Albert, without fail, has exceeded all of his production objectives for the past five years. He is a top performer who produces high-quality results. Colleagues like him. Clients adore him. But Albert never works more than 20 hours per week. That’s less than one-half the amount of time his colleague’s work.

Albert receives a compensation package equal or better than his colleagues. He has a single requirement for his manager and his organization, "Don’t waste my time." You now control the organization. Would you continue to employ Albert under the same arrangement?

This isn’t a trick question: Albert produces in less than 20 hours as much or more than his colleagues do in 40 to 60 hours.

I would continue this arrangement in a heartbeat.

But when I shared these facts with two development managers I respect and asked them whether they would continue the same employment arrangement, they both said, "No."

Whoa…

I was surprised by the development managers’ responses. I probed them about their answer. The vagueness of "production objectives" seemed to be a problem. They abhorred the idea of full time pay for what they considered half time work. They also were concerned about the demand that Albert’s time not be wasted.

I decided to ask a a different group of managers—sales managers—about hiring Albert to be a salesman, a job whose results can be described quantitatively. I shared these facts with 1 second-level sales manager and 2 first-level managers: If your hire Albert as a salesman, you are guaranteed that he will generate at least 105% of his quota but never more than 110% each reporting period; his colleagues will like him; his clients will adore him; but he will never work more than 20 hours per week and he demands that his time not be wasted.

I asked each of them "Would you hire Albert?"

I thought this was a no brainer question for a sales manager, but "No," was the verdict I heard from each of them.

Whoa…

I asked them, "What’s preventing you from hiring Albert?" A manager sneered as he said, "The notion of him only working 20 hours per week is insulting and his demand that his time not be wasted is absurd. He is being paid to do what he is told. And think of what he could produce if he worked a regular (40-60) hours. If I can’t motivate him to work hard, I don’t want him" The creases in my forehead became more pronounced as I said, "But isn’t the guarantee of him producing 105% of his quota worth something to you?" "Doesn’t matter. I might be able to hire someone who would work more hours and make 200% of his quota," countered a sales manager.

Whoa…

I didn’t expect this response. Perhaps I didn’t structure the inquiry well or I asked the wrong groups.

Both groups seemed to fixate on the number of hours worked and didn’t like Albert demanding that his time not be wasted. Unlike me, neither group was impressed about the guarantee of results.

I like the notion of paying for results that are certain. And Albert’s time management is superb so I’ll support his demand that his time not be wasted. All other things being equal if Albert, or someone else, can consistently produce the desired results in one-half the amount of time as their colleagues, I am more than willing to pay him at least as much as their colleagues.

How about you?