Direct rejecting part of job

I'm guessing that you are a utility and a monopoly. I mention that because even monopolies must be sensitive to their public image. My suggestion here is that you not look at this as a management issue, but rather, look at this as an opportunity to review how you serve your customers. Shouldn't the person who is assigned the task of telling customers their water is being shut off be extremely well versed in customer service? I don't mean just being polite, I mean someone who is skilled at conflict resolution and the handling of customer complaints.

Is he that person?

You are using what is known as "Inside-Out Thinking." I'm advocating you look at it from the customers' perspectives and use "Outside-In Thinking.

But if you disagree with me, which would cost your organization the most, re-engineering his position or having to hire and train his replacement who would do that work?

Considering the bigger picture, what is best for your organization?

So the $64K question is - provided you are happy to agree, do you think this will be the end of this kind of behaviour?    If not, are you happy to manage this kind of stuff in future - not just the direct's demands; but the impact on the team, the company and yourself?

I'm taking your characterisation of his actions at face value - it'd be interesting to hear what exact words and behaviour he used to give you this "ultimatum".  But a direct deciding what work he does and does not want to do?  Consider yourself lucky that this has shown up while he was on probation and show him the door.  Finding this stuff out is what the probation period is for.

If you think he's worth saving, find out why he doesn't want to do the collections bit.  If he lacks the skills to do it effectively - train him, coach him and provide feedback.  He needs to see this as professional development or at least learning the basic skills required of the job.  If he resists, he needs to go.

I'd like to drop some of my duties and eat ice cream every day, but that's not what the company requires me to do.

I'll start with a non sequitur: our CEO goes on icecream runs for the office a couple of times a month in summer.  And people wonder why I like working where I do... but back to the topic at hand.

I'm part way through listening to the last licensee conference call, and Mark mentioned an incident in a new employee orientation meeting, when a manager was addressing a group of new hires.  The manager mentioned weekly one-on-ones, and one of the new hires stuck his hand up and asked, "Can I get out of those?"  The manager involved apparently said something like, "we'll talk about that later", whereas Mark's recommended response was "Sure you can -- just walk out that door".

Well, it made *me* laugh, anyway.

The point is that there are some parts of a job that are non-negotiable, and to MarkMT's point, the company requires you to do them.  The question I have is simple: do you require him to do this part of this job?  If so, it's sayonara.  If not, you restructure things and move on.

Personally, for a top performer (that's *top*, not "average / above average"), I'll move go to the ends of the earth to keep them, because I need good people to accomplish my professional and organisational goals.  If they're an awesome square peg, and they're in a round hole... hand me that file over there, would you?  I've a round hole that needs squaring.  On the other hand, if someone's a mediocre performer... well, they're not going to last forever regardless of what sort of hole they're in, but even then, I might consider trying a different hole *if there's one available*, if I'm not totally sure the problem is the peg rather than the hole.

Another issue to consider is how you got someone in this role who isn't suited to it, or *really* doesn't want to do it.  Did you know that this position required customer interaction during the hiring process?  If so, was that both assessed for and communicated to the candidate?  That would factor into my decision.  If the employee indicated a willingness to do that work during the interview, and is now balking, that's a *really* bad sign for me.  However, if it was something that was dropped in his lap on day one, with no indication prior to that, it's a totally different ballgame.  Especially when you're talking about accountants, who are second only to IT geeks in their general desire to avoid human interaction.  I hire system administrators, and because we're a very customer-focused company, I make really sure that they're willing to, and capable of, dealing with customers.

Lots of things to consider, but the bottom line is this: do you need this person to do this job?  If yes, they do the job or they're gone.  If not, redefine the role.