Employee refuses to sit at desk with rest of team, sits in common area instead
I have a low-performing employee who refuses to sit at their desk. I’ve asked twice if they have issues with the chair or table — because we can make accommodations there — and employee said no.
This person sits in a common area and the rest of the employees sit at their desks and work great together, conversing during the day and being very efficient. When they need to connect with the other employee they have to walk to find them or wait for an email back, not efficient.
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Edit: Yes, I have asked them why, and they have refused to answer. And we are in the US. The common area is probably louder all day than their assigned desk area.
management seating
New contributor
add a comment |
I have a low-performing employee who refuses to sit at their desk. I’ve asked twice if they have issues with the chair or table — because we can make accommodations there — and employee said no.
This person sits in a common area and the rest of the employees sit at their desks and work great together, conversing during the day and being very efficient. When they need to connect with the other employee they have to walk to find them or wait for an email back, not efficient.
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Edit: Yes, I have asked them why, and they have refused to answer. And we are in the US. The common area is probably louder all day than their assigned desk area.
management seating
New contributor
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
23
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
1
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I have a low-performing employee who refuses to sit at their desk. I’ve asked twice if they have issues with the chair or table — because we can make accommodations there — and employee said no.
This person sits in a common area and the rest of the employees sit at their desks and work great together, conversing during the day and being very efficient. When they need to connect with the other employee they have to walk to find them or wait for an email back, not efficient.
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Edit: Yes, I have asked them why, and they have refused to answer. And we are in the US. The common area is probably louder all day than their assigned desk area.
management seating
New contributor
I have a low-performing employee who refuses to sit at their desk. I’ve asked twice if they have issues with the chair or table — because we can make accommodations there — and employee said no.
This person sits in a common area and the rest of the employees sit at their desks and work great together, conversing during the day and being very efficient. When they need to connect with the other employee they have to walk to find them or wait for an email back, not efficient.
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Edit: Yes, I have asked them why, and they have refused to answer. And we are in the US. The common area is probably louder all day than their assigned desk area.
management seating
management seating
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Kat
2,73221218
2,73221218
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
Janine00Janine00
396127
396127
New contributor
New contributor
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
23
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
1
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
23
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
1
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago
1
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
23
23
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
1
1
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
No, there isn't. They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it. I'd also be talking to them about their performance. Both refusing to use their desk and low performance are getting into disciplinary action zone.
It's obviously not a valuable employee so no issue if they quit in a huff. And at best it will make them tell you what the actual issue is and you can move forwards with more information.
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
Find the root cause, you are compelled to do that
TL;DR
These are warning signals. An under-performing employee, that does not want to sit close to their colleagues, and does not even dare talk about it with you? This may be a case of workplace harassment.
You are most likely compelled to act on that... legally, contractually and morally, in order to eliminate risk to your employer, to your employee, and to yourself.
Long answer to follow...
Is this really a problem?
First you need to find out in what way is this a problem? If you disregard that this rubs you all the wrong ways, what are the downsides of this person doing this?
If you find no such downsides, then there is no problem other than that it ruffles your feathers a bit, but you can put up with that, can you not?
However, no matter if you find no such downsides or if you do find them, at least one of the following two questions need be answered.
a) What is the root cause of the behaviour?
Ask your employee again: why are they doing it that way? If they feel they do not want to answer, ask "Why do you not want to answer, is it a sensitive issue? Do you want to talk in private about it? Would you like to have a confidential representative talk to you about it and bring your wishes to us?".
The person has a reason. If you think their behaviour is a problem you need to find out if their behaviour stems from a trivial non-important reason, or if it is caused by an even bigger problem. Maybe the person has some kind of issue they are embarrassed to talk about, like a phobia for germs and one of their colleagues is being messy in a way that sets it off. Maybe there is some kind friction between them and another employee; their personal chemistry being volatile for some reason. Or maybe they are the victim of bullying, or even worse: some kind of blackmail.
It their behaviour truly is a problem, you cannot just attack the symptom (them sitting in the common area); you need to find out why this is happening, or you might very well be squeezing your employee between a rock and a hard place, or worse: failing to fulfil your duties as an employer (see more below).
Once you know the root cause, you can start working on a solution.
b) How can we work around it?
If their behaviour truly is a problem, and the root cause for this cannot be found or it is of no interest to you as long as they perform well, try to find a solution around this problem. Can they work in another part of the building? Can they telecommute? Would they consider another assignment? Tell them that this is a problem for the employer, and that a solution must be found... and tell them that you welcome hearing solutions from them.
Why not just make them go back to their place or kick them out?
Because by US federal law, employers have a duty to act against discrimination, bullying and harassment.
The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.
There is obviously something unusual going on with this employee. It may be that they are just being eccentric. But if they are not, and this is indeed a symptom of a bigger problem — such as workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — the employer has a duty to act.
If the employer fails to act, and this comes back to haunt them in the form of a civil suit, they will be asking around. They will be asking "Did anyone notice anything out of the ordinary with this person?". Well you obviously did; you noticed something very out of the ordinary; you noticed something so much out of the ordinary that you went on The Workplace SE to ask about it.
The question itself is now evidence that you noticed something was off with this employee.
When the court then asks the employer "Why did you fail to act on this signal?", I guarantee you that the answer "Well... anonymous people on The Workplace Stack Exchange said we did not need to but could instead just force the employee to go back to their place" will not suffice as an answer.
This means your employer will be hung out to dry by the court. Which in turn means they will be looking for whoever are responsible for putting them in that fix. And that would be you, because I do not think I am going very far out on a limb here when I say that it is most likely a part of your job description, and of your workplace employee policies, to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required to work to prevent.
Summary: yes, there are reasons
You ask...
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Yes, there are such reasons, in that you have three very strong warning signals going off here: 1) the worker is under-performing 2) they do not want to be around colleagues 3) they do not dare talk to you about it. Something may be wrong here, and now that you have picked up on this unusual behaviour, you are then duty-bound to act.
Most likely this is a symptom of something. You need to find out what that something is, or at least find a way to work around it. It may be innocuous, but it may also be a symptom of a problem that your employer is legally required to deal with. This in turn means that your employer expects you to be on the lookout for such things and bring it up if you suspect it might be happening.
Hence, simply nagging or forcing your employee to comply without seeking to know why they do what they do, is setting yourself up for a bad ending of this story, for the employee, for your employer, and ultimately: for you.
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
First, if you are a manager-type person you want to get HR involved. If you aren't a formal manager -- for example, a "team lead" or "group supervisor" -- you should get someone who's formally a manager involved.
Assuming that you can justify the claimed lack of productivity or performance through some set of metrics, and the person has refused to correct their behavior, you should have a valid reason to separate ("fire") the employee -- assuming there is nothing going on otherwise. Insubordination is usually a valid cause for separation.
The reason I strongly suggest you get Human Resources involved is because employees can have issues which they do not want to share with their manager. Bullying and subtle forms of harassment come to mind, along with cultural differences which are creating friction. I've had "how to be a manager" courses in the past and "my co-worker smells bad / talks loud / make off-color jokes of non-protected classes / etc." are common topics. If the co-worker who's creating the issue is a well-established or favored employee, going to the manager with the complaint can be perceived as career limiting.
It is important to keep in mind that seemingly silly reasons for not wanting to sit in a specific location can be very real. At one employer the lighting was so bright it was seriously impacting our performance, so we removed tube lights to make our area more hospitable, but some people on the team liked the bright lights, so they wanted to sit where there was more light. At another job, my position required that I interact with a lot of employees from other departments and my office mate asked to be moved to another office -- in that case, I was moved to my own office so I could have side chairs for visitors when they came.
What's most important is that you dial-down the strong-arm techniques and as another responded said try to find the cause of this behavior. If after getting HR involved there is still no resolution you have to decide if they really are causing a problem and not simply rubbing you the wrong way. Once you have all those answers you should have either the information needed to correct the problem (for example, move to another location with better lighting, away from an A/C vent, away from a "busy" co-worker) or the documentation needed to separate the employee.
Best of luck.
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, you can require that, but it seems odd that your rapport with the employee is such that you have no clue. How hard have you tried. Is there a good climate at your work place (not just from your position) ? Is the employee a junior / newer employee? Or the employee a female that comes from a culture where they aren't expected to speak up?
The root cause could be something as simple as an embarrassing issue; maybe one of your other employees has a body odor or flatulence problem and your employee in question doesn't know how to deal with it without an awkward result. This is not uncommon. I dealt with it as the employee, and as the boss of a group of people.
At my first job in Atlanta, when I was young out of school, one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. Took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It started to make me nauseous. Other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general, and that also bugged me.
After my 6 months initial contract was up, I left the job. I got a better offer, but I am not kidding, I was young and new and didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of reporting the employee, and I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.
New contributor
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
add a comment |
You fire them.
There is a limit to personal expression in the workplace. If the employee refuses to use tools provided and has low productivity, they gladly can work - for the competition.
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Firing a person would be the easiest part, but finding a replacement will be difficult and time taking.
Your decisions could be based on multiple factors.
If he is a long term employee - You might want to check with him reason for his poor performance. He might be going through a rough time in his life and sitting at common area might help him find time to deal with his personal issues.
If he is a new joinee - Is he finding it difficult to interact with his team members? Does he have the correct skill set for the domain he work on?
Some people use common area to prepare for interviews.
A working lunch with the employee might be helpful in your situation.
If nothing helps, finding a replacement for the employee would be the wisest option.
New contributor
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125933%2femployee-refuses-to-sit-at-desk-with-rest-of-team-sits-in-common-area-instead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function () {
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
var showEditor = function() {
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
};
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True') {
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup({
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup) {
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
}
})
} else{
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
showEditor();
}
}
});
});
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
No, there isn't. They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it. I'd also be talking to them about their performance. Both refusing to use their desk and low performance are getting into disciplinary action zone.
It's obviously not a valuable employee so no issue if they quit in a huff. And at best it will make them tell you what the actual issue is and you can move forwards with more information.
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
No, there isn't. They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it. I'd also be talking to them about their performance. Both refusing to use their desk and low performance are getting into disciplinary action zone.
It's obviously not a valuable employee so no issue if they quit in a huff. And at best it will make them tell you what the actual issue is and you can move forwards with more information.
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
No, there isn't. They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it. I'd also be talking to them about their performance. Both refusing to use their desk and low performance are getting into disciplinary action zone.
It's obviously not a valuable employee so no issue if they quit in a huff. And at best it will make them tell you what the actual issue is and you can move forwards with more information.
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
No, there isn't. They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it. I'd also be talking to them about their performance. Both refusing to use their desk and low performance are getting into disciplinary action zone.
It's obviously not a valuable employee so no issue if they quit in a huff. And at best it will make them tell you what the actual issue is and you can move forwards with more information.
answered 2 days ago
KilisiKilisi
113k62250435
113k62250435
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
14
14
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
Sorry, but team work and availability is important. From the question, this is an employee who is no performing and is creating problems for other employees. The employee in question may be better off at a different employer, but the manager's obligation is to the company, not an uncooperative employee.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
8
8
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
@MichaelK but this isn't "Don't know, Don't care". This is "We tried many reasonable attempts to understand what was going on and you refused to cooperate, Don't care anymore".
– bruglesco
2 days ago
12
12
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
@bruglesco No, that is not good enough. "We asked once, got no answer, did not give a hoot after that" is not good enough. If anything, not getting an answer raises even more warning-signs... so to then start ignoring the issue and just resort to strong-arming is setting themselves up to be smacked in the face with a civil suit.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
59
59
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
I'm not okay with "obviously not a valuable employee". It might be a culture fit problem. Maybe something happened between this guy and the other coworkers. The performance may get him fired but you can't just judge him on that, imho.
– Pierre Arlaud
2 days ago
25
25
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
"They already indicated there is no problem with their workspace, therefore you can require them to use it". I might be nitpicky here, but they didn't quite indicate there is no problem with their workspace. OP said he only asked about issues with the chair or table. I'd suggest OP to ensure there is no problem with their workspace overall. It could easily be a miscommunication.
– Daan
yesterday
|
show 11 more comments
Find the root cause, you are compelled to do that
TL;DR
These are warning signals. An under-performing employee, that does not want to sit close to their colleagues, and does not even dare talk about it with you? This may be a case of workplace harassment.
You are most likely compelled to act on that... legally, contractually and morally, in order to eliminate risk to your employer, to your employee, and to yourself.
Long answer to follow...
Is this really a problem?
First you need to find out in what way is this a problem? If you disregard that this rubs you all the wrong ways, what are the downsides of this person doing this?
If you find no such downsides, then there is no problem other than that it ruffles your feathers a bit, but you can put up with that, can you not?
However, no matter if you find no such downsides or if you do find them, at least one of the following two questions need be answered.
a) What is the root cause of the behaviour?
Ask your employee again: why are they doing it that way? If they feel they do not want to answer, ask "Why do you not want to answer, is it a sensitive issue? Do you want to talk in private about it? Would you like to have a confidential representative talk to you about it and bring your wishes to us?".
The person has a reason. If you think their behaviour is a problem you need to find out if their behaviour stems from a trivial non-important reason, or if it is caused by an even bigger problem. Maybe the person has some kind of issue they are embarrassed to talk about, like a phobia for germs and one of their colleagues is being messy in a way that sets it off. Maybe there is some kind friction between them and another employee; their personal chemistry being volatile for some reason. Or maybe they are the victim of bullying, or even worse: some kind of blackmail.
It their behaviour truly is a problem, you cannot just attack the symptom (them sitting in the common area); you need to find out why this is happening, or you might very well be squeezing your employee between a rock and a hard place, or worse: failing to fulfil your duties as an employer (see more below).
Once you know the root cause, you can start working on a solution.
b) How can we work around it?
If their behaviour truly is a problem, and the root cause for this cannot be found or it is of no interest to you as long as they perform well, try to find a solution around this problem. Can they work in another part of the building? Can they telecommute? Would they consider another assignment? Tell them that this is a problem for the employer, and that a solution must be found... and tell them that you welcome hearing solutions from them.
Why not just make them go back to their place or kick them out?
Because by US federal law, employers have a duty to act against discrimination, bullying and harassment.
The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.
There is obviously something unusual going on with this employee. It may be that they are just being eccentric. But if they are not, and this is indeed a symptom of a bigger problem — such as workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — the employer has a duty to act.
If the employer fails to act, and this comes back to haunt them in the form of a civil suit, they will be asking around. They will be asking "Did anyone notice anything out of the ordinary with this person?". Well you obviously did; you noticed something very out of the ordinary; you noticed something so much out of the ordinary that you went on The Workplace SE to ask about it.
The question itself is now evidence that you noticed something was off with this employee.
When the court then asks the employer "Why did you fail to act on this signal?", I guarantee you that the answer "Well... anonymous people on The Workplace Stack Exchange said we did not need to but could instead just force the employee to go back to their place" will not suffice as an answer.
This means your employer will be hung out to dry by the court. Which in turn means they will be looking for whoever are responsible for putting them in that fix. And that would be you, because I do not think I am going very far out on a limb here when I say that it is most likely a part of your job description, and of your workplace employee policies, to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required to work to prevent.
Summary: yes, there are reasons
You ask...
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Yes, there are such reasons, in that you have three very strong warning signals going off here: 1) the worker is under-performing 2) they do not want to be around colleagues 3) they do not dare talk to you about it. Something may be wrong here, and now that you have picked up on this unusual behaviour, you are then duty-bound to act.
Most likely this is a symptom of something. You need to find out what that something is, or at least find a way to work around it. It may be innocuous, but it may also be a symptom of a problem that your employer is legally required to deal with. This in turn means that your employer expects you to be on the lookout for such things and bring it up if you suspect it might be happening.
Hence, simply nagging or forcing your employee to comply without seeking to know why they do what they do, is setting yourself up for a bad ending of this story, for the employee, for your employer, and ultimately: for you.
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Find the root cause, you are compelled to do that
TL;DR
These are warning signals. An under-performing employee, that does not want to sit close to their colleagues, and does not even dare talk about it with you? This may be a case of workplace harassment.
You are most likely compelled to act on that... legally, contractually and morally, in order to eliminate risk to your employer, to your employee, and to yourself.
Long answer to follow...
Is this really a problem?
First you need to find out in what way is this a problem? If you disregard that this rubs you all the wrong ways, what are the downsides of this person doing this?
If you find no such downsides, then there is no problem other than that it ruffles your feathers a bit, but you can put up with that, can you not?
However, no matter if you find no such downsides or if you do find them, at least one of the following two questions need be answered.
a) What is the root cause of the behaviour?
Ask your employee again: why are they doing it that way? If they feel they do not want to answer, ask "Why do you not want to answer, is it a sensitive issue? Do you want to talk in private about it? Would you like to have a confidential representative talk to you about it and bring your wishes to us?".
The person has a reason. If you think their behaviour is a problem you need to find out if their behaviour stems from a trivial non-important reason, or if it is caused by an even bigger problem. Maybe the person has some kind of issue they are embarrassed to talk about, like a phobia for germs and one of their colleagues is being messy in a way that sets it off. Maybe there is some kind friction between them and another employee; their personal chemistry being volatile for some reason. Or maybe they are the victim of bullying, or even worse: some kind of blackmail.
It their behaviour truly is a problem, you cannot just attack the symptom (them sitting in the common area); you need to find out why this is happening, or you might very well be squeezing your employee between a rock and a hard place, or worse: failing to fulfil your duties as an employer (see more below).
Once you know the root cause, you can start working on a solution.
b) How can we work around it?
If their behaviour truly is a problem, and the root cause for this cannot be found or it is of no interest to you as long as they perform well, try to find a solution around this problem. Can they work in another part of the building? Can they telecommute? Would they consider another assignment? Tell them that this is a problem for the employer, and that a solution must be found... and tell them that you welcome hearing solutions from them.
Why not just make them go back to their place or kick them out?
Because by US federal law, employers have a duty to act against discrimination, bullying and harassment.
The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.
There is obviously something unusual going on with this employee. It may be that they are just being eccentric. But if they are not, and this is indeed a symptom of a bigger problem — such as workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — the employer has a duty to act.
If the employer fails to act, and this comes back to haunt them in the form of a civil suit, they will be asking around. They will be asking "Did anyone notice anything out of the ordinary with this person?". Well you obviously did; you noticed something very out of the ordinary; you noticed something so much out of the ordinary that you went on The Workplace SE to ask about it.
The question itself is now evidence that you noticed something was off with this employee.
When the court then asks the employer "Why did you fail to act on this signal?", I guarantee you that the answer "Well... anonymous people on The Workplace Stack Exchange said we did not need to but could instead just force the employee to go back to their place" will not suffice as an answer.
This means your employer will be hung out to dry by the court. Which in turn means they will be looking for whoever are responsible for putting them in that fix. And that would be you, because I do not think I am going very far out on a limb here when I say that it is most likely a part of your job description, and of your workplace employee policies, to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required to work to prevent.
Summary: yes, there are reasons
You ask...
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Yes, there are such reasons, in that you have three very strong warning signals going off here: 1) the worker is under-performing 2) they do not want to be around colleagues 3) they do not dare talk to you about it. Something may be wrong here, and now that you have picked up on this unusual behaviour, you are then duty-bound to act.
Most likely this is a symptom of something. You need to find out what that something is, or at least find a way to work around it. It may be innocuous, but it may also be a symptom of a problem that your employer is legally required to deal with. This in turn means that your employer expects you to be on the lookout for such things and bring it up if you suspect it might be happening.
Hence, simply nagging or forcing your employee to comply without seeking to know why they do what they do, is setting yourself up for a bad ending of this story, for the employee, for your employer, and ultimately: for you.
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Find the root cause, you are compelled to do that
TL;DR
These are warning signals. An under-performing employee, that does not want to sit close to their colleagues, and does not even dare talk about it with you? This may be a case of workplace harassment.
You are most likely compelled to act on that... legally, contractually and morally, in order to eliminate risk to your employer, to your employee, and to yourself.
Long answer to follow...
Is this really a problem?
First you need to find out in what way is this a problem? If you disregard that this rubs you all the wrong ways, what are the downsides of this person doing this?
If you find no such downsides, then there is no problem other than that it ruffles your feathers a bit, but you can put up with that, can you not?
However, no matter if you find no such downsides or if you do find them, at least one of the following two questions need be answered.
a) What is the root cause of the behaviour?
Ask your employee again: why are they doing it that way? If they feel they do not want to answer, ask "Why do you not want to answer, is it a sensitive issue? Do you want to talk in private about it? Would you like to have a confidential representative talk to you about it and bring your wishes to us?".
The person has a reason. If you think their behaviour is a problem you need to find out if their behaviour stems from a trivial non-important reason, or if it is caused by an even bigger problem. Maybe the person has some kind of issue they are embarrassed to talk about, like a phobia for germs and one of their colleagues is being messy in a way that sets it off. Maybe there is some kind friction between them and another employee; their personal chemistry being volatile for some reason. Or maybe they are the victim of bullying, or even worse: some kind of blackmail.
It their behaviour truly is a problem, you cannot just attack the symptom (them sitting in the common area); you need to find out why this is happening, or you might very well be squeezing your employee between a rock and a hard place, or worse: failing to fulfil your duties as an employer (see more below).
Once you know the root cause, you can start working on a solution.
b) How can we work around it?
If their behaviour truly is a problem, and the root cause for this cannot be found or it is of no interest to you as long as they perform well, try to find a solution around this problem. Can they work in another part of the building? Can they telecommute? Would they consider another assignment? Tell them that this is a problem for the employer, and that a solution must be found... and tell them that you welcome hearing solutions from them.
Why not just make them go back to their place or kick them out?
Because by US federal law, employers have a duty to act against discrimination, bullying and harassment.
The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.
There is obviously something unusual going on with this employee. It may be that they are just being eccentric. But if they are not, and this is indeed a symptom of a bigger problem — such as workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — the employer has a duty to act.
If the employer fails to act, and this comes back to haunt them in the form of a civil suit, they will be asking around. They will be asking "Did anyone notice anything out of the ordinary with this person?". Well you obviously did; you noticed something very out of the ordinary; you noticed something so much out of the ordinary that you went on The Workplace SE to ask about it.
The question itself is now evidence that you noticed something was off with this employee.
When the court then asks the employer "Why did you fail to act on this signal?", I guarantee you that the answer "Well... anonymous people on The Workplace Stack Exchange said we did not need to but could instead just force the employee to go back to their place" will not suffice as an answer.
This means your employer will be hung out to dry by the court. Which in turn means they will be looking for whoever are responsible for putting them in that fix. And that would be you, because I do not think I am going very far out on a limb here when I say that it is most likely a part of your job description, and of your workplace employee policies, to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required to work to prevent.
Summary: yes, there are reasons
You ask...
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Yes, there are such reasons, in that you have three very strong warning signals going off here: 1) the worker is under-performing 2) they do not want to be around colleagues 3) they do not dare talk to you about it. Something may be wrong here, and now that you have picked up on this unusual behaviour, you are then duty-bound to act.
Most likely this is a symptom of something. You need to find out what that something is, or at least find a way to work around it. It may be innocuous, but it may also be a symptom of a problem that your employer is legally required to deal with. This in turn means that your employer expects you to be on the lookout for such things and bring it up if you suspect it might be happening.
Hence, simply nagging or forcing your employee to comply without seeking to know why they do what they do, is setting yourself up for a bad ending of this story, for the employee, for your employer, and ultimately: for you.
Find the root cause, you are compelled to do that
TL;DR
These are warning signals. An under-performing employee, that does not want to sit close to their colleagues, and does not even dare talk about it with you? This may be a case of workplace harassment.
You are most likely compelled to act on that... legally, contractually and morally, in order to eliminate risk to your employer, to your employee, and to yourself.
Long answer to follow...
Is this really a problem?
First you need to find out in what way is this a problem? If you disregard that this rubs you all the wrong ways, what are the downsides of this person doing this?
If you find no such downsides, then there is no problem other than that it ruffles your feathers a bit, but you can put up with that, can you not?
However, no matter if you find no such downsides or if you do find them, at least one of the following two questions need be answered.
a) What is the root cause of the behaviour?
Ask your employee again: why are they doing it that way? If they feel they do not want to answer, ask "Why do you not want to answer, is it a sensitive issue? Do you want to talk in private about it? Would you like to have a confidential representative talk to you about it and bring your wishes to us?".
The person has a reason. If you think their behaviour is a problem you need to find out if their behaviour stems from a trivial non-important reason, or if it is caused by an even bigger problem. Maybe the person has some kind of issue they are embarrassed to talk about, like a phobia for germs and one of their colleagues is being messy in a way that sets it off. Maybe there is some kind friction between them and another employee; their personal chemistry being volatile for some reason. Or maybe they are the victim of bullying, or even worse: some kind of blackmail.
It their behaviour truly is a problem, you cannot just attack the symptom (them sitting in the common area); you need to find out why this is happening, or you might very well be squeezing your employee between a rock and a hard place, or worse: failing to fulfil your duties as an employer (see more below).
Once you know the root cause, you can start working on a solution.
b) How can we work around it?
If their behaviour truly is a problem, and the root cause for this cannot be found or it is of no interest to you as long as they perform well, try to find a solution around this problem. Can they work in another part of the building? Can they telecommute? Would they consider another assignment? Tell them that this is a problem for the employer, and that a solution must be found... and tell them that you welcome hearing solutions from them.
Why not just make them go back to their place or kick them out?
Because by US federal law, employers have a duty to act against discrimination, bullying and harassment.
The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.
There is obviously something unusual going on with this employee. It may be that they are just being eccentric. But if they are not, and this is indeed a symptom of a bigger problem — such as workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — the employer has a duty to act.
If the employer fails to act, and this comes back to haunt them in the form of a civil suit, they will be asking around. They will be asking "Did anyone notice anything out of the ordinary with this person?". Well you obviously did; you noticed something very out of the ordinary; you noticed something so much out of the ordinary that you went on The Workplace SE to ask about it.
The question itself is now evidence that you noticed something was off with this employee.
When the court then asks the employer "Why did you fail to act on this signal?", I guarantee you that the answer "Well... anonymous people on The Workplace Stack Exchange said we did not need to but could instead just force the employee to go back to their place" will not suffice as an answer.
This means your employer will be hung out to dry by the court. Which in turn means they will be looking for whoever are responsible for putting them in that fix. And that would be you, because I do not think I am going very far out on a limb here when I say that it is most likely a part of your job description, and of your workplace employee policies, to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required to work to prevent.
Summary: yes, there are reasons
You ask...
Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?
Yes, there are such reasons, in that you have three very strong warning signals going off here: 1) the worker is under-performing 2) they do not want to be around colleagues 3) they do not dare talk to you about it. Something may be wrong here, and now that you have picked up on this unusual behaviour, you are then duty-bound to act.
Most likely this is a symptom of something. You need to find out what that something is, or at least find a way to work around it. It may be innocuous, but it may also be a symptom of a problem that your employer is legally required to deal with. This in turn means that your employer expects you to be on the lookout for such things and bring it up if you suspect it might be happening.
Hence, simply nagging or forcing your employee to comply without seeking to know why they do what they do, is setting yourself up for a bad ending of this story, for the employee, for your employer, and ultimately: for you.
edited 9 hours ago
Community♦
1
1
answered 2 days ago
MichaelKMichaelK
1,3961512
1,3961512
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
3
3
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
I think the tone of this answer could be corrected by changing "These are warning signals" to "These could be serious warning signals"
– Martijn
20 hours ago
12
12
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
The employee could simply be a "weird guy". Or having issues at home. Or simply not liking his job and/or trying to get fired. Or he could be anti-social, Or something else. This answer treats it as a fact that there is harrasement, which isnt true. It might be a strong indicator (which with I don't disagree), but it's still not a fact.
– Martijn
19 hours ago
11
11
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
@Martijn It could be that way, yes. But the employer will never get away with saying "Well we thought that it could have been innocuous so we just ignored the issue on the assumption that it was" if it turns out to have been serious. This is not a game of How Can We Get Away With Doing As Little As Possible, and no court will ever let you play it that way.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
4
4
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
I am no lawyer, but failing to communicate the reason why you can't work in the designed place when asked seems to fall under "2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer".
– lvella
11 hours ago
3
3
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
@Ivella To assume that "What? All they need to do is to speak up and if they do not it is their own fault, right?", that is the same fallacy of ignorance that those that say "What? All she needs to do is to leave him, and if she doesn't, then she is to blame, right?". And in any case(!)... OP has not yet approached this employee for trying to correct abuse against them, but only trying to tell them to go back to their seat. OP has not approached to say "We think you are being abused, speak up and we will help", and therefore it simply does not count as that.
– MichaelK
11 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
First, if you are a manager-type person you want to get HR involved. If you aren't a formal manager -- for example, a "team lead" or "group supervisor" -- you should get someone who's formally a manager involved.
Assuming that you can justify the claimed lack of productivity or performance through some set of metrics, and the person has refused to correct their behavior, you should have a valid reason to separate ("fire") the employee -- assuming there is nothing going on otherwise. Insubordination is usually a valid cause for separation.
The reason I strongly suggest you get Human Resources involved is because employees can have issues which they do not want to share with their manager. Bullying and subtle forms of harassment come to mind, along with cultural differences which are creating friction. I've had "how to be a manager" courses in the past and "my co-worker smells bad / talks loud / make off-color jokes of non-protected classes / etc." are common topics. If the co-worker who's creating the issue is a well-established or favored employee, going to the manager with the complaint can be perceived as career limiting.
It is important to keep in mind that seemingly silly reasons for not wanting to sit in a specific location can be very real. At one employer the lighting was so bright it was seriously impacting our performance, so we removed tube lights to make our area more hospitable, but some people on the team liked the bright lights, so they wanted to sit where there was more light. At another job, my position required that I interact with a lot of employees from other departments and my office mate asked to be moved to another office -- in that case, I was moved to my own office so I could have side chairs for visitors when they came.
What's most important is that you dial-down the strong-arm techniques and as another responded said try to find the cause of this behavior. If after getting HR involved there is still no resolution you have to decide if they really are causing a problem and not simply rubbing you the wrong way. Once you have all those answers you should have either the information needed to correct the problem (for example, move to another location with better lighting, away from an A/C vent, away from a "busy" co-worker) or the documentation needed to separate the employee.
Best of luck.
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
add a comment |
First, if you are a manager-type person you want to get HR involved. If you aren't a formal manager -- for example, a "team lead" or "group supervisor" -- you should get someone who's formally a manager involved.
Assuming that you can justify the claimed lack of productivity or performance through some set of metrics, and the person has refused to correct their behavior, you should have a valid reason to separate ("fire") the employee -- assuming there is nothing going on otherwise. Insubordination is usually a valid cause for separation.
The reason I strongly suggest you get Human Resources involved is because employees can have issues which they do not want to share with their manager. Bullying and subtle forms of harassment come to mind, along with cultural differences which are creating friction. I've had "how to be a manager" courses in the past and "my co-worker smells bad / talks loud / make off-color jokes of non-protected classes / etc." are common topics. If the co-worker who's creating the issue is a well-established or favored employee, going to the manager with the complaint can be perceived as career limiting.
It is important to keep in mind that seemingly silly reasons for not wanting to sit in a specific location can be very real. At one employer the lighting was so bright it was seriously impacting our performance, so we removed tube lights to make our area more hospitable, but some people on the team liked the bright lights, so they wanted to sit where there was more light. At another job, my position required that I interact with a lot of employees from other departments and my office mate asked to be moved to another office -- in that case, I was moved to my own office so I could have side chairs for visitors when they came.
What's most important is that you dial-down the strong-arm techniques and as another responded said try to find the cause of this behavior. If after getting HR involved there is still no resolution you have to decide if they really are causing a problem and not simply rubbing you the wrong way. Once you have all those answers you should have either the information needed to correct the problem (for example, move to another location with better lighting, away from an A/C vent, away from a "busy" co-worker) or the documentation needed to separate the employee.
Best of luck.
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
add a comment |
First, if you are a manager-type person you want to get HR involved. If you aren't a formal manager -- for example, a "team lead" or "group supervisor" -- you should get someone who's formally a manager involved.
Assuming that you can justify the claimed lack of productivity or performance through some set of metrics, and the person has refused to correct their behavior, you should have a valid reason to separate ("fire") the employee -- assuming there is nothing going on otherwise. Insubordination is usually a valid cause for separation.
The reason I strongly suggest you get Human Resources involved is because employees can have issues which they do not want to share with their manager. Bullying and subtle forms of harassment come to mind, along with cultural differences which are creating friction. I've had "how to be a manager" courses in the past and "my co-worker smells bad / talks loud / make off-color jokes of non-protected classes / etc." are common topics. If the co-worker who's creating the issue is a well-established or favored employee, going to the manager with the complaint can be perceived as career limiting.
It is important to keep in mind that seemingly silly reasons for not wanting to sit in a specific location can be very real. At one employer the lighting was so bright it was seriously impacting our performance, so we removed tube lights to make our area more hospitable, but some people on the team liked the bright lights, so they wanted to sit where there was more light. At another job, my position required that I interact with a lot of employees from other departments and my office mate asked to be moved to another office -- in that case, I was moved to my own office so I could have side chairs for visitors when they came.
What's most important is that you dial-down the strong-arm techniques and as another responded said try to find the cause of this behavior. If after getting HR involved there is still no resolution you have to decide if they really are causing a problem and not simply rubbing you the wrong way. Once you have all those answers you should have either the information needed to correct the problem (for example, move to another location with better lighting, away from an A/C vent, away from a "busy" co-worker) or the documentation needed to separate the employee.
Best of luck.
First, if you are a manager-type person you want to get HR involved. If you aren't a formal manager -- for example, a "team lead" or "group supervisor" -- you should get someone who's formally a manager involved.
Assuming that you can justify the claimed lack of productivity or performance through some set of metrics, and the person has refused to correct their behavior, you should have a valid reason to separate ("fire") the employee -- assuming there is nothing going on otherwise. Insubordination is usually a valid cause for separation.
The reason I strongly suggest you get Human Resources involved is because employees can have issues which they do not want to share with their manager. Bullying and subtle forms of harassment come to mind, along with cultural differences which are creating friction. I've had "how to be a manager" courses in the past and "my co-worker smells bad / talks loud / make off-color jokes of non-protected classes / etc." are common topics. If the co-worker who's creating the issue is a well-established or favored employee, going to the manager with the complaint can be perceived as career limiting.
It is important to keep in mind that seemingly silly reasons for not wanting to sit in a specific location can be very real. At one employer the lighting was so bright it was seriously impacting our performance, so we removed tube lights to make our area more hospitable, but some people on the team liked the bright lights, so they wanted to sit where there was more light. At another job, my position required that I interact with a lot of employees from other departments and my office mate asked to be moved to another office -- in that case, I was moved to my own office so I could have side chairs for visitors when they came.
What's most important is that you dial-down the strong-arm techniques and as another responded said try to find the cause of this behavior. If after getting HR involved there is still no resolution you have to decide if they really are causing a problem and not simply rubbing you the wrong way. Once you have all those answers you should have either the information needed to correct the problem (for example, move to another location with better lighting, away from an A/C vent, away from a "busy" co-worker) or the documentation needed to separate the employee.
Best of luck.
answered 2 days ago
Julie in AustinJulie in Austin
58638
58638
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
add a comment |
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
16
16
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Maybe HR can get to the bottom of the employee's non-answer when asked why they don't want to sit at their desk. And maybe HR can tell the employee that it's a good idea to answer questions in the future.
– Joe Strazzere
2 days ago
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
Yes and no. Human Resources exists for a reason. We don't know why the employee is refusing to sit at their desk. Any reason we might come up with is little more than a guess. I've been a team lead and people manager for about 30 years. Over those 30 years I've had all manner of experiences personally, from all different angles. People do things for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. And right now, we don't know which it is.
– Julie in Austin
yesterday
1
1
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
I once asked to be moved because the guy behind me smoked a pipe and it stank and gave me headaches. It didn't bother anyone else. I got a new place and he carried on smoking (this was a few decades ago).
– RedSonja
21 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, you can require that, but it seems odd that your rapport with the employee is such that you have no clue. How hard have you tried. Is there a good climate at your work place (not just from your position) ? Is the employee a junior / newer employee? Or the employee a female that comes from a culture where they aren't expected to speak up?
The root cause could be something as simple as an embarrassing issue; maybe one of your other employees has a body odor or flatulence problem and your employee in question doesn't know how to deal with it without an awkward result. This is not uncommon. I dealt with it as the employee, and as the boss of a group of people.
At my first job in Atlanta, when I was young out of school, one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. Took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It started to make me nauseous. Other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general, and that also bugged me.
After my 6 months initial contract was up, I left the job. I got a better offer, but I am not kidding, I was young and new and didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of reporting the employee, and I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.
New contributor
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
add a comment |
Yes, you can require that, but it seems odd that your rapport with the employee is such that you have no clue. How hard have you tried. Is there a good climate at your work place (not just from your position) ? Is the employee a junior / newer employee? Or the employee a female that comes from a culture where they aren't expected to speak up?
The root cause could be something as simple as an embarrassing issue; maybe one of your other employees has a body odor or flatulence problem and your employee in question doesn't know how to deal with it without an awkward result. This is not uncommon. I dealt with it as the employee, and as the boss of a group of people.
At my first job in Atlanta, when I was young out of school, one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. Took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It started to make me nauseous. Other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general, and that also bugged me.
After my 6 months initial contract was up, I left the job. I got a better offer, but I am not kidding, I was young and new and didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of reporting the employee, and I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.
New contributor
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
add a comment |
Yes, you can require that, but it seems odd that your rapport with the employee is such that you have no clue. How hard have you tried. Is there a good climate at your work place (not just from your position) ? Is the employee a junior / newer employee? Or the employee a female that comes from a culture where they aren't expected to speak up?
The root cause could be something as simple as an embarrassing issue; maybe one of your other employees has a body odor or flatulence problem and your employee in question doesn't know how to deal with it without an awkward result. This is not uncommon. I dealt with it as the employee, and as the boss of a group of people.
At my first job in Atlanta, when I was young out of school, one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. Took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It started to make me nauseous. Other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general, and that also bugged me.
After my 6 months initial contract was up, I left the job. I got a better offer, but I am not kidding, I was young and new and didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of reporting the employee, and I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.
New contributor
Yes, you can require that, but it seems odd that your rapport with the employee is such that you have no clue. How hard have you tried. Is there a good climate at your work place (not just from your position) ? Is the employee a junior / newer employee? Or the employee a female that comes from a culture where they aren't expected to speak up?
The root cause could be something as simple as an embarrassing issue; maybe one of your other employees has a body odor or flatulence problem and your employee in question doesn't know how to deal with it without an awkward result. This is not uncommon. I dealt with it as the employee, and as the boss of a group of people.
At my first job in Atlanta, when I was young out of school, one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. Took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It started to make me nauseous. Other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general, and that also bugged me.
After my 6 months initial contract was up, I left the job. I got a better offer, but I am not kidding, I was young and new and didn't want to deal with the awkwardness of reporting the employee, and I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
codenheimcodenheim
21114
21114
New contributor
New contributor
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
add a comment |
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
5
5
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume.
– bta
yesterday
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
It could also be the other way around: Perhaps the employee is embarrassed about a problem they themselves have. They don't want to force anybody to sit next to them for too long because it would be unpleasant for the other person - or It might be an intermittent problem that will be noticed after a longer time.
– Esco
40 mins ago
add a comment |
You fire them.
There is a limit to personal expression in the workplace. If the employee refuses to use tools provided and has low productivity, they gladly can work - for the competition.
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
You fire them.
There is a limit to personal expression in the workplace. If the employee refuses to use tools provided and has low productivity, they gladly can work - for the competition.
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
You fire them.
There is a limit to personal expression in the workplace. If the employee refuses to use tools provided and has low productivity, they gladly can work - for the competition.
You fire them.
There is a limit to personal expression in the workplace. If the employee refuses to use tools provided and has low productivity, they gladly can work - for the competition.
edited 2 days ago
Azor Ahai
1033
1033
answered 2 days ago
TomTomTomTom
1
1
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
42
42
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
Bad advice, DO NOT FOLLOW!!!. I am sorry but this advice could land the employer in very hot water. If the employee's behaviour is due to harassment, bullying or a hostile work environment in any way, the employer is opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they just fire the employee. Federal US law requires employers to act on such things.
– MichaelK
2 days ago
19
19
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
@MichaelK They're only liable if the employee actually responds to inquiry about the issue. This particular individual is refusing to cite reasons why he is in the common area. At some point you can fire them for performance issue if he never raises any harassment concerns.
– Nelson
2 days ago
2
2
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
I think straight up firing the individual is way too drastic of a response to the situation, but I would definitely suggest to them that disciplinary action is a possibility due to their under-performance.
– Rich
yesterday
1
1
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
@Nelson No, if there is harassment going on then the employer will step in to STOP that! Harassment is unacceptable in any workplace, and it is the harassers that shall moderate their behaviour, not the victim. This is blatantly obvious and should not need to be pointed out! Also saying "there is no solution until they speak up" is false. You can observe and watch the working environment; what the mood is, you can offer the employee to speak with someone else; someone they feel comfortable with, you can start looking into internal communications. There are lots you can do.
– MichaelK
yesterday
3
3
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
@Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why.
– MichaelK
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Firing a person would be the easiest part, but finding a replacement will be difficult and time taking.
Your decisions could be based on multiple factors.
If he is a long term employee - You might want to check with him reason for his poor performance. He might be going through a rough time in his life and sitting at common area might help him find time to deal with his personal issues.
If he is a new joinee - Is he finding it difficult to interact with his team members? Does he have the correct skill set for the domain he work on?
Some people use common area to prepare for interviews.
A working lunch with the employee might be helpful in your situation.
If nothing helps, finding a replacement for the employee would be the wisest option.
New contributor
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
add a comment |
Firing a person would be the easiest part, but finding a replacement will be difficult and time taking.
Your decisions could be based on multiple factors.
If he is a long term employee - You might want to check with him reason for his poor performance. He might be going through a rough time in his life and sitting at common area might help him find time to deal with his personal issues.
If he is a new joinee - Is he finding it difficult to interact with his team members? Does he have the correct skill set for the domain he work on?
Some people use common area to prepare for interviews.
A working lunch with the employee might be helpful in your situation.
If nothing helps, finding a replacement for the employee would be the wisest option.
New contributor
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
add a comment |
Firing a person would be the easiest part, but finding a replacement will be difficult and time taking.
Your decisions could be based on multiple factors.
If he is a long term employee - You might want to check with him reason for his poor performance. He might be going through a rough time in his life and sitting at common area might help him find time to deal with his personal issues.
If he is a new joinee - Is he finding it difficult to interact with his team members? Does he have the correct skill set for the domain he work on?
Some people use common area to prepare for interviews.
A working lunch with the employee might be helpful in your situation.
If nothing helps, finding a replacement for the employee would be the wisest option.
New contributor
Firing a person would be the easiest part, but finding a replacement will be difficult and time taking.
Your decisions could be based on multiple factors.
If he is a long term employee - You might want to check with him reason for his poor performance. He might be going through a rough time in his life and sitting at common area might help him find time to deal with his personal issues.
If he is a new joinee - Is he finding it difficult to interact with his team members? Does he have the correct skill set for the domain he work on?
Some people use common area to prepare for interviews.
A working lunch with the employee might be helpful in your situation.
If nothing helps, finding a replacement for the employee would be the wisest option.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
AjeeshklrAjeeshklr
131
131
New contributor
New contributor
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
add a comment |
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
6
6
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement?
– Bent
2 days ago
1
1
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
This might depends on the domain. In a software industry, the task would be assigned among team members. Poor performance from one can slip the schedule or overload other members. A manager would definitely look for replacement and would try to close the open position asap. I am not sure how the other industry works. My comment was based on my experience working on multiples MNC's and having coming across similar situations in my career.
– Ajeeshklr
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
@Ajeeshklr In software too, if the company is used to the low performer, getting rid of them should have no effect. If others are already compensating for the low performer, then that's already a problem regardless of whether or not the low performer is fired
– Lightness Races in Orbit
2 days ago
10
10
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
One of the things to consider with low-performers is the net impact to the entire group. I had a co-worker I supervised who was such a drag on the =entire= department that getting rid of him improved productivity. This doesn't mean he did no work, but it did mean that after he was terminated everyone else was able to pick up his work using the time which was saved not dealing with him.
– Julie in Austin
2 days ago
add a comment |
Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125933%2femployee-refuses-to-sit-at-desk-with-rest-of-team-sits-in-common-area-instead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
yesterday
23
Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"?
– Keith Thompson
22 hours ago
1
What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype?
– Carl Witthoft
7 hours ago