Interested in hearing some opinions about this hypothetical sports copy desk situation (similar scenarios could occur in just about any workplace).
Employee A is a veteran sports copy editor. While still reasonably competent, he is getting up in years and has, in baseball parlance, lost something off his fastball. He's prone to occasional mistakes, as well as letting reporting errors slip through, though it's not a repeated pattern. But he remains steady and reliable and has taken on some of his desk's most unpleasant duties in an attempt to keep his job as long as possible. He's also well-read with a background in many other aspects of newspaper work besides sports copy editing, with much "institutional knowledge" of sports and many other subjects. He is among the quieter people on his desk, generally keeping to himself.
Employee B is much younger (mid-20s) and actually an ex-employee -- laid off a few months ago. He had potential, but probably would have started at a much smaller paper back in the day. While employed, he established himself as a very good fact-checker and grammarian -- but at the expense of speed and productivity (if he handled a story on deadline, the section was almost certain to go in late). When occasionally assigned some of the unpleasant duties Employee A took on, he complained about it and showed what might be termed an entitlement mentality.
Then there's Employee C, also a veteran sports copy editor but about 10 years younger than Employee A. While not a supervisor, he is one of the desk's stars -- an excellent content editor who mostly handles high-profile NFL and college football stories -- but he knows it and often comes across as cocky. Nor would he ever willingly take on the type of menial work Employee A handles. He was friendly with Employee B and served as something of a mentor to him. Employee C also has made it clear over the years that he's not a fan of Employee A, occasionally treating him with scorn and calling him out in front of co-workers over mistakes.
Through several reliable sources, it's recently come to Employee A's attention that Employee C has told co-workers the paper laid off the wrong person -- Employee B should have been kept, Employee A should have been let go. Employee A is deeply wounded and angry. His first impulse was to confront Employee C. But he's nonconfrontational and does not relish the idea of such a discussion. He also realizes that if he confronts Employee C, he might not be operating from a position of strength.
The question: If in Employee A's shoes, would you call aside Employee C for a "friendly" discussion? Or would you let it pass and just keep going about your business to the best of your ability?
Or, going down a different road, would you, indeed, have laid off Employee A instead of Employee B?
Employee A is a veteran sports copy editor. While still reasonably competent, he is getting up in years and has, in baseball parlance, lost something off his fastball. He's prone to occasional mistakes, as well as letting reporting errors slip through, though it's not a repeated pattern. But he remains steady and reliable and has taken on some of his desk's most unpleasant duties in an attempt to keep his job as long as possible. He's also well-read with a background in many other aspects of newspaper work besides sports copy editing, with much "institutional knowledge" of sports and many other subjects. He is among the quieter people on his desk, generally keeping to himself.
Employee B is much younger (mid-20s) and actually an ex-employee -- laid off a few months ago. He had potential, but probably would have started at a much smaller paper back in the day. While employed, he established himself as a very good fact-checker and grammarian -- but at the expense of speed and productivity (if he handled a story on deadline, the section was almost certain to go in late). When occasionally assigned some of the unpleasant duties Employee A took on, he complained about it and showed what might be termed an entitlement mentality.
Then there's Employee C, also a veteran sports copy editor but about 10 years younger than Employee A. While not a supervisor, he is one of the desk's stars -- an excellent content editor who mostly handles high-profile NFL and college football stories -- but he knows it and often comes across as cocky. Nor would he ever willingly take on the type of menial work Employee A handles. He was friendly with Employee B and served as something of a mentor to him. Employee C also has made it clear over the years that he's not a fan of Employee A, occasionally treating him with scorn and calling him out in front of co-workers over mistakes.
Through several reliable sources, it's recently come to Employee A's attention that Employee C has told co-workers the paper laid off the wrong person -- Employee B should have been kept, Employee A should have been let go. Employee A is deeply wounded and angry. His first impulse was to confront Employee C. But he's nonconfrontational and does not relish the idea of such a discussion. He also realizes that if he confronts Employee C, he might not be operating from a position of strength.
The question: If in Employee A's shoes, would you call aside Employee C for a "friendly" discussion? Or would you let it pass and just keep going about your business to the best of your ability?
Or, going down a different road, would you, indeed, have laid off Employee A instead of Employee B?
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
