dispatches from the new world of work

Disruptive Stars

I recently came across the brief article below in my Workforce Week management online newsletter, and I thought it would be worthy of discussion by the tompeters.com community. This issue, of course, relates to the business world as well. So, what are the implications?

Disruptive Stars: The controversy surrounding pro football star Terrell Owens is generating much discussion in the business community about how managers should deal with disgruntled high performers. Owens, a multitalented wide receiver with the Philadelphia Eagles, recently was suspended by the team for making disparaging remarks about teammates. Professors at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania say Owens' case points up management lessons for people in human resources, especially relating to acting swiftly to deal with a star employee's disruptive behavior. Says Thomas W. Dunfee, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton: "For corporations, it's understood that if you have a double standard and look the other way for your star performers who are behaving poorly, you are corrupting the organization. The stars think ethical rules don't apply to them." Katherine A. Nelson, another Wharton instructor, says failing to address bad behavior is "tantamount to lobbing a grenade into a conference room" that produces resentment and undermines performance. "The Eagles are a perfect example of this." Adds Robin Bond, a workplace expert who is not affiliated with Wharton: "High-performing individuals who require excessive praise, have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment, or lack concern for the feelings and needs of others can initially make a positive impact on an organization's bottom line, but are often destructive (in the) long term."

Darci Riesenhuber posted this on 12/20/05.

Comments

I've read this article too and I first thought it was praising the Football star...but it wasn't. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter to which extent a Football player (or a salesman, or a trader...) positively impacts your business. If, at the end of the day, the team suffers from such a guy then firing him may be the best decision to make.

I personally disagree with that. High achievers are weird people.. or freaks, as Tom calls them. By definition they are difficult to manage. That type of rainmakers need fantastic managers. They need leaders who will orient their high level of energy for the benefit of the whole team.

Take Lindsay Owen Jones,CEO of L'Oreal: he started working for the French company at 23 as an intern. At the end of his internship, his supervisor sent a note to the HR department saying: "Either this guy will be fired, or he'll end up CEO of this company"...

The real question is not should we or shouln't we fire that kind of people. The question should be: are we capable of managing these crazy people? If we are not then that's a problem. As Bruce Nussbaum puts it "Managing creativity is the must have skill for today's managers" and it surely is a competitive advantage in a world where the difference is not made by Six Sigma or ERP but by talents.

Freaks are, to my mind, like Nitroglycerin: they need to be handled with care. And when they are, they can give life to stone.

Posted by Samir at December 20, 2005 1:59 PM

Welch says you have to cuddle the top performers but canned one or two just before leaving GE for misfit with 'company values' reasons.

Posted by Steve at December 20, 2005 8:39 PM

You CANNOT manage raw talent.
The 'trick' is to provide the environment in which it can do its stuff - and ensure a 'sweeper' is on hand to clear up the inevitable mess.

Posted by gulliver at December 21, 2005 1:55 AM

The fundamental question is whether the star's disruption is worth less than the star brings in.

I think it is also important to separate wierd behaviour that causes disruption and behaviour that breaks core values.

Remember sometimes disruption is good it shakes things up. I can remember talking to my boss about whether my own behaviour was causing disruption when I joined an existing very close knit team. She simply replied "Good"

Posted by PaulH at December 21, 2005 3:14 AM

Let's be clear - I know nothing of the Eagles or the specifics of this particular issue!

Broadly speaking then: If your team member has a good point (it was just you didn't want to hear it), it's time to swallow your pride and listen. You also need to provide an environment where they can air these views with you personally, or they will let everyone know how bad it is.

Often times, managers are upset that someone is disparaging towards their ideas and theories, and that's why they end up reprimanding the person who made those comments.

If the team member is truly out of order, and you've provided them with a chance to air their views but they've turned it down, then it doesn't matter how good they are for the business, you have to reprimand them just as you would anyone else, reminding them that it's their behaviour you're not impressed with - it's not that they've suddenly become a bad person.

Providing a working environment where people can be honest with each other, and managers can be big enough to hear their ideas suck sometimes, is a good way to nurture and handle such talented individuals.

Of course, in the world of football, soccer, baseball etc. you do have another issue that spoils the party. People being paid too much money, too early in their lives and thinking they're above everyone - that's an issue for sport to try and get a grip on.

Posted by Stewart Rogers at December 21, 2005 5:30 AM

Talent certainly can be coached to get outstanding results - raw or otherwise - the Eagles may have done all they could to best use T.O. - however it seems reasonable that deviant behavior like T.O.'s may be headed off early and often so his talent isn't wasted, ala continuing to pay him even though he isn't working and performing.

Posted by Sean at December 21, 2005 9:31 AM

I didn't know that I was a freak. I just figured I had a different slant on things that most people didn't. I'm not sure I like the title or the conotation it implies. Maybe Tom should re-think his labeling system. Maybe your the freaks and we just perform at a higher level than you.

On to the subject. With Terrance Owens its a totally different deal. He purposely went out to disrupt the team as a strategy to re-negotiate an already generous contract. Was he worth it. Maybe. Was it worth the head on clashes by the management and the dismanteling of the teams psyche and efficiency, not even. It tore the heart out of the team. It devided team loyalties and cost them millions in unearned revenue. I guess that as an example of what not to do with disruptive employees they stand out. To me Owens slammed his own door shut. I would have fired him earlier than they did, probably before the seacson started.

By the way not all high performing thouroghbreds (Sky Walkers)are disruptive non-conforming, self indulging over achieving performers. If you followed football, which seems to be where we are at, there are infinite examples of brilliant strategist, great leaders, inovators and gifted performers. They have choosen to be a part of the norm in away that allows them to do for whats best for the organization. Their reward and motivation systems usually don't follow the norm and rightly so. They are great leaders and idea generators because they see things in differing perspectives. For a normal manager or employee who can't have anything out of place, requires total control, have their ideas challenged; and can't think out of the box, theses unique individuals are certainly a threat.

Maybe companies should look closer at who they promote and train as managers a little bit closer and develop a better criteria for advancement.

Now disruptve behavior and influences in the business context most usually come from the pack not from the Sky Walkers although they are more visible than the average employee. Me If I had a Sky Walker that was disrupting in a negative way and couldn't make the change to a positive development ideaology, I'd fire his ass, becaus the good of the whole is more important than the good of the one. The challenge for the manager is to keep these gifted people focused on the good of the company (Team)and in providing psoitive outcomes that inspire and further advance the company they work for. This could be in sales, marketing, R&D etc etc etc. You can find them most anywhere.

Posted by Tim Whelan at December 21, 2005 9:51 AM

"You CANNOT manage raw talent. The 'trick' is to provide the environment in which it can do its stuff - and ensure a 'sweeper' is on hand to clear up the inevitable mess."--gulliver.

gulliver: AMEN!!! In Search of Excellence was written by me and Bob Waterman. Bob, also my boss, contributed a ton to the substance of the book, but he also declared publically at one point that he spent about 50% of his time "cleaning up my messes."

I must as usual question the implicit "There's no 'I' in team" in some of the Comments. My simplistic (smart ass) rejoinder in my speeches is, "There is, however, an 'I' in Win." Also repetitive: Phil Jackson did not suppress Michael Jordan at the Bulls, he just "gave him a different context." When the Bulls got stale a few years later, Jackson reached out to the "irrepressible" Dennis Rodman (my all-time favorite BB player). Jackson at the time specifically said he was doing so to "shake up the culture" of his Champions. (More championships followed.) T.O. did cross the line with his slander of teammates. I agree, he had to go. On the other hand, looking at this year's EAGs, whom I rooted for in the SBowl, one might say T.O. made a bit of a contribution in '04.

Posted by tom peters at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM

I totally agree with what you're saying. I wish more people felt this way and took the time to express themselves.
Chris Scanlon
http://www.onlinestoresdepot.com

Posted by Chris Scanlon at January 2, 2006 4:06 AM

Honestly, I think that he simply got in over his head and burnt a few bridges. It's always personal and to me this is so evident! Dennis Rodman, Kobe Bryant, etc, have said and done worse and they stuck around to contribute to Championship titles. And I'm sure if you ask the Bulls/Lakers franchises, they wouldn't have it any other way. Didn't the Eagles know he was trouble before he got there? So why react now? If they lose money, it's their own fault. Yeah, I'm down with the Plan B (Sweeper on hand) action plan.

Posted by Malisa Harriott at January 2, 2006 4:46 PM viagra online price