disappointed in a friend/coworker

[tomthebarncat]

this is a business decision not a personal one, nor a popularity contest. It is reasons like this that I am not friends with colleagues or co workers. I have a life outside of my profession.

 

[crashbb]

It doesn't sound like friend was trying to abuse the friendship to get to keep her hours. She didn't approach the OP - a doctor and nurse did.

It does, however, sound like the OP is trying to abuse the friendship, by saying that the friend should have rejected what the doctor and nurse said in order to avoid putting the OP in a difficult position.

 

[True North]

I guess my main gripe is with my friend who so quickly jumped on the opportunity to dodge the cutback, especially knowing her coworkers are sacrificing. To me it speaks volumes about her character.

You have to make sure you look at it both ways though. She could be saying the fact you don't understand that she is doing what is best for her family speaks volumes of your character.

 

[lillygator]

So if I am reading this correctly you...

Told everybody their hours were being cut and then...

1. A Dr. and Nurse approached you and asked that Friend keeps hours
2. Without making a mgt decision, you called the Friend into an impromptu meeting with dr and nurse where she had two people advocating for her to keep her hours
3. Instead of being honored that she was so highly thought of by Dr. and Nurse, you are ticked because she didn't say "Oh no, I will take a cut because I am such a good friend of Hog Fan?"

This is the real world. When you are called into a meeting and told by two people how great you are and that you should be the exception and not lose your hours, you don't refuse the offer. It was 2 against 1 in that meeting and I would think any employee of mine would be crazy to refuse the offer, not be angry at them for not siding with me.

Unless she badgered the Dr. and Nurse to go to bat for her, then I agree with some of the other posters that this just sounds like sour grapes.

I agree, and I am stil confused to what actually transpired.

You have to make sure you look at it both ways though. She could be saying the fact you don't understand that she is doing what is best for her family speaks volumes of your character.

Good point.

I also do not think that the financial struggles of the other employees should be of any concern to her.

 

[MineMail]

FIRST: Don't make excuses or apologies for this because it really wasn't any of your doing. You're in the same boat (for the most part) as the other staffers. She didn't approach you and you didn't suggest the exception.

I assume that the three people in that position are doing about the same amount of work, but she's probably more efficient at the job. It will probably cost the friendship, but that was dead when she got preferential treatment anyway, however it came about. As you say, it's really out of your hands. Others higher than you made this decision and unless the higher up says different on Monday, it's a done deal.

Instead of expecting the other two people to keep up their same outputs with fewer hours, you have to redistribute the workload fairly. It's the only way you, as a supervisor, can make the situation more palatable for the staff.

If she's got more time, she should be doing more work than the others, especially if she's The Best.
You need to propose it nicely on Monday to the higher up if s/he approves the full hours exception.
Make it clear that this is a fair way to handle the exception that will minimize the other staff's disgruntlement.

When it's all approved, tell her the deal, with someone else in the room, before the rest of the staff. If/when she voices an objection, tell her that, as a supervisor, you have to be fair and equitable towards your ENTIRE staff.

After she's been told, you should let the rest of the staff know that the hours exception was out of your hands. If you want to be nice, you could show the higher workload as something she agreed to for the good of the office. Emphasize that you're making the best of an uncomfortable situation.

If she runs out of work, make some for her. Do NOT let her sit idle and get paid for it - it's horrible for morale and will build resentment.

You will need to come up with a plan (or "spin") for this specific problem: while she's taking her vacation time in the summer, the other two people will be picking up her workload. So, while she's going to be doing more now, they'll be doing more over the summer, probably with still-reduced hours. Is the workload lighter in the summer, I hope? That might smooth it over.

If there is an overtime possibility, the other two people should get first refusal rights. Don't say that out loud, but keep it in your back pocket. You can justify it by their reduced hours - it's just straight time for them, but keeping her longer can result in time-and-a-half. That's just business and management.

Good luck, it's really difficult to manage and motivate in this horrible economy. I hope your business picks up and everyone gets their hours back very soon.

 

[crashbb]

I assume that the three people in that position are doing about the same amount of work, but she's probably more efficient at the job.

Instead of expecting the other two people to keep up their same outputs with fewer hours, you have to redistribute the workload fairly. It's the only way you, as a supervisor, can make the situation more palatable for the staff.

If she's got more time, she should be doing more work than the others, especially if she's The Best.

It will probably cost the friendship, but that was dead when she went over your head anyway. If/when she voices an objection, tell her that, as a supervisor, you have to be fair and equitable towards your ENTIRE staff. This is the most fair arrangement.

When did the friend go over the OP's head?

I may have missed it (I find the story confusing), but I never saw the friend going over the OP's head.

 

[glitterkittyy]

I've been in a sinking ship company a time or ten. There were lots of times when people in my area got their hours reduced or let go while I retained full-time hours. It never occurred to me that I was being selfish in not voluntarily giving up hours. Kind of like survival of the fittest.... So I don't think there's anything wrong with not cutting your friend's hours if she's an employee that they want to retain. What I do think is wrong is that everyone else was told the cut would be across the board when that wasn't true. They will resent management AND your friend for being lied to.

I don't think your friend was wrong in looking out for her best interests. She's not working to be best friend of the year; she wants to earn an income.

 

[sbell111]

The OP made three serious errors:

• She allowed herself to be friends with a subordinate. Being friends with an employee will almost always cause you grief. Either the other employees will think that you are playing favorites or the individual will expect you to. It's best to simply keep the relationship professional and avoid the landmines.
• She allowed someone who was not her superior to dictate her actions. Since the OP does not report to the doctor who wanted the friends hours to remain the same, she should not have caved to the request without first discussing it with her superior.
• She had a meeting with the employee and the doctor and nurse who wanted the hours to remain the same. No good could have possibly come from this meeting. Its only possible outcome is to make the OP look weak.

A better plan would have been to do nothing until you could have spoken to your direct supervisor. Explain the situation to him including the negative ramifications of not cutting her hours. Then, implement whatever plan is decided upon.

 

[sbell111]

When did the friend go over the OP's head?

I may have missed it (I find the story confusing), but I never saw the friend going over the OP's head.

The friend may or may not have discussed the issue with the doctor and nurce. She apparently did not go to the OP's direct supervisor, however.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Business decisions are not based on employees' needs. Everyone needs to make money to survive. If she has the skills and they want her there full-time, then she gets to keep the hours. That's life. The business has to look out for itself and so does the employee.

If that is how it played out, I would agree.

It seems this employee was supposed to be cut and then claimed her super specialness. If she was all that special, they would have considered this action as part of the initial directive.

 

[golfgal]

all good posts and thoughts. The doctor has a contract with the hospital, not an owner nor employee.

If my friend does get to keep her hours, I WILL go on the record for saying that I disagree on principal and fairness. We have some folks in our department in a really bad way financially already and to ask them to sacrifice and not her is SO WRONG, in my opinion.

As far as my position, to be honest, some weeks I wont be able to(meetings, deadlines,etc) but I will try to contribute as much as I can.

I guess my main gripe is with my friend who so quickly jumped on the opportunity to dodge the cutback, especially knowing her coworkers are sacrificing. To me it speaks volumes about her character.

One thing that has been drummed into me time and time again at new managers meetings is that you have to treat everyone fairly.

One thing that will help you tremendously in your career is if you stop confusing "fair" with "same". Being fair does not mean you treat everyone the same. If the directive came from above to cut hours you should have started by prioritizing people in the various jobs and determining where the cuts could be made. If there are 3 people that do her same job and she is the best you start by preserving her hours and cutting back on the other two. If there are 96 hours/week to split in that job, she gets the first 40 and the other 2 split the remaining hours or if one of the other two are that much better, they get 32 hours and the other gets what is left. You will find you will maintain the most productivity this way. If those that get their hours cut are not happy, they are free to find another job.

Treating people fairly means they all get the same chance to prove themselves. You have a classic case of this going on in your office right now-you have one person that has far exceeded everyone else in her position and thus she should be rewarded and retained.

Also, it seems silly to not keep your office manager. you, on full time when you can step in a fill other spots where others can not.

I think in this situation you could have saved yourself a lot of worry if you had approached this from more of a business perspective vs trying to treat everyone the same. Doing a unilateral cut of EVERYONE's hours was just shooting yourself in the foot from the get go.

 

[MineMail]

I see - I wonder if the doctor and nurse that raised the issue for the OP were informed in advance? Maybe they didn't know the hours cut was coming and just reacted to the announcement after the fact?

Perhaps the woman with the same hours can do some TRAINING to bring the other two people up to her standards?

 

[MineMail]

One thing that will help you tremendously in your career is if you stop confusing "fair" with "same". Being fair does not mean you treat everyone the same.

This is very true.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I've been in a sinking ship company a time or ten. There were lots of times when people in my area got their hours reduced or let go while I retained full-time hours. It never occurred to me that I was being selfish in not voluntarily giving up hours. Kind of like survival of the fittest.... So I don't think there's anything wrong with not cutting your friend's hours if she's an employee that they want to retain. What I do think is wrong is that everyone else was told the cut would be across the board when that wasn't true. They will resent management AND your friend for being lied to.

I don't think your friend was wrong in looking out for her best interests. She's not working to be best friend of the year; she wants to earn an income.

Maybe OP can clarify--but friend/co-workers hours were cut and then they were reinstated AFTER the directive that they be across teh board was issued.

I have no problems with management making decisions and sticking with them. I cannot stand when a business in the midst of their strife is forced to make financial decisions and then panders to people after the fact.

I have a friend who was laid off in that manner. She does OT and a co-worker was laid off. But they later reconsidered b/c of some local layoffs at another company that affected her husband. They brought her back on and told my friend not to worry. My friend was later laid off.

The decision had been made--but they let a pity story direct the final outcome versus hard work.

While I don't claim that the nurse friend of the OP is undeserving--it smells fishy, will look bad and was highly unprofessional.

One could say that the woman in my story was looking out for herself and must have been really good to get their job back. But that is not how it played out unfortunately.

Sometimes the "good guys" who catch all the breaks, don't really deserve them.

In this situation--every single subordinate under OP's lead--aren't going to congratulate this nurse on a job well done that she gets to keep FT. Their going to say--holy crap, what makes her so gosh-blessed special that she could beg for her hours back.

It is all rather unfortunate.

 

[Mr.MouseFan]

It doesn't sound like friend was trying to abuse the friendship to get to keep her hours. She didn't approach the OP - a doctor and nurse did.

It does, however, sound like the OP is trying to abuse the friendship, by saying that the friend should have rejected what the doctor and nurse said in order to avoid putting the OP in a difficult position.

This. You can't fault somebody for looking out for themselves and their family. If you were in a position to keep your full income and benefits when you really needed it, I'm sure you would do the same. I know I would.

 

[Minnie]

One thing that has been drummed into me time and time again at new managers meetings is that you have to treat everyone fairly.

BUT life is NOT fair... and IMO why wouldn't someone who is the "best" or most "trusted" especially in a medical environment be treated differently than other members?

This is not the 3yr old t-ball team.... this is grown-ups who have to live with the reality that life is NOT fair.

In addition she could be just as upset that it is not affecting you the same.... If you're really talking about everything being fair....

 

[glitterkittyy]

Maybe OP can clarify--but friend/co-workers hours were cut and then they were reinstated AFTER the directive that they be across teh board was issued.

I have no problems with management making decisions and sticking with them. I cannot stand when a business in the midst of their strife is forced to make financial decisions and then panders to people after the fact.

I have a friend who was laid off in that manner. She does OT and a co-worker was laid off. But they later reconsidered b/c of some local layoffs at another company that affected her husband. They brought her back on and told my friend not to worry. My friend was later laid off.

The decision had been made--but they let a pity story direct the final outcome versus hard work.

While I don't claim that the nurse friend of the OP is undeserving--it smells fishy, will look bad and was highly unprofessional.

One could say that the woman in my story was looking out for herself and must have been really good to get their job back. But that is not how it played out unfortunately.

Sometimes the "good guys" who catch all the breaks, don't really deserve them.

In this situation--every single subordinate under OP's lead--aren't going to congratulate this nurse on a job well done that she gets to keep FT. Their going to say--holy crap, what makes her so gosh-blessed special that she could beg for her hours back.

It is all rather unfortunate.

Oh I somehow missed that she ASKED for the hours back. That's entirely different.

 

[MineMail]

BUT life is NOT fair... and IMO why wouldn't someone who is the "best" or most "trusted" especially in a medical environment be treated differently than other members?

This is not the 3yr old t-ball team.... this is grown-ups who have to live with the reality that life is NOT fair.

Reinforcing that cold-hearted message at work leads to recruiting, training, and retention issues. It's like saying that the employees really don't matter, that they can be replaced. Or, that's it's fine to play favorites - the rest of you aren't as important. Of course anyone can be replaced, but it costs more in the long run to have a revolving door policy like that.

In a downturn, employees will understand if cuts are fair and equitable, but only if they're communicated properly.
If an organization handles the cuts badly, as in this case, you could find yourself looking for new staff as soon as they can get a different job.

If someone leaves, a hiring freeze will prevent new hires from being brought on board, or only part-time (no benefit) staff will be brought in as a replacement. In any case, the training of new staff and the workload burden will fall to the other staffers. Having someone resign (or get laid off) will make the workload crushing.

In many cases, that doesn't happen until the economy picks up, then you're left with tons of vacancies and no one who wants to work for a company that treats its employees heartlessly.

 

[Tink888]

I guess I have a different take on it. Unless your friend went to the Dr. and nurse and asked to keep her hours, she did nothing wrong and it isn't a poor reflection of her character that she chose to keep them once offered to her.

By the Dr., nurse and you going to your friend, you placed her in the position of having to choose. She either does what's best for her family and isn't a team player or she's a team player and her family finances take the hit. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. The ugly truth is that where paychecks are concerned, most people will do what is most beneficial for themselves. IMHO, she should never have been placed in that position.

If the Dr. and nurse have the final say so, as manager I would've gone to bat for the other people in the office and argued why your friend shouldn't be the lone employee to keep her hours.

If the hours reduction came from someplace else above you, I would've taken the Dr.'s request back to the higher-ups and made the argument for all or none having their hours cut before ever bringing the decision to your friend.

To me, it was a poor way for management to handle the situation. They are the ones in charge and it's their job and responsibility to factor in all possible consequences of decisions which affect their staff and act accordingly. Friendships are irrelevant, where business is concerned, managers need to own their decisions, good or bad, and handle the fallout.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh I somehow missed that she ASKED for the hours back. That's entirely different.

That's the clarification I'm seeking.

I don't know if she asked the doctor/nurse or if they brought it upon themselves to make the request for her. It seems fishy to me.

OP posted the other day that she had to do this to her team--to everyone on the team. And now we have this post that she has been requested to not do it for this one person. My timeline is messed up--but it seems the request (either by friend or by the doctor who works with said friend) came after the announcement.

If friend truly indeed was "blind" to all of this occurring and her doctor person was preventing a cut without her knowledge, I would feel very different.