January2007

Much advice given to CEOs and senior executives about creating a winning team suggests that they have the same amount of latitude that we imagine NFL owners and coaches to have. Find the best players, make objective decisions about who is not cutting it, and then make the tough decisions about whom to “get on” and “get off the bus.” Yet I have known few CEOs who really have this luxury. Achieving corporate objectives more often than not requires retaining someone who is not seen as an ideal fit but whose work is critically needed now. The “now” can be 90 days or the next year or two. The CEO in this position is better compared to being President of the United States when Congress is dominated by the opposing party.

For example, the head of manufacturing engineering was highly talented, had proven his value to the company many times and was recognized as among the best in the firm’s industry. New lean manufacturing and automated systems were being developed that were critical to the firm’s future competitiveness, and he was playing a key role in their development. However, deadlines were regularly missed, and area vice presidents began to express frustration. Though he put in long hours, he was often unavailable without notice. Employees in his department complained of an autocratic and abusive style. Fellow senior team members began to bristle at his curtness, irritability, and lack of concern with following procedures. Efforts toward team-building, coaching and conflict resolution produced only short-term results at best and did nothing to change his apparent unhappiness with the team. Losing him would mean delays of anywhere from six months to a year in development and risk leakage of competitive information, not to mention a possibly ruinous lawsuit if he were involuntarily terminated. Firing him was out of the question, though everyone wished he would just go away. His retention on the team seemed contrary to the values of openness, trust, and collegiality that the CEO had worked hard to promote, but the firm needed him through the end of the assignment. (This case is a composite of many real-life examples, with identifying details changed to protect confidentiality.)

This case illustrates a number of the characteristics of a difficult person that you as CEO you might want to get rid of, even if you depend heavily upon him or her:

Any of these reasons can be “deal-breakers, “of course, and it is easy to say bite the bullet and just get rid of the jerk, and at the extremes each of these faults requires just that. However, the reality is a much more complicated, because there is a continuum of virtues and vices, and every leader at one time or another has to manage someone who exhibits faults in a serious though not absolutely deal-breaking way. Even after the decision is made to terminate, timing is still a consideration, which may be anything from weeks to quarters.

What are some of the inhibitor’s that might restrain one from immediately getting such a person “off the bus?”

So how do you manage the team member whom you cannot do without for the time being but would love to dump overboard at the first opportunity?

First, accept that being in a position of high authority rarely means you have freedom to do whatever you want. You may actually feel less freedom than at lower levels, because your responsibility is so much greater.

Work extra hard not to suffer defections of other key staff because of the irritant. Let them know you understand their concerns and that you are doing all you can to address them. When possible, let them know why you cannot act now. Ask for their suggestions and help in managing a difficult situation.

Weigh costs and benefits. How long can the person stay before other key players or customers leave? Draw the line and be clear with yourself how much you will and will not tolerate.

Begin to look for replacements, cross train, outsource, and seek alternatives.

Ask yourself what if anything you are contributing to the problem.

Assess how other team members may be contributing to the problem. Make it clear that you expect them to support all team members, even ones they do not like.

Discuss the reasons for your displeasure with the person, without being threatening. Emphasize strengths and accomplishments. Prima donnas often have an exaggerated need for recognition and fear of disapproval.

Decrease the “degree of freedom” at which the problem person is allowed to operate. Keep communication open and frequent. If your trust is low, micromanage if needed, in such a way that the person has an increased sense of how important you believe his or her projects to be.

If you have been let down, do not take anything for granted. Monitor closely, and if possible use outside service firms—in IT, marketing, security, legal, HR, or product development, for example—to help keep track of this person’s performance. Work with trusted providers whom you can take into your confidence and let them know of your concerns.

Devious as it may sound, consider having the person’s subordinates keep an eye on him or her for you without tipping your hand.

Document missed deadlines, complaints from subordinates and peers and violations of policies and procedures. While such documentation in and of itself does not constitute a valid warning for disciplinary purposes, such data can strengthen your case if an unlawful termination suit is filed in the future.

Figure out what the person really wants and would be willing to settle for. Maybe in a redefined role, he or she would be fine.

Do not let poor performance lead to poor policy. Example: if flexibility of scheduled time in the office is a highly valued aspect of the work environment, do not revoke it because one jerk who has you over the barrel abuses it. If you must, make it temporary.


	Mulkern Associates is a privately held consulting firm of Anthony J. Mulkern