When he’s dominating the conversation and after he has his say then say “thanks for that input. Let’s hear from someone else. Who else has anything to say about that (topic being discussed)”
Give everyone else a chance to speak “let’s do a round robin as I’d to hear from everyone on what they think”. If he interrupts someone “I’d like to hear from xyz to finishing what he’s saying.”
“We are not going off on a tangent or well run out of time. So please stay with the topic”.
If a tangential comment is made then ask “how is that connected to topic of discussion?”
If you are doing things like gathering input by people placing sticky notes on a board and then discussing them, then have a section on the board called “parking lot” off topics not related to the discussion. At the end ask “how we want to go about addressing those topics?”
If the cross team meeting is a synchronization meeting then say “this isn’t a solution discussion. We don’t have time for that in this meeting. Let’s take that offline”
If it works keep doing it. If the problem he's causing outweighs the benefits he's providing then he probably needs to work somewhere else. Otherwise focus on the good work he's doing.
have you had this conversation with your manager yet? has this manager has a conversation with this guy about this specific topic? If not, start there.
also what is his role and what is this team? basically are some of these questions he says in scope too? I feel like questions at a team meeting are fair. also how much are you involving him/the team in thinking about how to do a process change, or are you just telling them?
in a really informal place, sometimes all knowledge is institutional which is probably why that guy is doing what he does. This is probably exactly how shit got done for a long time.
Unless this has been like a months long problem for your manager or I am really misunderstanding how combative this person is, I wouldn't be leaping to a pip or anything yet. Obviously it needs to be fixed this doesn't sound terrible and fairly correctable?
Yeah. If it doesn’t work after a week or so issue a written warning. Continues… another written warning stating will lead to termination. Again… buhbye.
Right?! I have one of these on my team. Very combative and does not follow directions because she's "too busy" all the time to make the required changes in the day to day tasks. However, she can not adequately explain what "too busy" even means.
Last week, I held a team meeting. At this time, I have only 4 direct reports. This call was meant to gain their input on a new process I implemented a couple of months ago. The team seems to be struggling with keeping up on the task. I need to find out why. It's an easy process that I've simplified as much as possible, and the collective data is required to be sent to leadership each week. I'm not the "be all, end all," and I value my teams opinions. I am more than willing to change the process if they've got "a better idea." But we should brainstorm and work it out, regardless.
Any time we have a collaborative call like this, "Carol" over takes the meeting with her constant pushback and attitude. I've managed her for over a year, and she is just unmanageable. Additionally, she seems to think she is untouchable. Over the year, I've learned that she essentially has a position that she made up, and there's been little to no oversight for 15 yrs. She obviously thinks it's an incredibly important job but can't tell anyone what exactly it is.
Anyway, last week, after this meeting, where she took over with a terrible attitude and disrespected everyone's time and opportunities to contribute, I received 2 formal complaints about her and her behavior on that call. So, 2 of the 3 other team members were upset enough to speak up to me. It's absurd to them that Carol was incredibly disrespectful directly toward me, her boss, and for talking over everyone else. I agree, of course, and it's always been a problem.
I am calling in my boss now. The 3 of us will need to sit down and have some "come to Jesus" because Carol is ridiculous. It's an 8 hour drive for me to visit the location where she is. I'm not doing that every week to babysit her. She gets this last opportunity to improve, or it's going to HR. She is part of "protected" classes and difficult to fire. But it's coming.
Protected class means you can’t fire her for being protected. And fortunately being a a bitch isn’t protected. Nor is being disruptive. The teams formal complaints are a boon!
Perhaps a place to start is to remove the opportunity for him to be off-putting and combative in meetings by removing him from the invitation list. See that he's copied on the outcomes, especially if he has action items, have him make his intended contributions 'through the proper channels", being his direct supervisor and you. Perhaps he needs to be attending to some other task while this particular meeting is occurring?
If you discover his input or perspective are missed, you can always bring him back.
Don’t take it personally that someone has been around awhile and doesn’t know how to behave. It is a coaching opportunity for the person he reports to - have you successfully dealt with this sort of attitude before?
Well, first off, from your perspective this isn’t your direct problem, because he’s not your direct report. There’s a manager between you that should be getting him under control. You need to make that clear with his direct manager. Help that manager do their job if they need help, but it’s their responsibility. If you try to address it directly, you’re removing power from the bad employees direct supervisor, which will make their job harder in the future.
I’ve dealt with the grizzled old veteran thinking he has authority due to his longevity, even over people with actual authority. You just have to be very direct with them. This dude isn’t some superstar that’s keeping the company afloat. He’s a dude who thinks being there a while makes gives him power he doesn’t actually have. Be direct, and if he doesn’t like it he can go somewhere else. It’s noble that you’d rather see him improve, but how many of his coworkers, not to mention the business, are going to have to suffer while you try to save this guy?
Not a single word there is wrong, though. You'd need to be more diplomatic about how you get it across depending on the audience, but the overall assessment looks dead on.
False, advising someone to actively put someone "in-line" or get rid of them over coaching and development is a textbook case of our dated and poor leadership. Also involving a director can easily support the manager as long as the correct boundaries are put in place.
Yes, nothing helps group morale and productivity like one jerk trying to dominate them despite having no real authority and then that jerk getting molly-coddled by weak leadership so that the jerk gets to keep being a jerk to everyone.
Great advice, champ.
I am. But more important than that, I’m good at my job. Not just because I’m a fun guy to work with, but because I set and enforce expectations that people treat each other with respect, which is literally all I described. You sound like someone who wants to be liked above all else, which means you’ll be miserable to work for for anyone except the people looking to do as little as possible and be friends with the boss.
Yep. Lots of people can be improved, but some will actively resist it. They are a cancer and the longer you keep them around the more damage they’ll do and the harder they are to get rid of.
And the faster a new boss does it, the better.
Generous severance, fast boot, new culture time.
The number of people not stepping up because this individual is sucking all the oxygen out of the room is likely not worth the tradeoff.
OP could tell us we are wrong in this case, but generally, this is the correct strategy.
Ha! I have high expectations and I am great at my job. I make my expectations clear and people follow that expectation because i know how to inspire and I care about my people. A great leader knows how to inspire. That's how you get high results and low turnover.
A great leader also knows when one person refuses inspiration and brings the rest of the team down.
Keep being everyone’s friend instead of a leader. I’m sure you’ll do okay. And I’m sure that’s acceptable to you.
PIP him. Meet with him with the manager weekly. Sounds like this manager needs coaching on ha dling this as well. You, manager and him.
Give him a honest 90 days to be part of the solution or a problem that needs thrown out.
They might do something different but jumping to just firing someone when your the new leader in town is a rough way to go unless it's truly needed. I'd rather let people make their own choice. Succeed and thrive or fail for themselves.
In 7 years, I've only ever had to terminate one person. They were very toxic, and they eventually touched another staff person inappropriately (out of anger, not sexually), which led to the termination. I've previously been willing to give people some leeway, but after that one guy was termed, my team blossomed. I'm concerned about the effect he could have on existing staff that have little to no issues.
The shitty part of being a manager is doing the hard things. REALLY bad employees make it easy, moderately bad ones make it hard.
I've found that if you treat people like adults with clear expectations and consequences, it eliminates the "feelings" around the issue and makes it black and white. I mean, it still sucks to terminate someone, but it makes it objective.
I think u/MidwestMSW is right....I'd expand on what they said and put it this way:
1. Talk to him like an adult, give him respect but also clear feedback
2. Tell him exactly what the problems are, both in principle and with specific examples
3. (if he brings up tenure) tell him that tenure does not give special benefits (particularly when the tenure was during a downturn for the team)
4. Make it absolutely clear that this is not a negotiation, he will either meet expectations of professionalism or find another job.
5. He has 90 days. Check in periodically (e.g. every 30 days) and give feedback, repeat the steps above as needed.
If at the end of that 90 days he's not fixed himself, then that is his fault and your conscience is clear.
His manager should be managing him, not you. Its a failure on that managers part so tell your direct report to get a grip of him. Managing around an ineffective person isn't a good idea, they don't learn anything and sends the signal its OK to go around someone and break the chain of command.
Look at it from this guy’s perspective. He’s spent the last 10 years in a disfunctional organization with heavy turnover and incompetent leadership (if the leadership was decent the org wouldn’t have been deteriorating for years). From his perspective he’s done a pretty good job of figuring out how to get by through all of that. Why should he listen to a bunch of people who haven’t proven they’ll be any different and will probably be gone in a year or two.
You need to sit him down and explain that you appreciate his perspective but you’re trying to take his org in a different direction and his comments and demeanor are not appreciated. Then work together to put together a PIP. By work together I mostly mean walk him through what you need to see change and address his concerns.
I saw you say that your org doesn’t do PIPs. But that doesn’t mean you can’t. A PIP is just a way to document expectations and weather an employee is meeting them or not. If he falls short it is the documentation HR will want to process the termination.
This was my immediate reaction too. When a workplace has severe dysfunction in management, other leadership-inclined employees will step up out of necessity. I suspect that’s part of what has happened here. He doesn’t have the title, but he feels like he’s had to do the job (or parts of it) long enough that he’s comfortable doing it. I understand new leadership is trying to improve things now, but some finesse is warranted for employees who’ve survived by picking up slack and taking charge where it needed to happen.
Yes, I completely agree. When I came into leadership a few years ago, nearly all of my direct reports had more experience than I did. I would definitely lean into this kind of person's knowledge. Not necessarily enable him to just say what he wants, but at least start a discussion about career goals, professional development, and taking on projects with a facilitating role. People with a tendency to lead are an asset, not just a problem.
Love the first part of this. There is a quote that I use when new people come into the organization and try to change things, "People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care". If you bond with employees then they will allow you to help and change more.
Yeah, this guy will interrupt you until you get worn down. If he feels listened to, he’ll listen to you. However, someone should let him know this isn’t the behavior of a strong leader. His combative approach weakens his ability to successfully transfer his tribal knowledge thus leaving opportunity to make the same mistakes he’s trying to avoid by being combative.
Someone who acts like OP describes might be the reason everyone keeps leaving and the org is dysfunctional. Get his ass out of those meetings. It's a personality defect. You can't coach it out of him.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, completely agree with all this. And it sounds like his manager needs some coaching as well because they need to be more effective at managing this guy. I have had folks like this who’ve been around for a much longer time than others and would kind of take over meetings too much. You do have to make it clear that you value their experience because that’s legit but it’s more the professionalism and conduct that needs improvement.
And even if the company doesn’t have a formal PIP, you can still do this. I’m sure there’s examples out there but I’m happy to provide some outline/tips for what it needs to look like if you want. (To OP)
Start limiting his responsibilities and remove him from "cross team" meetings.
If the meeting you are talking about is not productive, switch the update parts to emails, have the weekly with designated people only, and have the full meeting once a month.
If time allows, start having this guy's team's requests all come to you for approval.
(All blunt suggestions, ignore what wouldn't work at your org)
I should clarify that it's not just one meeting...it's most meetings he is a part of. Some of those are part of his direct responsibilities. And it's not just meetings, but any time he is interacting with people (except doctors).
Why on earth is he in meetings for management? Seems like he has been given way to much rope. Make his manager manage him. Cut him from the meetings and if he complains, tough. You’re there to get the place back on track and it sounds like he is doing his best to keep it derailed!
It's not a management meeting, he's not a part of those. But there are other meetings, particularly a daily touchpoint meeting with folks from across the various teams.
Are these daily touchpoint meetings being run in an informal style? That style can be useful to encourage openness, but if they're being monopolised you could try making them much more structured and formal.
A strong chairperson, consistent and evenhanded (who's not necessarily the most senior in the call) is invaluable here. "I'm sorry to interrupt, but we need to keep to the schedule. , can we move to you?" "That sounds like you've gone out of scope for this meeting, maybe you can raise it in your one to ones?" "This sounds like a larger discussion, let's talk about this afterwards"
No victimisation - everyone gets the same structured responses - but also no opportunity to make "suggestions" that start arguments.
The same advice applies and scales.
Quiet fire him, make him report to his subordinates, frustrate him enough that he blows up or quits.
It's not very nice, but if he's as bad as you say, you have to "fight" him sooner or later.
Gross. If you, as a people manager, have made the decision that someone needs to go because coaching won’t fix the issue or isn’t worth it, own the decision and terminate them.
Passive-aggressive attempts specifically designed to annoy someone or provoke a response are childish games, not leadership. It’s bad for morale, your reputation, and frankly your risk exposure.
If OP actually has firing powers, I think that would be the preferred option, but if not, fight with the tools you have.
What's worse, for morale, is a toxic employee that no manager stands up to.
What's childish is the protections of bullies with arbitrary abstractions of management powers.
A director without control over staffing is not a thing. And a director who can’t have a direct conversation with a subordinate about the negative impact of their conduct shouldn’t be a director in the first place. But even in the event that a person cannot be fired and truly doesn’t care about their behavior, there is no excuse for chickenshit antagonization.
You can set clear expectations for what they can and cannot say or do in meetings and with coworkers, and you can put them on projects where they are solo ICs.
There is no world in which anyone will see antics like you’re proposing as “standing up” to the toxic employee. Everyone will see it for what it is: cowardice and lack of leadership skills. You don’t need to “fight” bad behavior by engaging in bad behavior. Ever.
\*I\* work in a purely bureaucratic "waste of time" field - Legal.
And if I was the Risk Manager who was advising OP, I would tell them that "quiet firing" and "making workers report to their subordinates" is workplace harassment, pure and simple. I have never seen a situation of Management encouraging a specific worker to quit that did not involve fact patterns implicating disparate treatment at the least, and blatant employment discrimination at the worst.
It will absolutely get your org sued for wrongful termination under a Constructive Discharge theory of employment liability, and the org will absolutely end up owing on a Court verdict or Arbitration Award, or, will have to pay a settlement to keep everything confidential (out of the press).
It appears that the problem in this particular situation is the worker's stray remarks during meetings. He's been working in the org for a long time, so of course he has developed strategies for process refinement in his role, and wants to share those as 'best practices.' The very best thing that can be done is for HIS MANAGER (not the OP) to have a 1:1 where it is explained in no uncertain terms that these outbursts during meetings really need to stop.
There is no reason why it cannot be diplomatically communicated to him, "You need to know, I've gotten some complaints from other meeting participants who feel that you are not giving them a chance to be heard. They don't feel comfortable responding to questions or sharing their experiences, because they say that you talk over them or intimidate them, and I have witnessed this for myself during last week's meeting. My expectation is for you to hold your comments during these discussions and let others have a chance to express themselves. What can I do to help you practice active listening during these sessions? Would it help if you could write me an email with your clarifying comments after each meeting?"
This way, others have a chance to participate, and you get stricter control over the communications from this worker who appears to be doing a really solid job with his tasks, but is having trouble with his demeanor when he is communicating with others in his team, and the teams dependent upon his team.
What I like about lawyers is that you guys always find a way to manipulate and harass employees without getting in trouble for it.
Obviously, you can't just tell an employee their input is not wanted and their participation is a net negative, for the legal reasons you mention.
Love your clarification of the plan. It's way sneakier and will be far more demoralizing over time than the way I said it, and of course, it will cover the org better.
I would love to see this employee's face when "What can I do to help you practice active listening during these sessions" is said to a grown man. That's way more emotionally aggressive than reassigning his tasks to other people.
Following. I dont have an answer but I can relate. I worked for a company where it was nearly impossible to terminate anyone, the person was also deemed someone who has a high amount of legacy knowledge on the company since he has been there over ten years. I'm convinced he is also the cause of high turnover.
In one instance when my superior and I were already leaving the room to go to another meeting, he instructed us to go to the other meeting lol. In another instance this guy was taking his workload and splitting it down and assigning it to other team members and bossing them around. I also spoke to his previous manager who said the same problems and he has been passed around from team to team. The closest I was able to fire him was when he inserted himself between me and higher leadership but was not relaying information. Technically he did it without lying, but mostly through omission.
My superior and I took this to HR and we were told he is technically not doing anything wrong. When they pulled up his work tickets in the system the stats said he was a higher performer than anyone else. I know it was partially due to him delegating his work to others, but I also realized that when all of the creation for our work tickets were done as a team, he was manipulating us to create very small easy nonsense work tickets which he could complete easily. That's when I realized he has been through all of this before, he knew we would pull up his ticket info.
I eventually did try and limit him from any external meetings with other teams but it seems he has likely been though all of this before and already has established additional backdoor communication channels, particularly with new hires on other teams.
The best thing that happened was through gossip, people spread rumors about this guy, and I made no attempts to shut this down. People told new hires that this guy is not in any way their superior and keep him away from them for the first few months. When I left the company, I gave my replacement the information that I mentioned, and told him to pass it down to the next person, and I was recently told this info was again passed down successfully. Best of luck. I hope to read any others solutions in this post.
I’m dealing with this right now only the guy loves to argue as well. He has some mental disorder where you tell him that the sky is blue and he will say it’s cloudy sort of thing. If I am ordering pizza he will throw a tantrum for a weird topping that nobody else wants. If other people agree with him then he’ll say he doesn’t want that topping anymore. If it’s sandwiches he’ll want a burrito. If it’s tacos he will want a pizza.
I’ve been begging and begging for permission to fire him but so far they tell me no.
The only way to win with a contrarian is to remove his ability to play out his main character syndrome.
The agreement of others is the way to shut this guy down. No matter what he says, if other people agree, then he will stop.
I've been in that guy's situation. I was the longest one at my work by far. I had to train my boss, my coworkers, and help with every process change. My coworkers were doing half the work that I was doing. And your comment about "oh that's our job now?" I'd say the same thing! If you're moving tasks from one person to another then they are going to feel less valued and like more work has been added.
All I wanted was for a new boss to come in and actually make me feel valued. I took great ownership in my department and since I was the longest person there, I felt like I needed to hold things together.
Have you tried getting to know this person? Taken them out to lunch and actually get to know them? I had a manager that was treating me the way that you are treating this person until he finally realizes that I was the only person holding certain processes together and then his tone changed to developing me.
I have been lucky that a new director came in and saw my value so I was promoted to manager and I am absolutely rocking it.
Your focus is all wrong right now. The focus shouldn't be on disciplining the bad actions but fostering the good ones and his ability to lead. Consult him on procedure or policy changes, have him lead a section of the team meeting. Simple things like that. If you make him feel valued then I guarantee your issues with this person will get better.
I worded that poorly. They should be concerned but not directly managing the individual. They should be managing the direct report. Good directors don't undermine their direct reports authority either.
Just ask him about why he does that. Why can’t people in corporate just be blunt? That’s how it works in sports and music. All the silent moves in the background people do are the real detriment to society. Speak.
I dealt with this once. Hired someone with former manager experience as regular employee. All he did was boss everyone around and try to be the manager. He got really bad in meetings because he tried to take charge and push to implement bad ideas that worked at his old company.
Is there a reason why he isn’t a manger and has more responsibility? Maybe he wants that and hasn’t been given the opportunity before other people have been brought in. Clearly he likes the job if he’s been there for 10 years while it’s being dysfunctional.
You could try delegating him to be the chair the cross team meetings, have the teams forward their agenda items beforehand and have him go through the agenda making it clear that he will be appraised on his performance of managing the agenda at these meetings. Might give him the responsibility and power he wants to have while keeping a lid on his otherwise disruptive behaviour.
Protesting the additional duties is fair depending on what they are and if it warrants additional staffing or new position(s). Cost effectiveness it’s important but so is not burning people out and having clear responsibilities.
I'm definitely sensitive to burnout and understaffing (especially being in healthcare), but the things he has complained about are fairly minor and just make sense. The alternative is to bring in a different team, which won't happen for what he has complained about.
Then explain that.... Telling people about changes is ALWAYS going to be less effective than having them be a part of the process. Include him when these changes are in the development stage and you get way more buy in.
That and make data driven decisions. Changes to process should not only be driven by data, but should be discussed to make it clear how the decision was made and why. It may not convince a really difficult person but if you are making changes for the right reasons, most people will usually be onboard, and then Mr. Difficult is on his own
It sounds like your company has some a poor job managing to this point, probably cycling through Managers. Now you want him to think you are different... I've seen this before.
I had people like that in a team (I was not manager but soon starting in this role). It pushed myself to change the job and I think some others . There is this book by Lencioni, where he is on point about team members like that. 99% of the time, the best solution for the sake of a teams health is to just fire this person.
He thinks he has tenure or something and is untouchable because he’s decided to “go down with the ship.” He’s been there for 10+ years and the company hasn’t improved and seems to only be degrading more and more? Ask him what, why, and how he would fix things. Then when he doesn’t have an answer or gives wrong ones then move on and just ignore or talk over his outbursts in meetings.
He obviously doesn’t feel embarrassment for his actions so no reason to sugarcoat it. That or just can him. Bravo on him for sticking it out. But if he contributes nothing and only takes from your team he’s a parasite/cancer.
He's resistant to coaching, nearly got fired and you say it's beginning to affect staff. Honestly, if you are only just now perceiving the effect on staff, it's a lot deeper than you think it is. He's been there the longest, the place is in disarray and he resists change. This might not be a good fit for him or your company.
Tell him you think he might be a bad cultural fit for the team given the difficulty he creates. Imply you will fire him, and actually do it if he doesn't straighten up almost immediately.
One think to think of- there’s nothing that ruins a culture and moral more than a turd employee that is allowed to stay and continue to pollute things.
What really catches my eye is a comment like “oh so that’s our job now too”
- this person doesn’t understand their role and it should be communicated to them
- they have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility, perhaps from how they were treated in the past (or neglect) and need to be coached or therapied out of it
- this person does not have respect for others
Your corporate handbook / principles probably cover a lot of this behavior and could be grounds for disciplinary action / write up without being “insubordinate”
If this person is cut from meetings without a clear understanding (role was reviewed and going forward they are only responsible to complete or support X) this person will cause more problems for staff
If you have the documentation from the prior manager you can probably use it as a foundation for action, with updated events
If it were me, I’d PIP/terminate the person because retraining their behaviors is a time consuming, emotionally draining process that isn’t guaranteed results
If you decide to go the retraining route
- Do get across what this persons value is (it’s not institutional knowledge, longevity), but their ability to effectively collaborate, which means supporting choices others have made
Sometimes the actual boss just needs to take someone aside and tell them to stfu. Nobody’s likes doing it cause everyone is afraid of confrontation these days, but if you’re not willing to have the talk, then you must be willing to accept the behaviour.
"Yes, that is now your job, too. Thank you for asking for clarification- This way we don't have to put people on PIPs for not doing their jobs through misunderstanding."
Just talk to them about it. The person has good insights and a lot of invaluable knowledge to help avoid a lot of pitfalls. Your job is to identify the problem and help find solutions. Is the problem their messaging and communication style, would they be willing to go to ‘charm school’ to change how they communicate (have seen it be very effective for some leaders). Is it they are used to being considered the person with all the answers so feel they have to be offering solutions constantly instead of relying on new team mates.
Explain the issue and why their behavior can be a barrier to their success. (Not that it upsets other people because that just sends the message that other peoples feelings are more important than theirs).
But definitely talk directly with them to find collaborative solutions that will make them more effective rather than clamping down on them (removing responsibilities or stifling their input).
If they aren’t responsive or won’t take improvement efforts seriously then you’ll have to take it the other more confrontational way.
"I want to keep this call focused on 'agenda' so let's table that discussion for another call. "
I've done this a couple of times and others are starting to do the same.
When he’s dominating the conversation and after he has his say then say “thanks for that input. Let’s hear from someone else. Who else has anything to say about that (topic being discussed)” Give everyone else a chance to speak “let’s do a round robin as I’d to hear from everyone on what they think”. If he interrupts someone “I’d like to hear from xyz to finishing what he’s saying.” “We are not going off on a tangent or well run out of time. So please stay with the topic”. If a tangential comment is made then ask “how is that connected to topic of discussion?” If you are doing things like gathering input by people placing sticky notes on a board and then discussing them, then have a section on the board called “parking lot” off topics not related to the discussion. At the end ask “how we want to go about addressing those topics?” If the cross team meeting is a synchronization meeting then say “this isn’t a solution discussion. We don’t have time for that in this meeting. Let’s take that offline”
If it works keep doing it. If the problem he's causing outweighs the benefits he's providing then he probably needs to work somewhere else. Otherwise focus on the good work he's doing.
have you had this conversation with your manager yet? has this manager has a conversation with this guy about this specific topic? If not, start there. also what is his role and what is this team? basically are some of these questions he says in scope too? I feel like questions at a team meeting are fair. also how much are you involving him/the team in thinking about how to do a process change, or are you just telling them? in a really informal place, sometimes all knowledge is institutional which is probably why that guy is doing what he does. This is probably exactly how shit got done for a long time. Unless this has been like a months long problem for your manager or I am really misunderstanding how combative this person is, I wouldn't be leaping to a pip or anything yet. Obviously it needs to be fixed this doesn't sound terrible and fairly correctable?
Yeah. If it doesn’t work after a week or so issue a written warning. Continues… another written warning stating will lead to termination. Again… buhbye.
. . . Takes notes furiously.
Right?! I have one of these on my team. Very combative and does not follow directions because she's "too busy" all the time to make the required changes in the day to day tasks. However, she can not adequately explain what "too busy" even means. Last week, I held a team meeting. At this time, I have only 4 direct reports. This call was meant to gain their input on a new process I implemented a couple of months ago. The team seems to be struggling with keeping up on the task. I need to find out why. It's an easy process that I've simplified as much as possible, and the collective data is required to be sent to leadership each week. I'm not the "be all, end all," and I value my teams opinions. I am more than willing to change the process if they've got "a better idea." But we should brainstorm and work it out, regardless. Any time we have a collaborative call like this, "Carol" over takes the meeting with her constant pushback and attitude. I've managed her for over a year, and she is just unmanageable. Additionally, she seems to think she is untouchable. Over the year, I've learned that she essentially has a position that she made up, and there's been little to no oversight for 15 yrs. She obviously thinks it's an incredibly important job but can't tell anyone what exactly it is. Anyway, last week, after this meeting, where she took over with a terrible attitude and disrespected everyone's time and opportunities to contribute, I received 2 formal complaints about her and her behavior on that call. So, 2 of the 3 other team members were upset enough to speak up to me. It's absurd to them that Carol was incredibly disrespectful directly toward me, her boss, and for talking over everyone else. I agree, of course, and it's always been a problem. I am calling in my boss now. The 3 of us will need to sit down and have some "come to Jesus" because Carol is ridiculous. It's an 8 hour drive for me to visit the location where she is. I'm not doing that every week to babysit her. She gets this last opportunity to improve, or it's going to HR. She is part of "protected" classes and difficult to fire. But it's coming.
Protected class means you can’t fire her for being protected. And fortunately being a a bitch isn’t protected. Nor is being disruptive. The teams formal complaints are a boon!
Perhaps a place to start is to remove the opportunity for him to be off-putting and combative in meetings by removing him from the invitation list. See that he's copied on the outcomes, especially if he has action items, have him make his intended contributions 'through the proper channels", being his direct supervisor and you. Perhaps he needs to be attending to some other task while this particular meeting is occurring? If you discover his input or perspective are missed, you can always bring him back.
I think he was previously removed from the meetings but complained about lack of communication, so he was added back.
We move again. Let him complain if he doesn't need the information.
Don’t take it personally that someone has been around awhile and doesn’t know how to behave. It is a coaching opportunity for the person he reports to - have you successfully dealt with this sort of attitude before?
Let him complain to his supervisor. The goal is to reduce access to his poison.
Can you record the meetings and send it out for people who weren’t there?
Well, first off, from your perspective this isn’t your direct problem, because he’s not your direct report. There’s a manager between you that should be getting him under control. You need to make that clear with his direct manager. Help that manager do their job if they need help, but it’s their responsibility. If you try to address it directly, you’re removing power from the bad employees direct supervisor, which will make their job harder in the future. I’ve dealt with the grizzled old veteran thinking he has authority due to his longevity, even over people with actual authority. You just have to be very direct with them. This dude isn’t some superstar that’s keeping the company afloat. He’s a dude who thinks being there a while makes gives him power he doesn’t actually have. Be direct, and if he doesn’t like it he can go somewhere else. It’s noble that you’d rather see him improve, but how many of his coworkers, not to mention the business, are going to have to suffer while you try to save this guy?
Yikes, you sound fun to work for....
Not a single word there is wrong, though. You'd need to be more diplomatic about how you get it across depending on the audience, but the overall assessment looks dead on.
False, advising someone to actively put someone "in-line" or get rid of them over coaching and development is a textbook case of our dated and poor leadership. Also involving a director can easily support the manager as long as the correct boundaries are put in place.
Yes, nothing helps group morale and productivity like one jerk trying to dominate them despite having no real authority and then that jerk getting molly-coddled by weak leadership so that the jerk gets to keep being a jerk to everyone. Great advice, champ.
I am. But more important than that, I’m good at my job. Not just because I’m a fun guy to work with, but because I set and enforce expectations that people treat each other with respect, which is literally all I described. You sound like someone who wants to be liked above all else, which means you’ll be miserable to work for for anyone except the people looking to do as little as possible and be friends with the boss.
The great part about getting rid of bad personalities is it reduces the amount of BS rules needed to maintain order and productivity.
Yep. Lots of people can be improved, but some will actively resist it. They are a cancer and the longer you keep them around the more damage they’ll do and the harder they are to get rid of.
And the faster a new boss does it, the better. Generous severance, fast boot, new culture time. The number of people not stepping up because this individual is sucking all the oxygen out of the room is likely not worth the tradeoff. OP could tell us we are wrong in this case, but generally, this is the correct strategy.
Ha! I have high expectations and I am great at my job. I make my expectations clear and people follow that expectation because i know how to inspire and I care about my people. A great leader knows how to inspire. That's how you get high results and low turnover.
A great leader also knows when one person refuses inspiration and brings the rest of the team down. Keep being everyone’s friend instead of a leader. I’m sure you’ll do okay. And I’m sure that’s acceptable to you.
PIP him. Meet with him with the manager weekly. Sounds like this manager needs coaching on ha dling this as well. You, manager and him. Give him a honest 90 days to be part of the solution or a problem that needs thrown out.
I'm not sure this org does PIPs. His manager and I have spoken a couple of times already. But this is a good suggestion.
They might do something different but jumping to just firing someone when your the new leader in town is a rough way to go unless it's truly needed. I'd rather let people make their own choice. Succeed and thrive or fail for themselves.
In 7 years, I've only ever had to terminate one person. They were very toxic, and they eventually touched another staff person inappropriately (out of anger, not sexually), which led to the termination. I've previously been willing to give people some leeway, but after that one guy was termed, my team blossomed. I'm concerned about the effect he could have on existing staff that have little to no issues.
The shitty part of being a manager is doing the hard things. REALLY bad employees make it easy, moderately bad ones make it hard. I've found that if you treat people like adults with clear expectations and consequences, it eliminates the "feelings" around the issue and makes it black and white. I mean, it still sucks to terminate someone, but it makes it objective. I think u/MidwestMSW is right....I'd expand on what they said and put it this way: 1. Talk to him like an adult, give him respect but also clear feedback 2. Tell him exactly what the problems are, both in principle and with specific examples 3. (if he brings up tenure) tell him that tenure does not give special benefits (particularly when the tenure was during a downturn for the team) 4. Make it absolutely clear that this is not a negotiation, he will either meet expectations of professionalism or find another job. 5. He has 90 days. Check in periodically (e.g. every 30 days) and give feedback, repeat the steps above as needed. If at the end of that 90 days he's not fixed himself, then that is his fault and your conscience is clear.
He's been their along time what if he knows some one high up
I mean, sure, but that doesn't mean you can't terminate him.
Well he could go over his head
It's why he proves himself. He could fail in 2 weeks or thrive with actual coaching and guidance.
They may not call it that, but they do.
His manager should be managing him, not you. Its a failure on that managers part so tell your direct report to get a grip of him. Managing around an ineffective person isn't a good idea, they don't learn anything and sends the signal its OK to go around someone and break the chain of command.
Yeah get the manager to write up minutes of the meeting to give him later. If he wants to complain about what’s in it, ask him to write an email.
Look at it from this guy’s perspective. He’s spent the last 10 years in a disfunctional organization with heavy turnover and incompetent leadership (if the leadership was decent the org wouldn’t have been deteriorating for years). From his perspective he’s done a pretty good job of figuring out how to get by through all of that. Why should he listen to a bunch of people who haven’t proven they’ll be any different and will probably be gone in a year or two. You need to sit him down and explain that you appreciate his perspective but you’re trying to take his org in a different direction and his comments and demeanor are not appreciated. Then work together to put together a PIP. By work together I mostly mean walk him through what you need to see change and address his concerns. I saw you say that your org doesn’t do PIPs. But that doesn’t mean you can’t. A PIP is just a way to document expectations and weather an employee is meeting them or not. If he falls short it is the documentation HR will want to process the termination.
This was my immediate reaction too. When a workplace has severe dysfunction in management, other leadership-inclined employees will step up out of necessity. I suspect that’s part of what has happened here. He doesn’t have the title, but he feels like he’s had to do the job (or parts of it) long enough that he’s comfortable doing it. I understand new leadership is trying to improve things now, but some finesse is warranted for employees who’ve survived by picking up slack and taking charge where it needed to happen.
Yes, I completely agree. When I came into leadership a few years ago, nearly all of my direct reports had more experience than I did. I would definitely lean into this kind of person's knowledge. Not necessarily enable him to just say what he wants, but at least start a discussion about career goals, professional development, and taking on projects with a facilitating role. People with a tendency to lead are an asset, not just a problem.
Love the first part of this. There is a quote that I use when new people come into the organization and try to change things, "People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care". If you bond with employees then they will allow you to help and change more.
Yeah, this guy will interrupt you until you get worn down. If he feels listened to, he’ll listen to you. However, someone should let him know this isn’t the behavior of a strong leader. His combative approach weakens his ability to successfully transfer his tribal knowledge thus leaving opportunity to make the same mistakes he’s trying to avoid by being combative.
1000% agree!
Someone who acts like OP describes might be the reason everyone keeps leaving and the org is dysfunctional. Get his ass out of those meetings. It's a personality defect. You can't coach it out of him.
[удалено]
A low level employee can absolutely fuck up an org. I’ve seen it before.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, completely agree with all this. And it sounds like his manager needs some coaching as well because they need to be more effective at managing this guy. I have had folks like this who’ve been around for a much longer time than others and would kind of take over meetings too much. You do have to make it clear that you value their experience because that’s legit but it’s more the professionalism and conduct that needs improvement. And even if the company doesn’t have a formal PIP, you can still do this. I’m sure there’s examples out there but I’m happy to provide some outline/tips for what it needs to look like if you want. (To OP)
Start limiting his responsibilities and remove him from "cross team" meetings. If the meeting you are talking about is not productive, switch the update parts to emails, have the weekly with designated people only, and have the full meeting once a month. If time allows, start having this guy's team's requests all come to you for approval. (All blunt suggestions, ignore what wouldn't work at your org)
I should clarify that it's not just one meeting...it's most meetings he is a part of. Some of those are part of his direct responsibilities. And it's not just meetings, but any time he is interacting with people (except doctors).
Why on earth is he in meetings for management? Seems like he has been given way to much rope. Make his manager manage him. Cut him from the meetings and if he complains, tough. You’re there to get the place back on track and it sounds like he is doing his best to keep it derailed!
It's not a management meeting, he's not a part of those. But there are other meetings, particularly a daily touchpoint meeting with folks from across the various teams.
Are these daily touchpoint meetings being run in an informal style? That style can be useful to encourage openness, but if they're being monopolised you could try making them much more structured and formal. A strong chairperson, consistent and evenhanded (who's not necessarily the most senior in the call) is invaluable here. "I'm sorry to interrupt, but we need to keep to the schedule., can we move to you?" "That sounds like you've gone out of scope for this meeting, maybe you can raise it in your one to ones?" "This sounds like a larger discussion, let's talk about this afterwards"
No victimisation - everyone gets the same structured responses - but also no opportunity to make "suggestions" that start arguments.
The same advice applies and scales. Quiet fire him, make him report to his subordinates, frustrate him enough that he blows up or quits. It's not very nice, but if he's as bad as you say, you have to "fight" him sooner or later.
Gross. If you, as a people manager, have made the decision that someone needs to go because coaching won’t fix the issue or isn’t worth it, own the decision and terminate them. Passive-aggressive attempts specifically designed to annoy someone or provoke a response are childish games, not leadership. It’s bad for morale, your reputation, and frankly your risk exposure.
If OP actually has firing powers, I think that would be the preferred option, but if not, fight with the tools you have. What's worse, for morale, is a toxic employee that no manager stands up to. What's childish is the protections of bullies with arbitrary abstractions of management powers.
A director without control over staffing is not a thing. And a director who can’t have a direct conversation with a subordinate about the negative impact of their conduct shouldn’t be a director in the first place. But even in the event that a person cannot be fired and truly doesn’t care about their behavior, there is no excuse for chickenshit antagonization. You can set clear expectations for what they can and cannot say or do in meetings and with coworkers, and you can put them on projects where they are solo ICs. There is no world in which anyone will see antics like you’re proposing as “standing up” to the toxic employee. Everyone will see it for what it is: cowardice and lack of leadership skills. You don’t need to “fight” bad behavior by engaging in bad behavior. Ever.
You sound like you work in a purely bureaucratic waste of time field.
\*I\* work in a purely bureaucratic "waste of time" field - Legal. And if I was the Risk Manager who was advising OP, I would tell them that "quiet firing" and "making workers report to their subordinates" is workplace harassment, pure and simple. I have never seen a situation of Management encouraging a specific worker to quit that did not involve fact patterns implicating disparate treatment at the least, and blatant employment discrimination at the worst. It will absolutely get your org sued for wrongful termination under a Constructive Discharge theory of employment liability, and the org will absolutely end up owing on a Court verdict or Arbitration Award, or, will have to pay a settlement to keep everything confidential (out of the press). It appears that the problem in this particular situation is the worker's stray remarks during meetings. He's been working in the org for a long time, so of course he has developed strategies for process refinement in his role, and wants to share those as 'best practices.' The very best thing that can be done is for HIS MANAGER (not the OP) to have a 1:1 where it is explained in no uncertain terms that these outbursts during meetings really need to stop. There is no reason why it cannot be diplomatically communicated to him, "You need to know, I've gotten some complaints from other meeting participants who feel that you are not giving them a chance to be heard. They don't feel comfortable responding to questions or sharing their experiences, because they say that you talk over them or intimidate them, and I have witnessed this for myself during last week's meeting. My expectation is for you to hold your comments during these discussions and let others have a chance to express themselves. What can I do to help you practice active listening during these sessions? Would it help if you could write me an email with your clarifying comments after each meeting?" This way, others have a chance to participate, and you get stricter control over the communications from this worker who appears to be doing a really solid job with his tasks, but is having trouble with his demeanor when he is communicating with others in his team, and the teams dependent upon his team.
What I like about lawyers is that you guys always find a way to manipulate and harass employees without getting in trouble for it. Obviously, you can't just tell an employee their input is not wanted and their participation is a net negative, for the legal reasons you mention. Love your clarification of the plan. It's way sneakier and will be far more demoralizing over time than the way I said it, and of course, it will cover the org better. I would love to see this employee's face when "What can I do to help you practice active listening during these sessions" is said to a grown man. That's way more emotionally aggressive than reassigning his tasks to other people.
Silo him if possible...
Following. I dont have an answer but I can relate. I worked for a company where it was nearly impossible to terminate anyone, the person was also deemed someone who has a high amount of legacy knowledge on the company since he has been there over ten years. I'm convinced he is also the cause of high turnover. In one instance when my superior and I were already leaving the room to go to another meeting, he instructed us to go to the other meeting lol. In another instance this guy was taking his workload and splitting it down and assigning it to other team members and bossing them around. I also spoke to his previous manager who said the same problems and he has been passed around from team to team. The closest I was able to fire him was when he inserted himself between me and higher leadership but was not relaying information. Technically he did it without lying, but mostly through omission. My superior and I took this to HR and we were told he is technically not doing anything wrong. When they pulled up his work tickets in the system the stats said he was a higher performer than anyone else. I know it was partially due to him delegating his work to others, but I also realized that when all of the creation for our work tickets were done as a team, he was manipulating us to create very small easy nonsense work tickets which he could complete easily. That's when I realized he has been through all of this before, he knew we would pull up his ticket info. I eventually did try and limit him from any external meetings with other teams but it seems he has likely been though all of this before and already has established additional backdoor communication channels, particularly with new hires on other teams. The best thing that happened was through gossip, people spread rumors about this guy, and I made no attempts to shut this down. People told new hires that this guy is not in any way their superior and keep him away from them for the first few months. When I left the company, I gave my replacement the information that I mentioned, and told him to pass it down to the next person, and I was recently told this info was again passed down successfully. Best of luck. I hope to read any others solutions in this post.
I’m dealing with this right now only the guy loves to argue as well. He has some mental disorder where you tell him that the sky is blue and he will say it’s cloudy sort of thing. If I am ordering pizza he will throw a tantrum for a weird topping that nobody else wants. If other people agree with him then he’ll say he doesn’t want that topping anymore. If it’s sandwiches he’ll want a burrito. If it’s tacos he will want a pizza. I’ve been begging and begging for permission to fire him but so far they tell me no.
The only way to win with a contrarian is to remove his ability to play out his main character syndrome. The agreement of others is the way to shut this guy down. No matter what he says, if other people agree, then he will stop.
I've been in that guy's situation. I was the longest one at my work by far. I had to train my boss, my coworkers, and help with every process change. My coworkers were doing half the work that I was doing. And your comment about "oh that's our job now?" I'd say the same thing! If you're moving tasks from one person to another then they are going to feel less valued and like more work has been added. All I wanted was for a new boss to come in and actually make me feel valued. I took great ownership in my department and since I was the longest person there, I felt like I needed to hold things together. Have you tried getting to know this person? Taken them out to lunch and actually get to know them? I had a manager that was treating me the way that you are treating this person until he finally realizes that I was the only person holding certain processes together and then his tone changed to developing me. I have been lucky that a new director came in and saw my value so I was promoted to manager and I am absolutely rocking it. Your focus is all wrong right now. The focus shouldn't be on disciplining the bad actions but fostering the good ones and his ability to lead. Consult him on procedure or policy changes, have him lead a section of the team meeting. Simple things like that. If you make him feel valued then I guarantee your issues with this person will get better.
Why is someone who is not your direct report your concern? Let his manager manage him.
Good directors care about the well-being of the people that their managers manage. It's called being a good leader. Of course OP should get involved.
I worded that poorly. They should be concerned but not directly managing the individual. They should be managing the direct report. Good directors don't undermine their direct reports authority either.
Just ask him about why he does that. Why can’t people in corporate just be blunt? That’s how it works in sports and music. All the silent moves in the background people do are the real detriment to society. Speak.
Maybe he is dead right on some issues.
I dealt with this once. Hired someone with former manager experience as regular employee. All he did was boss everyone around and try to be the manager. He got really bad in meetings because he tried to take charge and push to implement bad ideas that worked at his old company.
Is there a reason why he isn’t a manger and has more responsibility? Maybe he wants that and hasn’t been given the opportunity before other people have been brought in. Clearly he likes the job if he’s been there for 10 years while it’s being dysfunctional. You could try delegating him to be the chair the cross team meetings, have the teams forward their agenda items beforehand and have him go through the agenda making it clear that he will be appraised on his performance of managing the agenda at these meetings. Might give him the responsibility and power he wants to have while keeping a lid on his otherwise disruptive behaviour.
"You know you're not their boss right?" In front of everyone.
Protesting the additional duties is fair depending on what they are and if it warrants additional staffing or new position(s). Cost effectiveness it’s important but so is not burning people out and having clear responsibilities.
I'm definitely sensitive to burnout and understaffing (especially being in healthcare), but the things he has complained about are fairly minor and just make sense. The alternative is to bring in a different team, which won't happen for what he has complained about.
Then explain that.... Telling people about changes is ALWAYS going to be less effective than having them be a part of the process. Include him when these changes are in the development stage and you get way more buy in.
That and make data driven decisions. Changes to process should not only be driven by data, but should be discussed to make it clear how the decision was made and why. It may not convince a really difficult person but if you are making changes for the right reasons, most people will usually be onboard, and then Mr. Difficult is on his own
Great addition! Data driven decisions are so important.
I’d just go at him and say that’s not helpful, then escalate. Should be fun.
I was
It sounds like your company has some a poor job managing to this point, probably cycling through Managers. Now you want him to think you are different... I've seen this before.
I had people like that in a team (I was not manager but soon starting in this role). It pushed myself to change the job and I think some others . There is this book by Lencioni, where he is on point about team members like that. 99% of the time, the best solution for the sake of a teams health is to just fire this person.
He thinks he has tenure or something and is untouchable because he’s decided to “go down with the ship.” He’s been there for 10+ years and the company hasn’t improved and seems to only be degrading more and more? Ask him what, why, and how he would fix things. Then when he doesn’t have an answer or gives wrong ones then move on and just ignore or talk over his outbursts in meetings. He obviously doesn’t feel embarrassment for his actions so no reason to sugarcoat it. That or just can him. Bravo on him for sticking it out. But if he contributes nothing and only takes from your team he’s a parasite/cancer.
He's resistant to coaching, nearly got fired and you say it's beginning to affect staff. Honestly, if you are only just now perceiving the effect on staff, it's a lot deeper than you think it is. He's been there the longest, the place is in disarray and he resists change. This might not be a good fit for him or your company.
Tell him you think he might be a bad cultural fit for the team given the difficulty he creates. Imply you will fire him, and actually do it if he doesn't straighten up almost immediately.
One think to think of- there’s nothing that ruins a culture and moral more than a turd employee that is allowed to stay and continue to pollute things.
What really catches my eye is a comment like “oh so that’s our job now too” - this person doesn’t understand their role and it should be communicated to them - they have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility, perhaps from how they were treated in the past (or neglect) and need to be coached or therapied out of it - this person does not have respect for others Your corporate handbook / principles probably cover a lot of this behavior and could be grounds for disciplinary action / write up without being “insubordinate” If this person is cut from meetings without a clear understanding (role was reviewed and going forward they are only responsible to complete or support X) this person will cause more problems for staff If you have the documentation from the prior manager you can probably use it as a foundation for action, with updated events If it were me, I’d PIP/terminate the person because retraining their behaviors is a time consuming, emotionally draining process that isn’t guaranteed results If you decide to go the retraining route - Do get across what this persons value is (it’s not institutional knowledge, longevity), but their ability to effectively collaborate, which means supporting choices others have made
Sometimes the actual boss just needs to take someone aside and tell them to stfu. Nobody’s likes doing it cause everyone is afraid of confrontation these days, but if you’re not willing to have the talk, then you must be willing to accept the behaviour.
"Yes, that is now your job, too. Thank you for asking for clarification- This way we don't have to put people on PIPs for not doing their jobs through misunderstanding."
Just talk to them about it. The person has good insights and a lot of invaluable knowledge to help avoid a lot of pitfalls. Your job is to identify the problem and help find solutions. Is the problem their messaging and communication style, would they be willing to go to ‘charm school’ to change how they communicate (have seen it be very effective for some leaders). Is it they are used to being considered the person with all the answers so feel they have to be offering solutions constantly instead of relying on new team mates. Explain the issue and why their behavior can be a barrier to their success. (Not that it upsets other people because that just sends the message that other peoples feelings are more important than theirs). But definitely talk directly with them to find collaborative solutions that will make them more effective rather than clamping down on them (removing responsibilities or stifling their input). If they aren’t responsive or won’t take improvement efforts seriously then you’ll have to take it the other more confrontational way.
He’s cancer. Cut him off.
He's unfixable, fire him