Killer interview question: You have a team of two - who do you fire, who do you retain?

My advise :

Your boss's intention : To cut costs and fire one staff from your team. He/She did not mention about whether you need to consider the competence of the staff as consideration.

Your objective : To fire the 1) smart A; or fire 2) dumd B?

Deciding Factors : Who do you works best with? Which of these will render you support in times of crisis? Who is more reliable? Do you think A will be able to counter his / her vices if you set boundaries and deadlines for his/her submission? What if you change your management style, would B improves his/her performances? Who is more costly? Who is more mature and a better team player?

There are deeper consideration than costs alone, such as loyalty and seniority as well as passion for the job and organisation. Alternatively, I would fire them both and do their jobs myself if the organisation is too financially tight and this is an opportunity to prove to my boss that I am well-rounded and employment worthy in the long run. Thanks.

I agree with edchloh. It's a question about the candidate's management style. However the "correct" answer for this question is highly dependent on the hiring manager's personality and preference.

Before attempting an answer, I might have asked the interviewer the following:
(1) Management's reason for the request and the short to long term goals of the company for my department in specific
(2) Know if the 2 employees' functions and roles in the organization are mutually interchangeable? If no, will the retained person be required to make up the difference in skills set and knowledge of the fired?

Based on the given answer, I will determine if
i) It will be worth investing time and effort to nurture the "non-team player" which has potential but lack motivation by providing the right incentives and better communication of management goals. Good for long term productivity.
ii) Or bet on the trusty mule, if the retained role is more routine driven and short-term goals focussed but less technical.

I would fire myself.

At the time of financial tsunami, the most importance thing is survival rather than business development. It means obedience and risk/operations control should be put on top priority. It is easier to mange the less intelligent guy at this time. A person who resists taking order is not suitable. I will advise the management to fire the riskier one and taking this opportunity to propose wage cuts on the less intelligent one.

I'ld probably retain the slow guy, because he ultimately gets the job done on time. A manager needs to really "manage" people; this includes training the employee and even kicking his/her ass to get the job done. On the flip side of the coin, what impression of your management style is given to the interviewer if one were to fire the slow guy instead?