Off with his head?

lhill

The situation: a meeting is attended by 3 supvs regarding an ee who would be of better service to the company if he were transferred to an outside location approximately 25 minutes away. Two of the 3 are senior management, the 3rd is the ee's direct supervisor. The supv does not take part in the discussion (as usual), is just there. It was decided that the transfer would be made. The next morning when the ee is called into the supv office, the first words the supv says are, "I just want you to know this is not my idea. It came from upper management". Then after discussing the transfer, a remark was made about whether it would inconvenience the ee to be transferred. The supv said to him, "So how old are you anyway?" implying that he will only have to put up with the transfer a few years since he is age 61. The supv will be disciplined. This comes about 2 months after a reprimand for performance. CEO wants to fire the supv. The supv is about 55 and has been with the company 25 years. I hear "age discrimination" of the ee shrieking so loud I can hardly think. Our disciplinary policy is one of progressive discipline, but has the option of instant dismissal for a very serious offense. The ee has been reassured by upper mgt that this is in no way reflective of his age, simply that he is needed in the other area. This is true, by the way. What would you do to the supv?

Don D

Provide training. I don't see the supervisor's remark/question as anything other than an inappropriate but innocent question based on a lack of sensitivity. I may be totally wrong (but rarely am), but I think I see laced throughout your post an utter disdain for the supervisor and a desire to have him run off. The title of your post seems to me to sum it up.

Shadowfax

Follow your policy. As Don said, this is an insensitive, careless remark. It is not a 'very serious' offense by any stretch of the imagination. Reprimand; train. While you're at it, I would be nearly as concerned with his remark about '..this not being my idea...' He doesn't sound very supportive of management decisions. If he thought it was a bad idea, he should've spoken up and tried to kpersuade otherwise before it was decided. Once decisions are made, it is up to supervisors to support and implement - like it or not (assuming of course it is a legal decision).

Hunter1

This doesn't seem like a 'very serious offense' by itself, so it doesn't seem to fit your policy for immediate discharge, BUT the supervisor has already been reprimanded for performance. Assuming you've already done some training with regard to discrimination, including age related, this seems to me to warrant more than just 'more training'. This may not be the final step, but it's certainly one more on the way out the door.

System

Sometimes people get promoted by default into a position for which they are not qualified. The most reliable worker with the best skills often get promoted to a position where they supervise others when they have no supervisory skills at all. That's called the "level of incompetence" (The Peter Principle). The fact that he didn't say anything during the discussion with the managers says that either they don't regard his opinion or he can't express one clearly. The company needs to train him or remove him from the position of delivering employment decision messages.

Don D

There's also the possibility that management there will not entertain or invite opinions of line managers. Nothing like being a manager in a business that has no positive regard for the opinions of managers. I think there's a word for this too.

Gillian3

Letter of reprimand. Training.

marc

You might not be able to do anything about Don's second point, but the reaction of senior management is notable.

Are the angriest because the supervisor in not supportive of their decision and in fact appears to be undermining it, or because the supervisor did not express any viewpoint during the discussion?

I wasn't there and don't want to judge without all the facts, but if it was the lack of support and not the underdeveloped communication skills, then you may have a problem with senior management.

I have seen lots of management personnel who think offering contrary points of view is just inviting trouble for themselves - and often enough, it is true. Lots of managers like yes people around them - naysayers don't get the goodies.

More rarely, you will find good decision makers who have the attitude "If everyone says Yes in the room, what good are they?" These people are looking for other perspectives and want to make the best informed decision.

You may indeed have a supervisor who just isn't invested in the decisions of senior management - in which case, you have an area to develop.

lhill

In the pre-meeting with the managers, the supv was very unresponsive, not because he would be shot down if he opposed the decision, but because this is the way he is. He does not want to take any responsibility for decisions. He was asked several times his opinion of the proposed transfer of his ee, and he only said, "Sounds like it would work." Upper management wants supvs who will provide input and there is never any consequence to opposing positions. This supv clearly wants to distance himself from being in a management position, so I believe we are going to reassign him so that he will not have a department to supervise. He has had approx. 4 years of training, and has resisted it the whole time. His attitude is "I am here because I have to be." We do not, contrary to how it sounds, want to lose him because he has years of valuable experience and knowledge. I believe the "Peter Principle" has indeed once again been proven.

stilldazed

Has anyone ever asked him why he takes the position you say he takes? There may be a valid reason, hurtful as it may be to the management team.