A High-Performing but Divisive Supervisor
You are the GM of a 160-room hotel. Your front office manager, in the role for two years, has the strongest guest satisfaction scores in the building (front desk at 91 versus a 84 brand average) and consistently hits labor targets. However, three front desk agents have resigned in five months, and exit interviews describe the manager as dismissive and prone to public criticism. Two remaining agents have asked to transfer to other departments. The manager is well liked by ownership and has never received a formal performance warning. You have a documented coaching conversation from four months ago about tone, but no follow-up. Turnover in the department is now 55% annualized, and you are heading into peak season.
1. Assess the situation and determine what action is warranted now.
Read the worked answer
The metrics are split: strong guest scores and labor control on one side, clear and repeated evidence of a people problem on the other. Three resignations in five months with consistent exit themes, plus two transfer requests, is a pattern, not a personality clash. The four-month-old coaching conversation with no follow-up is a gap in your own management - the manager has had no reason to believe the issue was serious. Action is warranted now, before peak season: a formal, documented performance conversation that names the specific behaviors, the business impact (turnover cost, transfer requests, peak-season risk), and clear expectations with a timeline. This is not a termination decision yet, but it must move from informal coaching to a documented improvement plan.
2. How do you structure the improvement plan and protect the business during peak season?
Read the worked answer
Structure the plan with observable behaviors rather than attitudes: no public criticism of staff, specific feedback delivered privately, and a measurable check such as reduced voluntary turnover and no new transfer requests over a defined period, plus a pulse check with the remaining team. Set a 60–90 day review with interim check-ins. Protect peak season in parallel: do not remove the manager abruptly mid-season without a ready replacement, but do not let the plan be vague enough to drift. Confirm the two agents requesting transfers are heard and, where possible, retained - losing them compounds the staffing risk. Document every step, and consult HR on process so any later decision is defensible.
3. Ownership asks why you would risk disrupting your best-performing department head. How do you answer?
Read the worked answer
Reframe the risk: the current path is the risky one. A 55% turnover rate in a guest-facing department carries real replacement and training cost, degrades service consistency going into peak season, and the two transfer requests signal the problem is spreading. Strong guest scores are being delivered by a team that is eroding. The improvement plan is designed to keep the manager's strengths - guest focus and labor discipline - while correcting the behavior that is driving people out. If the behavior changes, you retain a strong performer. If it does not, you have a documented basis to act, which protects the hotel legally and operationally. Doing nothing is a decision to accept the turnover and its cost.