Should you have to choose between a loyal & faithful employee and a competent employee, who would you

pick?
Ian McCarthy

Here are a couple of relevant quotes, the second on army officers, but easily applied to employees: In looking for someone to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But the most important is integrity because if they dont have that, the other t o qualities, intelligence and energy, are going to kill you.! " #arren $ Buffett, %$& ' %hairman of Berkshire Hatha ay (here are only four types of officer. )irst, there are the la*y, stupid ones. +eave them alone, they do no harm,-econd, there are the hard" orking, intelligent ones. (hey make e.cellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. (hird, there are the hard" orking, stupid ones. (hese people are a menace and must be fired at once. (hey create irrelevant ork for everybody. )inally, there are the intelligent, la*y ones. (hey are suited for the highest office. " /eneral $rich 0on 1anstein 23445"36578 on the /erman &fficer %orps 999
Ray McTier

In these circumstances the choice to me is clear. I ould pick the employee ho is loyal and faithful. #hile the superstar has an upside, it is limited, and there are many potential do nsides, including costs, arrogance, manageability questions, longevity questions etc. /enerally it is better to deal ith a kno n rather than an unkno n. (he loyal ' faithful employee, ith mentoring, coaching and training is more than likely able to overcome any obstacles and become at least competent. #hen times change, there may be an opportunity to hire a superstar again. (he ability to do a :ob better than another should never be the defining factor. ; team is made up of different players, personality types etc. ; team of all superstars is destined for failure. -o once again, my choice is clear, the first employee described is the one I ould keep.

avid Marshall

+oyalty is a useless quality if the employee is incompetent. If a competent employee is not loyal, I should only keep this person until I can find someone ho is both loyal and competent, supervising carefully to ensure that the competence is not aimed at some disloyal trick before the predictable dismissal. 999
!rian Clark

I think you<re in trouble if you have to pick bet een a loyal but incompetent employee and a disloyal and competent employee. (he right question might be, is it easier to make a loyal employee more capable or to make capable employee more loyal= If the latter isn<t easier, you<ve got a serious challenge in the future at retaining good employees that a competitor ill use to secure a stronger talent base. 999
"re# Michalik

%ompetent. >eed to have top people to be successful. +oyalty is a result of the environmental conditions provided to the employee. 999
$iall Sullivan

It still depends on ho you define limited competence. I can only say that if the competence of the ?loyal and faithful? employee as really limited, it is unlikely that he@she ould have remained ith me long enough to be classed as either loyal or faithful. Hopefully I ould have had the nous to have dispensed ith their services ithin the first 7"A months. I ould e.pect that the employees that I had retained long enough to become loyal ere highly competent, so I ould hold on to them against a relative ne comer, highly competent or not. I subscribe to the old doctrine that, hen filling a post, a current employee BCD capable but likely to develop in the ne role quickly is equivalent to a ne comer ho appears to be ECCD qualified, but ho ill take time to adapt. $.perience over FC years in business has borne me out on that basis 6 times out of 3C. 999

%im &ahl

I ould choose the high potential ith the understanding that as a high potential he ould need to be kept challenged. If you ant loyalty, get a dog. 999
Ma' (arris

(he incentives are properly aligned for B. He ma.imi*es your company hile ma.imi*ing his value. ;nd, if he leaves, you can find someone almost as good for less money later. But, in the short term, he<s better set up to do the ork, is heavy into his career and does not ant to crater the company because it ill crater himself. +oyal and faithful lo achievers are still lo achievers. 999
)nita Subramaniam

Is the ?faithful? loyal employee ?faithful and loyal? because he does not have the ability to find another :ob= If I cannot elevate the quality of ork of my loyal employee, I ould go for the competent person. Ges, there is a fear of losing that person, but there is also the confidence that the ork ill get done and done ell. 999
%erome %ewell

#ithout hesitation, I<d choose the competent employee. (he killer phrase in your description is ?....limited competence ' potential...! #hat good are loyalty and faith if the person lacks potential= Ho useful ill loyalty and faithfulness be hen e fail together= Is my goal as a leader to boost performance or boost my ego= #e do not come to ork to build allegiance to ourselves. (his is only a by"product of allegiance, loyalty and commitment to a mission. Its a matter of priorities, and if e put the rong thing first, then all e become are ego"driven empire builders. #e have too many of them all ready. #hat e do at ork is much larger than :ust us, and leaders must keep this in mind. -o perhaps the high"potential employee has never e.perienced an organi*ation that kno s ho to manage potential...and if e shock this employee by feeding that potential instead of ignoring it, maybe e ill demonstrate that e are more than ?:ust another organi*ation?. I remember being told some decades ago by my mentor....

?#hen a leader requests loyalty from you, respond by offering integrity. #hen a leader requests integrity from you, respond ith loyalty?. )irst things first. It<s not :ust rhetoric, to some of us. 999
ale (enry, M(CS

Gou should remove ?;? from the role if you have ?B? or not. ;! ill at best be a drag on the productivity of others and yourself. Gou should let them go from the company if you don<t have a role for hich they are competent. It is a eak talent management approach to have a loyal but ineffective team. If you have a team made up of <limited competence< employees your team on<t survive for long and you are only sho ing your limited competence 2or courage8 as a manager. Clarification added* (he question assumes that you are looking for t o equally valuable attributes of an employee that have no dependency. (hat is not a correct assumption. Gou should be looking for competent employees, first. &nce you have competent employees you ill hope you can get them to be <loyal<. But if you have incompetent employees, you should actually hope that they are disloyal as ell. (hey might :ust leave on their o n 2but you should ait for that8. 999
Michele Cipolli

(he role and nature you are going to play is crucial in your decision. %orporate culture and need for leadership also enable success of the ne hire and long time loyalty. In a strategic position in a ne -BH I ould make an offer to the competent ith former e.perience in the same :ob@sector, e.panding his team ith loyal employees illing to gro . 999

Steve Clarke

B. ; competent employee is al ays the best choice. His loyalty is your responsibility. If you are a good leader and keep them interested in their ork, give them stretch targets and opportunities for gro th along ith a compensation package that reflect their performance then they ill be loyal. %hoosing ; is a sign of eak management.
+++ Ro#er (enry, CMR,

If one has e.ercised the ste ardship e.pected of an effective leader, the pruning ould be ongoing as part of the business process. (here should only be competent and high" performing employees in any organi*ation 999
orina "rossu

Iefine the organi*ation typeJ -ome organi*ation ant to have people ho are kno ledgeable and help them in short term to increase internal capacity hile other companies are interested to keep people on payroll. In the same time, your description as <limited competence ' potential? restricts individual<s ?po er of change?. 999
,inaki as

;n employee by definition is a servant " irrespective of the grandiose titles like Iirector or lo ly designations like (elephone operator. ; servant is a servant and the o ner ould e.pect loyalty. (he limited competence of the servant can be upgraded through training. In contrast if the competent employee has the right attitude including loyalty to the organi*ation ' to his ord till he or she is employed there, it is fine to prefer him. Ho ever, bad attitude competence is of little value. I ould go for a loyal faithful employee ' train him adequately to build his competency. 999

Mark "rotefend, CCC

If I as facing reductions in the organi*ation and had to choose bet een the t o, I ould choose the competent employee. It ould then be my :ob to ensure that employee ould desire to stay ith the company. Ketaining a loyal ' faithful employee ho has limited potential to fulfill their role only makes others in the organi*ation have to cover for them, and my e.perience has been that you end up releasing them any ay because they cannot perform to the level required. Ho ever, if the loyal ' faithful employee had the potential to fulfill the :ob requirements and the desire to do so, I ould seriously consider keeping them. 999
Ra-eswaran Muthu .enkatachalam

If I ere the boss in an organi*ation here loyalty is considered a core value, I ould select a more loyal ' faithful employee. (he organi*ation dynamism ill support me to develop this type of an employee and make him @ her competent. I ould assume this company ill have systems in place to develop such persons. >o company ould ant to take a person ho is loyal but incompetent in the long run. If I as the boss in an organi*ation hich is struggling to survive, I ill better choose a person ho is more competent and ill deliver from day 3, other ise I ill be in problemJ (hough e have our o n personal likes and dislikes, it is the organi*ation<s culture, values, priorities, goals, ob:ectives, HK focus that drives employee motivation and gro th. 999
/aren 01 2und

If I could choose only one option, loyalty or competence, I ould choose competence. 1y decision is based, in part, on having done temporary ork, here loyalty 2in terms of remaining ith an organi*ation for a long time8 is usually not an option. Hnder such circumstances, the most ?loyal? thing I can do is to do my best ork for ho ever long I<m there. (his applies to more permanent positions, as ell, I think. If I see a position as a step in my career and am capable of fulfilling my role, I<ll do a good :ob in the hope of impressing both my future employer and my current employer 2in the hope of a good reference8, and so contribute to my present organi*ation.

It saddens me to see people in :obs for hich they are not suited, in either skills or interests, plodding on day after day. (hey are usually not happy and contribute little of orth to their employers or colleagues. #hat is often called ?loyalty? can sometimes be lack of initiative to e.plore ne opportunities. 999
.ern Swana#on, S,(R, CTRS, M)

#o . /reat question for today<s environment. ;s much as I am a people"person and a fan of loyal and faithfully attentive employees, I believe that results matter and being loyal or faithful doesn<t al ays translate to business success. (oday, being loyal and faithful sometimes gets you a deck chair on a sinking ship or makes you the captain of one. Being potentially competent is based on results. If you are getting results, and I kno your career is your first priority, I manage from that perspective. Gou may not get my faithful and loyal support. In other ords, as a manager I may put you in a :ob that ensures the company<s success and yours at a certain level, but not let you move up or become as integral to the business. Gou ould ultimately betray my trust by moving on so your course is your o n. I<m not buying a ticket on that cruise. #ith this type of employee it has to be in" inL hen the balance shifts someone is getting hurt. &n the other hand, if you are faithful and loyal, you might be complacent and in need of a good challenge. ; challenge might help my opinion of your competence rise up ard. Gour ability to tolerate hatever it is that keeps you plugging along is something to be recogni*ed, but not necessarily re arded. Ho valuable is someone in today<s market ho :ust sho s up""that might not be the case ith a loyal and faithful employee but it certainly is easier to coast if you feel your passage has been booked. (oday<s ship needs a orking cre . (his is really a hard question and a bit of a moral dilemma. %ompanies succeed and fail based on their employees. )aith and loyalty in a compromised, often ruthless environment are beacons of hopeL competence and the ability to kno hen to :ump ship are survival skills. In the short"term hire competent employees ho can get the :ob done. +ong"term develop mutually re arding systems so they ant to stay in business ith you and you ant them there. 999

Mi#uel 2udert

I think it depends on the role being filled more than it depends on my desire. I ant a director level person and above to be loyal because they have sensitive information and are often client facing. (hey need to be continuously appraised of information and the direction of pro:ects. #ith good leadership, this loyal but other ise mediocre person can shine. &n the other hand, I don<t care if my telephone operators leave as long as they do the ork ell. $ven in something more delicate like technology, there are situations here I ant a superstar to get a great product out than a long term romance. 1uch the same as romance and love, choosing bet een loyalty and performance is different depending on here you are in your life. 999
Sridhar /alyanasundaram

+et me respond ith a live story " a bit in reverse of hat you have raised: I had a good dept head under me, a long serving individual in the company, ho unfortunately as not promoted in the annual e.ercise 2I as not a member of the panel that decided the list8. -o, hen I questioned the +eader of the Manel, pat came the reply that if the guy as good, he ould have had offers from else here and that he as :ust a loyal guy. #ell, as it happened, this guy did get an offer in about 7 months time and he moved on.....only for the same +eader of the Manel 2 ho as his direct boss, by then8 trying to stop him leaving saying that after 3F years, one cannot be <disloyal< to the &rgani*ationJJJJ %ompetence, +oyalty, and other labels that e give the employees are at times relative to our 2as in (op 1anagement8 o n characteristics " and to add, the process is not even consistent " hori*ontally, i.e. across all employees, and vertically " at all points of time. (o me, a competent crook is more dangerous than a loyal fool. Gou may not kno if the competent guy is a crook or not, but it could be a very costly ay to find out. $ngage a very competent consultant for the short"term, if thats the immediate requirementL get the loyal guy to implement and run the consultant<s ideas@ hatever. 999

/3$)T0 3mar

+oyalty is probably a very rare quality that is missing to a lot of employees, but also to a lot of companiesJ %ompetence can be developed through e.perience and practice. If you need someone for a very precise ob:ective and for a predefined time, it ould be better to ork ith a competent individual. &n the contrary, if you need to invest in the long term, it is strategically to hire someone ith a lo er level of competencies, to build up progressively his capacities hile offering him opportunities to enhance ne challenges 2loyalty from your company8 and you ill be re arded by more loyalty from him@her. 999
ivya ,urnaiya 4,arameswaran5

+oyalty is sub:ective.... for e.ample, Is the guy loyal to you because he is incompetent and therefore cannot really stray= &r is he actually loyal= $ither ays Id go for competency. #ork needs to be done today, and in the best manner possible. If there is a choice, pick the person ho ill do the :ob ell, and he might over time become loyal. 999
)mal "upta

I ish the ans er ould be that simple. It is al ays need driven. If e see current conte.t especially in human e.tensive industry such as I( sector, many of the loyalists are being asked to move out under MIM scheme. %ompetency is the Industry flavour@demand and ay to move for ard. ;t $&I, people feel comfortable ith nice, goody people. But competent people are required. 1ore"over stale resources al ays feel the heat during progression, do nturn and al ays get pushed. 999

)vinash Sin#h

If both the employees are part of an organi*ation then ho ill one :ustify to the <high competent employee< that the <loyal limited competence employee< is also getting the same treatment 2in terms of respect, remuneration etc8. I ill al ays choose the prodigal sonJ 999
$ikhil Mehra

(he risk ith a loyal and faithful employee is that of complacency and then the risk ith a competent employee is that of going overboard. >o if the appetite of the organi*ation is that of a risk averse, a loyal and faithful employee ill be better ?cultural fit? and if the appetite is aggressive then the competent employee is highly recommended. ;nd yes, competent employees can be made faithful and loyal by sho ing (rust 2give and then take8 and recogni*e the needs 2loyalty is a function of satisfaction over a period of time8 in timely manner. 999
Malvina )shok

I ould choose a %&1M$($>( employee and during the course his@her tenure as a part of my team mentor@guide@help him@her understand the importance of loyalty n faithfulness for a successful career....., $.g.L Iog is a loyal@faithful animal....but if he is not competent in protecting his master , ill the master look after him..... but the vice versa is if the Iog is competent ,the master ill do his best to care@love@train hereby the dog ill never think of any other master n ill be loyal @faithful to his master &>+G.....
+++ inesh Sinha

I ill al ays go for loyal and faithful ho has potential to fulfill the role requirements. It is because of such employee organisation development takes place and not because of those competent people ho take credit for their ork and move to ne.t organisation. 999

$aveen !othra

I totally agree ith >iall -. (o add, I think it<s practically more difficult to retain an employee competence ' potential. Gou on<t be able to fulfill his ambition. ho has limited

If you have challenging ork and employee friendly@matured process, I think the competent person can turn loyal too. -o the decision should be taken based on hat you have to offer " mediocre ork or challenging ork. 999
0u#ene Rembor, M!)

%hrystal clear number one. Integrity is the most important virtue. #hat good is a competent employee ho might take company insight to the competition to further his career= I<d rather go ith the loyal chap ho has the potential. He ill be motivatable for times to come, become competent ;>I offer me his integrity. 999
!ithika !hatna#ar Trivedi

(he ay I see it, it depends on 3 thing N Io you have the time to ork@motivate the loyal employee to become more competent= If yes then you must ork on the loyal employee and groom him to your requirements. (his is something hich a leader can do. ;lso loyalty is something hich cannot be ingrained ' taught through training sessions so it ill be preferred. Ho ever if you have a task to be completed in a given time and delivered a competent employee ill be an asset here.
+++

Michel Ra#ot

I don<t think it is the good question. #hat can you e.pect from a faithful and loyal employee ho is not competent: nothing. Gou don<t need him. But hat could you do ith a competent employee ho is not loyal: nothing too it is too risky for you. )or me to be competent includes being faithful and loyal. 999
Ravi /iran

(he first.../rooming is more of a manager<s :ob and part of his key skill for team performance. Ges, ho ever the employee should have the right attitude and illingness to learn and should not be resistant to change. (he first race is almost e.tinct, let us save them....after all they are not Iodos but kids ho need the right energy boosters and sync...Handholding ould be the right ord. 999
Cristina Mihai

(here are three variables I have in mind hen picking bet een the t o: " the time frame, i.e. ho long can I count on the HiMo versus ho long has the loyal@faithful one been in the organisation 2 hich can give me some insight on hether s@he as adequate for the business hen recruited, even if no it<s some hat limited8 " the role of the employee, i.e. ho critical is s@he for the business as a hole " the values on hich the business is built, i.e. is it more e.ternal oriented or one that places great value on its internal people ;nd then comes the real thing: letting a loyal, faithful and someho inadequate person for a role stay in the organisation does not necessarily mean s@he has to stay in the same roleJ I believe even businesses hich place a great degree of emphasis on loyalty cannot afford to endanger the business as a result of this value. -uch people can be moved around the company in roles that ould better suit them, ithout breaking the psychological contract. ;s for the hypo, the key is talent management, i.e. creatively thinking of ays to keep them aboard and caring for them in such a ay that it becomes difficult for them to find better opportunities. (hese said, I<d keep the hypo and more around the loyal ' faithful one on another :ob role.

If even this breaks the boundaries of your question, my choice ould be to let the loyal ' faithful go ith a very, very good package. Because businesses are not social services and if businesses don<t survive 2 hich usually happens as a result of people ith limited competencies to fulfill role requirements8, they ould still be out, right= 999
$itin "oyal

I do not see it as a very comple. question, I think +oyal ' )aithful person is hat I ould choose, follo ing are the reasons: 3. %ompetency is something that is easy to ork on, hile core values like loyalty and faith are difficult 2:ust ant to avoid impossible8. E. ; competent person if not loyal to organi*ation is very dangerous and can be harmful to the organi*ation. 999
)bhishek Mittal

I ould also choose the high"performing competent person. (hey are the folks ho drive your business outcomes. (he challenge, though, is to provide them an environment that is <continuously< challenging and full of opportunities to ma.imi*e their <returns"on" investment< from the relationship ith the organi*ation. (he bigger challenge for companies is to make such high"performers loyal. (he practice of employee engagement could play a crucial role here. 999
Rohit %ain

; competent employee is al ays a priority. 1aking him@her loyal ' faithful by providing ith right atmosphere and incentives ill be my :ob as an employer. If one can retain a competent employee, it ill al ays be more beneficial to company then :ust having somebody on their payroll ho are :ust doing enough to satisfy their :ob requirements. Ho ever, ith that said, a company strategy ill also determine hat kind of employee you ould like to hire. )or e.ample: In a fe companies 2e.g. manufacturing8 speciali*ed kno ledge of the company processes is valuable but the ork has high volume and lo value. In these types of industries, loyal and faithful orker ho ill remain in the organi*ation for many years ill be preferred.

&n the other hand, if your company anticipates a strong gro th, a competent employee ill be preferred because a competent employee ill not only ork ell but he@she ill also set the precedent for ne :oiners to ork at his@her competency levels rather than at barely acceptable levels. 999