bad" division. Lets just say the problems run much deeper in the "bad" division than just a couple of bad employees.

 

If the problems are much deeper in the bad division as you claim, the employees moving to a better environment could very well be a good thing.

 

If you can't fire them, exactly what do you think should be done?

It's call "The Peter Principle", I believe. The practice of moving or promoting employees to get rid of them.

 

It happens a lot in union settings.

 

Sometimes it works out for the receiving division, though. Some employees are cancers due to personality clashes with the management personnel of the divisions or departments they are transferred or promoted from. I've seen it happen, where the cancer of one department became the driving force behind another, simply because of the change of supervision.

If the problems are much deeper in the bad division as you claim, the employees moving to a better environment could very well be a good thing.

 

If you can't fire them, exactly what do you think should be done?

 

Without getting into specifics...lets just say holding their managers accountable would be a start.

It's call "The Peter Principle", I believe. The practice of moving or promoting employees to get rid of them.

 

It happens a lot in union settings.

 

Sometimes it works out for the receiving division, though. Some employees are cancers due to personality clashes with the management personnel of the divisions or departments they are transferred or promoted from. I've seen it happen, where the cancer of one department became the driving force behind another, simply because of the change of supervision.

 

Bingo! Failing "up". Seen it many times. Problem employee gets less work, good employee gets more pilled on. Problem employee gets moved around and handled with kid gloves, good dedicated employees are held accountable as they should be, but so should the "bad" employees, who many times aren't.

It's call "The Peter Principle", I believe. The practice of moving or promoting employees to get rid of them.

 

It happens a lot in union settings.

 

Sometimes it works out for the receiving division, though. Some employees are cancers due to personality clashes with the management personnel of the divisions or departments they are transferred or promoted from. I've seen it happen, where the cancer of one department became the driving force behind another, simply because of the change of supervision.

 

"Peter Principle" is more about promoting an employee to their level of incompetence, not really promoting someone to get rid of them. The theory is that in many organizations people are often promoted for the work that they do, and not for their ability to be effective in a promoted position.

As to the question, the reality is not all organizations are built to have model workers. Society in general is not built like that. Some want to be a manager, some want to just be an everyday worker, some just go along with the flow, some are just the "bottom dwellers" that can suck the life out of an organization. Those people ultimately will revert back to their tendencies unless you feel it is a managerial issue. You have to find what is most efficient for the organization and keep searching for ways to tap in to their motivations.

As to the question, the reality is not all organizations are built to have model workers. Society in general is not built like that. Some want to be a manager, some want to just be an everyday worker, some just go along with the flow, some are just the "bottom dwellers" that can suck the life out of an organization. Those people ultimately will revert back to their tendencies unless you feel it is a managerial issue. You have to find what is most efficient for the organization and keep searching for ways to tap in to their motivations.

 

Got to have leaders, and got to have followers, and everyone isn't motivated to the same plane, always has been and always will be like that. As long as people do what they are, at a minimum supposed to, and held accountable, everything cool. Some people will always work harder and try to achieve more, and some people will be better leaders and set themselves apart. But, when you get incompetent people...maybe they come in drunk...sleep on the job...constantly late...do everything they can to get out of work...those people are good for NO organization and can only hinder what is a good organization if brought on board.

 

The deeper issue in this particular example though is the lack of management and upper management oversight that's lets this sort of thing grow and fester into what it has become.

Then there is the "First Follower", the key to the organization.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are on the receiving team. Why not look at this as an opportunity to prove the other team to be incompetent and mentor these employees to get them to where they need to be? You'll look like a super star, and the other manager will still be struggling. Many times, it's not the employee that's the problem, it's the management. Whatever problems Team A has, Team B doesn't necessarily inherit them just because 2 of those team members are considered "cancerous" by Team A. Maybe that's the reputation they've been given because they are actually more knowledgeable than those who manage them, which creates resentment on the part of the manager toward the employee, and thus they give everyone the idea that these 2 are "cancer".

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are on the receiving team. Why not look at this as an opportunity to prove the other team to be incompetent and mentor these employees to get them to where they need to be? You'll look like a super star, and the other manager will still be struggling. Many times, it's not the employee that's the problem, it's the management. Whatever problems Team A has, Team B doesn't necessarily inherit them just because 2 of those team members are considered "cancerous" by Team A. Maybe that's the reputation they've been given because they are actually more knowledgeable than those who manage them, which creates resentment on the part of the manager toward the employee, and thus they give everyone the idea that these 2 are "cancer".

 

Oh no, these are problem employees who have always been problems and nothing was done about it so they became...I guess almost entitled to be bad would be a way to describe it. I think the opportunity for mentoring has passed. IF...and this is a big if...Division B CAN turn them around somewhat, chances are great that they would only be marginal employees at best and would really add no value and definitely would not come anywhere near replacing the 2 employees who have left. Right now Division B has the opportunity to actually interview a lot of different people and potentially bring in some great employees and make the division even stronger/better.

 

And as far as making the "other team" look incompetent? Division B already does that in spades, they don't need to try and rehab their problem employees to do that.

 

I get the whole "mentoring" thing, I really do, and that can work when the "problem" party wants to try and make it work. In this case I don't think that happens though.

Why did the two employees leave?