95

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.

ProgrammingLlama
  • 107
  • 2
  • 7
Janine00
  • 791
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Jane S Jan 08 '19 at 01:18
  • 57
    Would the employee's choice of seating be a concern if they weren't "low-performing"? – Keith Thompson Jan 08 '19 at 06:17
  • 1
    What kind of work is going on? Can they chat via Skype? – Carl Witthoft Jan 08 '19 at 20:42
  • 3
    Janine00 does your company have an HR department? If you follow the accepted No there isn't. advice without contacting HR then you are potentially placing your company and yourself in legal liability. Your personal assessment of the situation by itself may not contain sufficient details to arrive at the correct action. Best wishes. – Melioratus Jan 09 '19 at 15:33
  • 2
    "I have an employee" - to be clear, you are their manager / boss? Also, because you mention low-performing, would you consider a different course of action if they were high-performing? I think these ambiguities should be cleared up for the best possible answer. :) – corsiKa Jan 09 '19 at 18:49
  • 1
    Is this a change in behavior? E.g, the employee used to sit with team, but changed to sitting in the common area? – Akavall Jan 09 '19 at 19:29
  • @Janine00 As an addendum to Melioratus's comment I'd also like to point out that if you did not go with Kilisi's solution of simply ordering them back to their desk and leaving it at that, you should change your accepted answer to whatever is closer the solution you actually chose. (I would suggest, in line with Meiloratus, that MichaelK's much more highly-voted answer is a better route to take.) – cjs Sep 08 '19 at 02:08

7 Answers7

292

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 to 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 — much worse and what compels you to look into this further — they might be the victim of harassment or bullying, possibly even by a supervisor. This last bit has legal consequences for the employer.

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 failing to fulfil your duties towards your employer; more on that 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 then 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 Stack Exchange 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 held liable by the court. This in turn means they will be looking at how they could ever end up in that fix. And that will come back to you, because I find it most likely that your job description as a manager and/or your workplace policies state that it is your duty to be on the lookout for warning signs of harassment and other things that your employer is legally required 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.

Community
  • 1
MichaelK
  • 2,250
  • 2
  • 11
  • 18
148

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.

Kilisi
  • 222,118
  • 122
  • 486
  • 793
  • 20
    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 Jan 06 '19 at 21:10
  • 11
    @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". – Summer Jan 06 '19 at 23:10
  • 13
    @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 Jan 06 '19 at 23:21
  • 73
    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 Jan 07 '19 at 00:04
  • 11
    @PierreArlaud Nobody is judging him - only how much value he can provide to the company. He's obviously not a valuable employee doing what he does now where he does it. That doesn't mean he cannot be useful doing something else or in a different company, it just means that there's not a lot of value lost to the company when you fire him, and he's probably easy to replace. – Luaan Jan 07 '19 at 09:40
  • 8
    @Luaan What if the coworkers bullied him? Would you say they are valuable to the company? – Pierre Arlaud Jan 07 '19 at 10:24
  • 9
    @PierreArlaud And now you're judging the coworkers, aren't you? We have some information about the guy who isn't performing and playing along, and no information at all about the coworkers. But regardless, even if they create a toxic environment for any newcomers, that doesn't make them easy to replace - even if it turns out to be a good long term strategy. Regardless of how much of a fault it is of the "new guy", he is easily replaceable - avoiding the rest of the team, low-performing etc. – Luaan Jan 07 '19 at 10:27
  • 8
    How is refusing to sit at one's desk is entering a disciplinary zone? This is fantasy, unless this thing is explicitly specified in the job description. – maksimov Jan 07 '19 at 14:36
  • 44
    "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 Jan 07 '19 at 15:31
  • @Daan do you mean the floor and ceiling? My answer is designed to elicit the 'real' reason. which is unlikely to be the workspace as mentioned, perhaps the work environment or people, but they're different things. – Kilisi Jan 08 '19 at 00:17
  • @maksimov the answer is low performance+ refusal to use workspace, you got to read the whole answer, and understand it, not just a word or two – Kilisi Jan 08 '19 at 05:18
  • 2
    @Kilisi these things don't combine, you are just making it up. – maksimov Jan 08 '19 at 13:31
  • 1
    @maksimov you didn't read the question? It's a combination of exactly these factors in the FIRST sentence of the question, perhaps better if you don't comment until you read. – Kilisi Jan 08 '19 at 13:32
  • 4
    @maksimov you make no sense to me sorry, feel free to downvote and move along – Kilisi Jan 08 '19 at 13:39
  • 7
    They were hired because they were considered a valuable addition to the company. It's better to get to the root cause of a person's performance to have happy employees than to view people this way. We are humans, and this answer treats people as robots. You may find that if this problem is remedied, they have extraordinary contributions. It's better to first investigate as a human and not a robot. That way, you can avoid being seen as a draconian overseer that cares more about rules for the sake of rules and high turn over rate. Discipline and "value measurements" shouldn't be first choice. – The Anathema Jan 08 '19 at 17:54
  • @TheAnathema It doesn't treat people as robots. It treats employees as responsible adults who must realise that if an issue exists between their coworkers and themselves that compromises their performance then they'll have to handle it either personally or through HR. If they do not then surely they must realise that there will be consequences. Rather than "draconian overseer," dealing with this employee would make OP a responsible manager. A company is not a kindergarten and dealing with personal problems can only be done at shareholder expense until reasonable limits before it's an issue. – E404 Jan 09 '19 at 06:47
  • 1
    @E404 while that's true, but if we talk about stuff like bullying or harassing, the problem is obviously to bring proofs. Unless they write mails with all their harassing stuff in, it's unlikely that you get something to show to HR. For me both Kilisi and MichaelK answers are good. – Walfrat Jan 09 '19 at 08:53
  • 2
    It's hilarious reading the replies to this answer that follow the vein of "BUT oh my god!!!1".

    It's sad that this isn't the top answer as it's the only one that answers the problem.

    If someone comes to work and doesn't work how they are supposed to, they deserve every wrath of punishment that comes with doing so.

    There is no "mean" or "unjust" way, there is only the right way.

     – insidesin Jan 10 '19 at 02:20
  • @Walfrat I don't think proof is necessarily required to bring a complaint to HR. HR is not a court of law and merely a sufficiently serious complaint is usually enough to get them to start having a few "sit-downs" with the people involved. This stems from their true purpose to protect the company from employees, to make sure that any friction between employees, valid or no, does not escalate to a point where it can harm the company. At that point you at least have inquiries and paper trails and are on better legal ground. If your HR department knows what they're doing, that is. – E404 Jan 10 '19 at 07:26
  • For example, let me put it this way: If I see you as a "corporate guy" whose vision is squarely focused on corporate approaches, then your business seems mechanical to me, and I would decline to work for you. You've lost my contribution, my respect, and probably the community's respect if your habits go too far and end up on GlassDoor reviews. If, however, you acknowledge that I'm a person with stress thresholds, a complex mind, and physical/mental health to look after, you'll see glowing GlassDoor reviews, and a well oiled work machine due to good chemistry and morale. – The Anathema Jan 10 '19 at 23:20
  • @TheAnathema no idea what glassdoor is, and no ambition to find out – Kilisi Jan 10 '19 at 23:21
  • The only thing I agree with is leaving a trail. If that's HR, great. However, if that's a manager, that's also great. Discipline should not be the first go-to, however. I had an incredible job before, great dynamics. We talked, we worked things out, we had great chemistry. Then I worked for someone that you would probably like more. Very corporate. Very managerial. HR, employee handbooks, etc. Rigid. Structural. Silent. Yeah, all of that, and we all left. It cost them more because our keystrokes mattered more than us. We're not impressed by that. We'll just leave and make someone else money. – The Anathema Jan 10 '19 at 23:33
38

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.

Julie in Austin
  • 4,611
  • 13
  • 32
  • 1
    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 Jan 08 '19 at 01:30
  • 4
    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 Jan 08 '19 at 07:28
16

Yes, you can require they sit at their desk, if their desk is a healthy place to sit, but my first concern is that your rapport with the employee is lacking. 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 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 an employee, and as a boss.

At my first job in Atlanta, I was young and fresh out of school; one of our senior developers constantly passed terrible gas. Nobody wanted to discuss it. It took me weeks to figure out who it was once I started the job. It made me nauseous; furthermore, other folks would walk through and associate the smell with our area in general.

After my 6 month 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, so I preferred to find a new job. I was happy to leave that baggage behind.

mrjoltcola
  • 261
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
    Similarly, I've seen this sort of thing from people with sensitive allergies who get stuck near people who wear heavy cologne/perfume. – bta Jan 07 '19 at 23:27
  • 10
    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 Jan 09 '19 at 03:53
2

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.

Azor Ahai -him-
  • 554
  • 7
  • 12
TomTom
  • 8,508
  • 4
  • 28
  • 32
  • 51
    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 Jan 06 '19 at 23:02
  • 24
    @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 Jan 07 '19 at 04:33
  • 4
    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 Jan 07 '19 at 14:49
  • 2
    @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 Jan 07 '19 at 15:25
  • You fire them [yesterday]. now ... it's a mess. The court will ask: What did you know and when did you know it. – Mazura Jan 08 '19 at 01:19
  • Why were many of the comments deleted? Did someone not like them and decided to Stalinize them? Data loss? Not very motivational from a user's standpoint. – Tombo Jan 08 '19 at 04:20
  • 3
    @Tombo If you click on the answerer's username you will see the reason why. – MichaelK Jan 08 '19 at 09:15
  • 3
    @Nelson Avoiding liability for one issue by seeking out alternative reasons to fire someone can be legal, but that's generally considered evil and disingenuous. If their performance is a problem, then follow the procedure for that problem. Don't dismiss someone because you didn't like something about them, and then exclaim it's for a separate reason, if that reason never boldly presented itself. Especially if you have typical remedies for performance like performance improvement plans, review, or other procedures. Then it'll be immediately apparent that this is an excuse to avoid liability. – The Anathema Jan 08 '19 at 18:07
  • 2
    @TheAnathema It's not an excuse to use his poor performance to fire him. A company can only do so much. Should the manager force the employee to see a psychologist? At what point would you admit that the manager's hands are tied if the employee refuses to communicate his needs? He just sits in the common room and does not work. – Nelson Jan 09 '19 at 02:58
  • Is there some reason why everyone is assuming the employee is being bullied? Maybe it's in a comment I didn't see, but AFAICT the OP never intimated that there was any reason to suspect harassment. – A C Jan 09 '19 at 07:15
  • @Nelson "A company can only do so much". Asking twice, going to WP SE, and then doing owt, is not even close to exhausting what a company can do. A court would find that effort woefully inadequate. – MichaelK Jan 09 '19 at 08:14
  • 2
    @AC As I wrote in my answer: there are several warning signals going off here. If an employee under-performs, that in itself is reason to start looking closer and not just shrug one's shoulders and assume "Meh... they are probably just a crap worker". – MichaelK Jan 09 '19 at 08:16
0

It is not at all sure that communication makes for efficiency. Some people get easily distracted by other people conversing and it could clearly be a cause for lower performance in these individuals.

mathreadler
  • 491
  • 5
  • 13
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – MichaelK Jan 10 '19 at 09:22
  • 1
    @MichaelK : exactly, that's what I mean. Thanks for proving my point. – mathreadler Jan 10 '19 at 09:23
  • 1
    @MichaelK The question asks "Is there any reason why I can’t require this person to sit at their desk?" This answer provides a possible reason. I don't see why it's not an answer. Actually, I think it's similar to yours. I gave both upvotes. – Nobody Jan 10 '19 at 09:56
  • 1
    @scaaahu This still does not answer the question because the question is whether they can, not whether they should. I am saying that OP outright cannot just force the employee to sit at their desk without looking closer into this rather unusual behaviour. First OP must establish that this behaviour actually is problematic, and second — no matter if it is problematic or not — the behaviour is a big red flag that something might be wrong at the workplace, a warning so strong it compels them to look into this. – MichaelK Jan 10 '19 at 10:19
  • 1
    @mathreadler I suggest you take a look at the Code of Conduct before you — like another participant on this particular page — earn yourself some time in the time-out box. Most important: "Be kind and friendly" and "Be clear and constructive when giving feedback, and be open when receiving it." are two points you seem to be missing. – MichaelK Jan 10 '19 at 12:58
  • @mathreadler Moderation is not censorship. Follow the rules and be nice, and you have no problems here. Keep trying to have it your way at all cost... and the result is inevitable. – MichaelK Jan 10 '19 at 20:44
  • Just trying to help improve the site before more people voluntarily stop using it, mate... – mathreadler Jan 10 '19 at 20:47
  • @mathreadler You can do that better by following the CoC and the other rules. That you claim good intentions also does not exempt you from that. – MichaelK Jan 11 '19 at 06:57
-5

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.

Ajeeshklr
  • 33
  • 1
  • 6
    If the person do not do anything anyway, do you really need a replacement? – Bent Jan 06 '19 at 19:04
  • 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 Jan 06 '19 at 20:00
  • @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 Jan 06 '19 at 20:25
  • 12
    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 Jan 06 '19 at 21:33