Employee refuses to sit at desk with rest of team, sits in common area instead












76














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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 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
















76














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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 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














76












76








76


9





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.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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






share|improve this question









New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Kat

2,73221218




2,73221218






New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









Janine00Janine00

396127




396127




New contributor




Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Janine00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 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




    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










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















126















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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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



















234














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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





















34














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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



















11














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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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



















-1














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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



















-7














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.




  1. 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.


  2. 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?


  3. 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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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











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.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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









126















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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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
















126















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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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














126












126








126







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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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














  • 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













234














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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


















234














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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
















234












234








234






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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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
















  • 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













34














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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
















34














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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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














34












34








34






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.






share|improve this answer












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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










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














  • 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











11














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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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
















11














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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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














11












11








11






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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









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.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered yesterday









codenheimcodenheim

21114




21114




New contributor




codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






codenheim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 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




    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











-1














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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
















-1














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 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














-1












-1








-1






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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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














  • 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











-7














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.




  1. 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.


  2. 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?


  3. 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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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
















-7














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.




  1. 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.


  2. 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?


  3. 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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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














-7












-7








-7






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.




  1. 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.


  2. 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?


  3. 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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









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.




  1. 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.


  2. 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?


  3. 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.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 days ago









AjeeshklrAjeeshklr

131




131




New contributor




Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Ajeeshklr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 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




    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










Janine00 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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











Popular posts from this blog

Сан-Квентин

8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

Алькесар