Demoting versus promoting

Rocky

How would you approach, or what are your thoughts, on taking an employee that is not performing their job duties, and "demoting" them back to tech work. In specifically I hear about taking good techs and promoting them to foreman or supervisor, or whatever. However, those are two different skill sets. If they cannot or will not perform the foreman's duties, do you take them back to tech only duties? Just sounds like a poisonous scenario: Usually a pay increase was given upon promotion, does that go away? How to handle "saving face" with rest of crew? Is there any way to handle this without if blowing up in your face, or losing a good tech? Seems like someone would need to think long and hard before "promoting" a tech to supervisory position. Reason I'm asking is I need to start thinking about a mid-level manager so that I am not required to answer every question or bid every job, or handle every tech or office inquiry. But I can see where it needs to be done very carefully. Seems almost better to get a "manager" from without the company as opposed to within, in case it doesn't go well. You wouldn't want to lose a good tech if things didn't pan out with them in a supervisory role. How do you all ensure success by promoting from within? Just curious...
Rocky

Rich Kontny_3

There is...

A tactful way to do this. This scenario is not that uncommon. My wife is the HR manager for a bank and I know she has had to do this a number of times. It is almost impossible not to ruffle feathers.

Many times the employee knows they are not right for the position and welcome the demotion back to their comfort zone. From what Jean tells me it is imperative to have a sit down talk to review the situation anf talk wages also.

I would not be overly concerned about what the worker's peers think. You have to do what is right for the company.
Remember the fact that they were promoted on merit and unfortunately will be demoted on the same.

Good luck,

If you need advice from a pro, I am sure my wife would offer her expertise. Just e-mail me

[Deleted User]

Probationary trial...

If said employee has a complete understanding of your long term goals and intentions, and you are up front with them and let them know that there is the real possibility of them NOT working out in the position, that they may have to step down and back, then ther eare no suprises.

There are companies out there that can perform an employee evaluation of your employees to see who best fits the position of office supervisor versus field person. I took the test one time in an effort to get work in the field for a med to large EMS company, only to be denied the postion because my Roar Shock (SP?) test results came back that I would make a better administrator than a field postion, and they had no openings in that arena...

Best of luck. Hows that new knee progressing? Do you now know what a one legged man in a butt kicking contest feels like? ;-)

ME

nicholas bonham-carter

Rorschach Test

maybe it's better not to rely on these tests! all they do is make work for "immaginative" psychologists!!--nbc

http://deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.php

also here:

http://theinkblot.com/

Heather_5

I used to manage a theatre...

Vastly different field, but the challenges from hiring/promoting within the company (and from outside) are very similar.

I spent a great deal of time developing training programs for new hires, promoted employees, managers of all levels, etc...When we decided we saw a stellar performer who MIGHT be good as a supervisor or manager we sat down with them, explained the NEGATIVE aspects of the job first, then explained the positives. We never discussed specific pay levels.

If they decided they wanted to pursue the opportunity we told them they'd get x-amount of money over their current salary for the first 90 days (something small, like 25-50 cents with a current pay rate of 8 bucks) and that the first raise would be permanent even if they did not keep the new position. We then told them that if they performed adequately during the prob. period they'd get ANOTHER raise (undisclosed amount) at the end of the period.

We then gave them 90 days in their field, with appropriate training and mentors/guidance. At 30 and 60 days we sat down to discuss progress, cover weaknesses and strengths, discuss ways to improve and gauge their level of interest in continuing.

We had about a 10% failure rate...yes, it was time consuming, but we also decreased turn over and 'demotion' in the process.

ttekushan_3

Peter principle.

IIRC, this problem is known as the Peter Principle. It states that since individuals will no longer get promoted once they reach the limits of their capabilities, everyone in a company is doing jobs they are incapable of doing well. Or, "employees rise to their level of incompetence." It seems to relate since a promotion may move someone into needing a skill set they don't have the aptitude for.

Peter Principle, wiki article.

Timeless.

-Terry

Mark Eatherton

Not the same test...

It was more along the lines of questions, not blotters. it wasn't Rorschach.. It was Wonderlic


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_Test

Sorry for the confusion...

ME

nicholas bonham-carter

wonderlic

not wonderful--wonderlic! these tests remind me of the knucklehead mechanic who pretends to be able to diagnose all your car's problems with a stethoscope. even when it is standing still, he can "hear" the ball-joints needing replacement!! i think heather's methods were the best, and most practical.--nbc