WWYD - Work Issue

[twinmomma]

I have a weird situation here at work and I'm trying to navigate it. 

Backstory: When I was hired, I was originally supposed to report to Joe. Then they realized I had way more experience and expertise and they ended up giving me my own division instead. Joe still works here. He oversees other stuff too. But I definitely "stole" one of his main areas when I started. Some responsibilities have remained awkwardly split between our two groups over the years because the execs never made a clean break and we just kind of rolled with it. That is now coming back to bite us. 

Current situation: The CEO sat us both down and told us that we have to decide which team takes on these specific tasks. It's getting messy and inefficient. Either I absorb this small team of Joe's, or Joe absorbs an employee of mine. We both like our teams and don't want to lose our staff because we've developed them over many years and they're strong employees. 

I know that Joe is going to fight long and hard and try to hoard these tasks to his team because he is very much a "prove his worth" type person who is always in the CEO's ear. I think these things should fall under me, mainly because that's what would make sense in a general industry way. But I honestly don't care that much to fight over the specific tasks and it would free me up to focus on other things I like more. I just don't want to lose my specific employee and shifting teams means he will likely quit the organization overall. 

DH says just give it to Joe and move on and if it flops like I think it might, then it's on Joe. I don't love that reasoning, but I am leaning towards just giving up these tasks to make life easier overall. But does that make me look weak as a leader? 

[waverly]

I’m kind of side eyeing the CEO leadership here whose directive was fight it out rather than him having discussions with both of you. He should be realizing the fight it out approach wasn’t going to work and assuming some leadership/ mentorship here.

I don’t work in business so I can’t answer the weak leader question. My field is totally different and far more collaborative.

[rere]

I'm in a similar situation. I would just present how this would logically fit under you and how that would work best for the company overall-if you truly feel it does. If they don't see it that way then I would wash my hands of it.

I wouldn't fight hard, but I am also in the it all pays the same whether I bust my ass or do bare minimum funk.

[xctsclrx]

I would present your reasoning behind keeping the tasks, (industry best practices, your history of doing them etc) make sure your one employee is okay with the change if it doesn't go your way. Keep that employee in mind for any opportunities that come up.

I wouldn't fight super hard, but I would make it known that you want them and have a good reason for it.

As a side note: I would also ask to keep your one employee and see if there is a way to hire his own employee and have your person help train.



ETA: I would also make the pitch because if it does not go well, then you can't be held liable for Joe's failure. From this post alone it sounds like he might be the type to try and pass the blame.

[cjcouple]

I'd give Joe an employee. Either, it won't work and the CEO will see if it not working and likely change it but if it does work, well good for the company (which means good for everyone to keep their jobs and make money) and you now have a clear split.

ETA; it does not make you look bad. CEO said figure it out and you both did.

[mustardseed2007]

I would explain the reasoning but I wouldn't fight super hard. I would explain that you think it's best for the company and why, but you want it to be CEO's decision and you will respect whatever he decides because (and I'd say this specifically) I don't want to fight with Joe and damage that relationship.

How sure are you that the employee will leave? I would probably also have a conversation with that employee to just let them know what's being considered and directly hear from them what their concerns are. If it's super sure that the employee will leave I might warn about that. But then again it might not happen so I would be wary of saying that part.

[mommyatty]

I don’t think it would make you look weak in the eyes of your superiors, but your other employees would likely be affected by one going to a different division. Especially since it seems like you have a tight-knit team. So I would fight just because it’s important for your people to know you’ll go to the mat for them. I would be graceful, of course, if the CEO decides to give them to Joe, but I think it’s important to make your case.

I think the winning argument here is that standard industry practice is these tasks belong in your division. Does Joe have any equally compelling arguments?

[twinmomma]

Thank you all for the insight! I was feeling like I might be too passive with my willingness to pass it off to this other team and didn't want to look bad.

Joe claims that if we shift the team to me, his person will quit because she has specifically told him she will not work for any other manager in the org. That alone speaks volumes to this person's personality... Who says that?

I will definitely be talking to my employee about the shift. He is eager to grow and learn and I think that moving him to Joe's team will feel like a demotion and he will lose out on a lot of that growth potential. I wouldn't blame him at all for looking for a new opportunity if it happens.

[mommyatty]

twinmomma- I call BS on that. “No other” boss? So she wouldn’t work for the CEO? She wouldn’t grow and take a developmental assignment? If push comes to shove, which employee would the organization have an easier time replacing? I love when I get to be the “infinitely reasonable” person in the room. And I think here you’re the infinitely reasonable one. Industry standard is it should be yours. You have an excellent employee who is eager for growth opportunities and this would mean limiting his growth potential. On the other side, you have “but it’s miiiine!” and an employee who has said she’s uncommitted to the organization and only respects one person in the leadership structure. I know what I would do if I were CEO.

[twinmomma]

Talked it out with Joe yesterday. Ultimately, I gave my feedback for what my concerns are, but I am willing to transition these projects over to him. I told him for me, it boils down to not wanting to lose my amazing team member, which I care a lot more about vs. losing these specific projects on my plate. I'm going to meet with my employee today and get his feelings on the situation and talk through it with him. And then next week we'll present to the CEO.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of other projects I could focus my time on if this leaves my plate. When I talked it out with my work wife, that was her take on it too. Try to look at the positive of what else I'll really be able to dig into and the bandwidth it'll free up.

Of course, we could present this to the CEO next week and his response will be "nah, not doing it." Who really knows at this point.

[mae0111]

twinmomma, that makes sense. So would the employee definitely have to go over? Or could you make a case that you have enough work to keep your employee, and that another hire is needed?

[twinmomma]

mae0111, He would definitely move over. I don't think I have enough work to justify keeping him on my team right now unfortunately.

[livinitup]

twinmomma I will point out that moving tasks/projects to a different supervisor that comes with moving an experienced and valued employee looks a LOT different when that employee quits (for whatever reason) and the new supervisor has to hire & train a new person to get the work done.

If this division of labor goes to Joe, make it crystal clear NOW that it stays with Joe if/when the position is vacant. Not in a “this employee is gonna quit & then you’ll be sorry” way. Just in a ‘this is a permanent org chart change’ sort of way. Something tells me that Joe would be very happy to saddle you with the problem and let all that new free time get eaten up later even though he is “fighting” now.

[CrazyLucky]

I would fight super hard, especially if I thought that moving under Joe would make super employee quit. In this case, you're doing what is right by fighting because it makes sense, because your employee isn't in a position to argue on his/her own behalf, and because it is better for the company if you keep the employee. I would fight for this one. If the employee in question was not likely to quit, I would let it go.