In any team, it is typical to have one person who moves faster than the others and one who always lags behind. This usually causes no harm to team performance unless the "faster" one tends to take control even if he or she is not an official leader of the team. On the other hand, it will be troublesome if there are too many slow movers.
The situation described above can be seen in every kind of organisation. In today's "soft culture" climate, with its high degree of tolerance, people tend to seek compromise and hope such situations will resolve themselves. Unfortunately, the reality is that there will always be difficult people in any organisation.
Generally speaking, there are two types of difficult person. The first shows high potential with high intelligence and ability to do things, while the second is not capable in any specific area but tends not to cooperate with others. Both need to be carefully monitored by their direct supervisors and, in some cases, their supervisors' superiors.
Difficult people with limited ability and bad attitudes can be managed by setting clear work expectations that both sides agree on. In this article, I want to focus mainly on the first group, talented but difficult people, who are more troublesome. In the working environment, difficult people tend to be those who:
tend to focus on tasks not people;
have difficulty working with others because of their different approach to recognising, analysing, handling and solving issues;
are likely to express their views directly and, sometimes, too aggressively, which usually disturbs others;
do not easily let go of a matter without their agreement, even though the majority of the group may think otherwise;
tend to challenge everyone including their direct bosses and, in some cases, also accept challenges from others if it can result in high achievement, especially for themselves;
are likely to show outstanding cognitive ability, especially in numerical and abstract reasoning, but are not good at verbal reasoning (understanding written documents).
From my experience, high-potential and difficult people think differently from others, tend to be proactive, want to see quick results, and their reasoning skills lead them to think they are more capable than others when talking about the power of the brain.
Difficult people tend to be effective when it comes to delivering work as promised. However, their team members and peers may not acknowledge this, given the discord such people cause. Direct bosses who see business performance as a priority may tolerate such people, but smart executives, who feel responsible for long-term results, do not want to see unprofessional behaviour left unaddressed. They will intervene and try to smooth things out. Here are some simple yet effective methods:
Recognise that there is a problem in the team and that it's being caused by a particular person.
Gather information in order to form a balanced opinion about the person in question.
Review the person's personality and cognitive ability assessments and also examine current behaviour.
Moment of truth: By now the boss is ready to hold a face-to-face discussion with the person. The following action points should be handled carefully:
Invite the person into a private room and raise the concern at hand. The subordinate should be allowed to tell his or her story first. Please note that it is not a matter of right or wrong information. The main idea is to let the person express what he or she has in mind.
After the person finishes his or her story, provide direct feedback while carefully observing the person's reaction. Feedback, both positive and negative, should be based on recent actual events. The message has to be specific with no emotional component.
The way the boss behaves during this critical session is important. The key is sympathetic listening, showing with both verbal and non-verbal language that one is listening completely.
Ultimately, the manner of the boss is no less important than the message he or she wants to deliver.
Listening carefully will also allow the boss to understand the logic and rationale that the subordinate has adopted.
If the person does not accept the boss's feedback, and starts to behave emotionally, the boss should cool things down by suggesting an end to the meeting and making an appointment for further conversation, which should not be too long after this session.
If the person accepts that his or her behaviour needs to change and expresses a willingness to do so, a clear monitoring method and time frame should be agreed on, with a review schedule.
Nobody is perfect, whether they are workers or bosses. But a compassionate attitude together with sympathetic listening can help resolve situations involving talented but difficult people. The key is to listen and make your long-term expectations clear.
Sorayuth Vathanavisuth is Principal and Executive Coach at the Center for Southeast Asia Leadership and lectures at Mahidol University's College of Management. His areas of interest are corporate strategy, executive coaching and leadership development. He can be reached at sorayuth@sealeadership.com