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

(+) Yeah! (+)

• Guy #1: This is the person everyone wants me to promote. He's very good at his job, has perfect metrics, never missed a day of work, always willing to do overtime, pretty much has dedicated his life to this job. However, being good at your job doesn't mean you would be good in management. He's a "yes man", he doesn't understand the hierarchy of the company or what management goes through (he only understands his own job), and he follows any orders without question. None of those are necessarily bad things, but I don't really see any management potential in him. He knows the job inside and out, and he's reliable, but that doesn't mean he would be a good manager.
• Guy #2: This person doesn't apply himself that much, but I see a LOT of management potential in him. He calls off on occasion, he sometimes argues with me and others in management, he's been written up a few times, and tbh he's really not all that great at the job. So why am I considering him? He's VERY intelligent, and he has management written all over him. He's not afraid to speak up if something is wrong, he understands what a manager is supposed to do, he has a great understanding of the hierarchy of the company. He understands that managers have metrics they have to make as well. Basically he understands more than just his own role. Although him being a pain in the ass is bad, it shows he has the balls to be a manager. He may not be that good at the job, but I think he would be an effective manager. You don't need to be good at the job in order to be a good manager.

Guy 1. Management skills aren't hard to learn and he can teach those under him his own skills which made him great. Also it increases morale with the other associates and shows them that working hard gets you rewarded.

I worked at a big company that would promote Guy 2 but it never ends well and bad management is one thing the company is notorious for.

Depends on how coachable each person can be.. person 1 can learn how to do so through example. There shouldnt be faffing about and it should be clear that the whole position requires confrontation on a daily basis since that is the core of the job anyways.

Making distinctions between good and bad interactions will set him up right

Person #2 though doesnt seem to need any life skills help, what they need is praise and the proverbial carrot to keep applying themselves to.. right now it seems like there isnt one for the guy

Im more like person #2 - but Id personally hire person #1 lol

Nobody is going to want to work for Guy #2.

i just wanted to comment on your statement "management skills aren't hard to learn". i've seen hundreds of people get promoted, and then they don't work out as a manager for whatever reason. sometimes it's because they're too passive, or because they let their subordinates and bosses walk all over them.

I'm a manager and I need an assistant. There's two people I'm considering:

* Guy #1: This is the person everyone wants me to promote. He's very good at his job, has perfect metrics, never missed a day of work, always willing to do overtime, pretty much has dedicated his life to this job. However, being good at your job doesn't mean you would be good in management. He's a "yes man", he doesn't understand the hierarchy of the company or what management goes through (he only understands his own job), and he follows any orders without question. None of those are necessarily bad things, but I don't really see any management potential in him. He knows the job inside and out, and he's reliable, but that doesn't mean he would be a good manager.
* Guy #2: This person doesn't apply himself that much, but I see a LOT of management potential in him. He calls off on occasion, he sometimes argues with me and others in management, he's been written up a few times, and tbh he's really not all that great at the job. So why am I considering him? He's VERY intelligent, and he has management written all over him. He's not afraid to speak up if something is wrong, he understands what a manager is supposed to do, he has a great understanding of the hierarchy of the company. He understands that managers have metrics they have to make as well. Basically he understands more than just his own role. Although him being a pain in the ass is bad, it shows he has the balls to be a manager. He may not be that good at the job, but I think he would be an effective manager. You don't need to be good at the job in order to be a good manager.

I know my subordinates are going to be pissed when I promote guy #2 rather than guy #1, and I'm going to hear complaints like "guy #1 is such a good employee, why didn't get get the promotion" and I'm going to facepalm. But maybe I'm missing omething here. What do you guys think? Who would you promote if you were in my situation?

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

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

#2 doesnt sound reliable though, which at the end of the day is what makes the dept thrive and accomplish goals. And also what the other people said about work morale.

Something similar happened recently in the dept I just left. This mediocre guy was chosen as team lead. Hes been in coaching plenty of times and just not an overall great employee. Just helped the supervisor in some matters. Now when people found out a lot were pissed. Enough that quite a few jumped ship. Cause why work hard enough if at the end of the day it means nothing?

TC, you literally have an employee that does his job well.

sounds like "has management potential" means being a sucky trash worker

basically you think guy 1 is too good because he is an actual good employee and he might I guess look better than you and we can't have that right?

You've already made up your mind that you want to promote guy #2 so just do it. Don't complain when guy #1 leaves to another company that values him and the rest of your team loses respect for you and guy #2

Also, why weren't you grooming possible replacements beforehand? Lots of times you won't find out who's up to the challenge until you actually give them a shot. You should've given them a taste of their responsibilities and gone from there.

but if he threw a temper tantrum, cried and gave up because he was turned down for a promotion one time, that tells me i made the right decision by not promoting him.

Lmao, TC himself must be shit at his own position! Of course his responses in the topic are like this.

Dude says Guy 1 doesnt understand the hierarchy of a role hes not in. No shit. Have you tried talking to him about it?

I wouldnt expect a bank teller to know the responsibilities of a branch manager.

If youre looking for an assistant, its your responsibility to instruct them on their tasks and expectations.

TC just wants someone who already knows everything. Guy 1 is a yes-man? How do you know? Can you recall a situation in which he disagreed with something, but went along with it anyway?

Or are you assuming?

And all of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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