Troublesome Talent - A barrier to outstanding performance

Troublesome Talent™ is the type of person who is recognised as having huge potential and yet has many rough edges and is normally causing problems with colleagues and peers.

Here's a typical scenario:

Colin runs a creative department in a large media firm. His department contributes 25% of the company profit and is well known in the Industry as being a true leader in photography and print manipulation. Their client list is amongst the most well sought after in the country. Things are going well ... However, Colin has a problem.

Roger has worked in the company for years, starting as a lowly paid printer and becoming one of the key talents in the company. Most of the top photographers only work with him because his creative talent, his skill, is phenomenal and he knows it. If he leaves, he may take 30% of the client list with him. In the past, the Company has bribed him to stay by giving him inflation busting payrises and putting up with his creative temperant. Things have to change however because Colin's boss Sarah is getting fed up. Roger has started to come in whenever he likes, and is no longer meeting his deadlines and his behaviour is becoming erratic.

Sarah has told Colin to sort things out, she is fed up of the complaints that she is getting from the Directors and from the other employees. She is also concerned about the morale of the department.Colin is worried. He tried to talk to Roger about it before, but Roger laughed at him - after all he knows he is needed in the Company - would they dare sack him? Colin needs to act fast - what should he do?

In Jan 2006 - I posed this question to Ecadamists to see how they would respond when faced with this type of dilemma. Click here to see their initial responses which generated 8 possible options. This was the result of the vote, break the activity and speak to Roger.

The solution:

Colin approached Roger and explained that he was concerned about his recent behaviour and wanted to discuss it further as he wanted to find the root of Roger's behaviour and to see whether there was a solution that was acceptable in the future. He invited Roger to a meeting (in an informal setting) for the next day asking for Roger to think about what he wanted to achieve and why he was behaviouring in this way.Roger was surprised and unbalanced at this approach - this wasn't expected, but he was determined that the meeting was going to go the way that he wanted.

The next day Colin was prepared for the meeting. He had analysed Roger's skills and experience that he had gained over the years and realised that Roger wasn't being strecthed adequately and had started to react when the company had decided that all printers had to focus on printing and reduce client contact. He suspected that Roger had felt threatened by this. Roger's knowledge of Client Management was out of sync with his experience in this area. Colin was unsure what to do next - as he was reluctant to provide more client contact for Roger unless he was sure that Roger wouldn't abuse this and put the company further at risk.

Colin spoke to Sarah (before his meeting) outlining his concern and to find out how much leeway he had. Sarah told him to do whatever he thought was appropriate. Having Sarah's backing gave Colin more confidence to act.At the meeting Roger was sullen and resentful. He was determined he was going to defeat Colin - he wasn't prepared to change his behaviour. However, Colin began to challenge Roger and seek to understand why his behaviour had become steadily worse.

He explained why his behaviour was unacceptable. Roger admitted that he was bored being a printer (he had been doing this for years) and had really begun to enjoy the client contact. When this had begun to be reduced he felt threatened and thought the company was abusing him as he had enabled the Company to make alot of profit over the years.

Through careful challenging, concilitary but firm approach Colin negotiated the following with Roger:

1) For a trial period Roger would move into Client Management - using his printing skills for most important clients only. This would be supervised by the Manager of that department

2) Roger would adhere to the company procedure regarding Client management

3) Roger would be provided with a new contract at the end of the trial period, which would include confidentiality and non compete clauses

4) Roger would change his behaviour to be more acceptable to the Company

5) If the above did not work then Colin and Roger would revisit the situation on a more formal basis.

At the end of the meeting Colin was convinced Roger was happy because he had achieved most of what he (Roger had stipulated) was important - Colin was happy because he had achieved a win / win situation and had finally drawn a line under Roger's behaviour.

Making mavericks shine

Do you need to find the framework within which the maverick can shine?



The problem with having a team of talented people is that they can be really hard to manage, especially if you have one member that is influential in the group and seems hell bent on being destructive. At least it seems that way...

The key to turning your maverick around is to choose to take a multi faceted approach. It is important to realise that what you are experiencing is a symptom of the problem and not the problem. When you begin to see the maverick as part of the solution it is easier to find a win/win solution between you and your team member. This is the key to turning around a dysfunctional team that is being influenced negatively by one individual.

There are many things that you will need to consider regarding Talent Management, in this situation. Here are a few ones to get you thinking:

1. What are the causes of your maverick's behaviour?
2. How are you contributing to their behaviour?
3. How aligned are they to the Company's goals?
4. Does the structure of your company hinder or support the change in behaviour that you are aiming for?

The importance here, I believe, is a keen understanding of the main factors that are driving the maverick's behaviour and flexibility in your approach. It is imperative that you are clear in your own mind, of what your aims are and the end result that you desire. Lack of clarity will only produce inappropriate outcomes and will be costly in time and money.

It will lower morale in your team and may even lose respect from amongst your peer group. Worse still, the maverick will have no incentive to change!

The CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) commissioned a survey on Talent Management. They found that 95% of its respondents found that In-house development programmes were effective or very effective as a delivery model, and 87% found that Coaching was effective or very effective as a delivery model.

I believe that whatever delivery model (tailored or otherwise) chosen, needs to consider all the factors that are driving the problem. These drivers which may include the answers to some of the questions posed above. The solution, therefore needs to be flexible and be tailored to the needs of the business.