Is the person who would draw the short straw valuable to the team long-term and would likely continue to contribute but for the need for a different skill set?

If the answer is no, then you've got to just let him/her go and move on.

On the other hand, if s/he is basically a good employee that is valuable long-term, I would expend all resources available trying to retrain and/or shift responsibilities around so that the most adaptable team members take on the new functions, leaving the existing tasks to the least flexible. Alternatively, you can be direct and tell the person likely to be fired that s/he has the new position if s/he wants it and has a six month period to figure it out ... otherwise, the unfortunate reality is that the existing position is being eliminated and you've got to fill the new one.

Just be honest about the situation you're in and offer to do everything in your power to make the transition work. But at the end of the day, you've got to address the company's needs.

OP here. My direct supervisor basically gave me this situation, told me that she was giving me certain resources and I had to think about how to allocate them strategically, to focus on positions not people and what I needed strategically for the team and get back to her. I am working on options. No one else above that who I can go.

OP,
Don't you report to someone? Can't you get input from above? (On the organizational chart, not the heavens!)

I don't want to give too many details her to be too revealing. The situation is not as difficult as needing developers and having engineers but it's two distinctly different skill sets in the customer service and marketing arena. Unfortunately easily moving them elsewhere is not an issue. I am aware of the difficulty of recruiting and hiring. We were hoping to add a position on one side of the team but were denied budget to do that (if we had gotten it I would have been hiring anyway). Due to some restructuring a position that fits more on the other side of the team is coming to us as is a big chunk of that positions projects (which will take up roughly 50% of that position's time) but not all.

Anonymous wrote:Yes you're right---big company. I do need people to take on different tasks but the skill-sets required for the tasks are very different for the two parts of the team---there are also issues of who reports to who etc-----it could possible be worked though, but is not ideal. My director asked me to figure out what my ideal positions would be be (which don't match up to who we have the skill sets we have ). My normal reaction would be to try to find compromises, but that hasn't worked very well in the past.

Can you provide more details on the skill sets not matching? For example do you have a group of accountants and you need more developers? I would really think through the difficulty of terminating and rehiring versus trying to retrain. Some of these folks may have flexible skills and attitudes which could make the transition easier. I'm not sure how often you hire folks but think about the effort that will go into screening and selecting unknown future employees versus training and transitioning proven employees.

You might also find that some folks do not want to do something else and will want to move on. Since you said this is a big company can theses folks not be moved elsewhere instead of being terminated?

Yes you're right---big company. I do need people to take on different tasks but the skill-sets required for the tasks are very different for the two parts of the team---there are also issues of who reports to who etc-----it could possible be worked though, but is not ideal. My director asked me to figure out what my ideal positions would be be (which don't match up to who we have the skill sets we have ). My normal reaction would be to try to find compromises, but that hasn't worked very well in the past.

Let me guess, big company?

I've worked in startups all my time, so everyon pitches in wherever is needed. Sounds like you have the headcount to do it all but you just need some peopel to take on different tasks.

I have led a small, relatively high-performing team that specializes in two functions for some time. Due to some resource allocation issues and changes in our organization we are going to be over-allocated in employees/time for one part of the team and strapped for resources on the other. The only way that I can get more resources for the other part of the team is by changing the make up of positions (i.e. cutting at least one position and adding a new, different position). I hate doing this, but think it's strategically necessary. It may be possible to hold off for like 6 months, but that would be postponing the inevitable. Fairly certain no one on the team is planning to leave or looking anyway. My choice is basically do this in two weeks or hold off for 6 months (during which time the team would be struggling to be productive) or do it in two weeks.

What would you do? Managers, how have you dealt with this in the past? I am trying to focus on the positions and resources and needs and not the people, but it's so, so hard.