HBR Case Studies: What A Star, What A Jerk By Sara
Wwwhbrorgh B R Ca S E S T U D Ywhat A Starwhat A Jerkby Sarah C
Wwwhbrorgh B R Ca S E S T U D Ywhat A Starwhat A Jerkby Sarah C
H B R CA S E S T U D Y What a Star—What a Jerk by Sarah Cliffe • What should Jane do about her top performer’s mean streak? Reprint R0108X H B R C A S E S T U D Y What a Star—What a Jerk by Sarah Cliffe harvard business review • september 2001 page 1 HBR’s cases, which are fictional, present common managerial dilemmas and offer concrete solutions from experts. C O P Y R IG H T © H A R V A R D B U S IN E S S S C H O O L P U B L IS H IN G C O R P O R A T IO N . A L L R IG H T S R E S E R V E D . Sometimes an employee can be nasty, bullying, or simply hard- hearted. What should you do, though, when that person also happens to be a top performer? From: Jane Epstein To: Rick Lazarus Sent: 5/14/01 Subject: settling in Hi Rick. I’m starting to get settled in at TechniCo—I miss you and the rest of the gang, and the adrenaline of working with clients when I’m on, but I’m thrilled not to be living in airports anymore. Hope Mary and the kids are well. I’ve inherited a good team here. They’re all strong performers, and most of them are nice, too. I’m sure they’re still wondering about me—but so far, so good. Partial cast: Caroline’s been here longest; she seems pragmatic, very good with people. Juggling work-family issues and a recent divorce—but she pulls her weight and then some. She’s universally trusted (I think). Tom’s the joker. A natural sales guy—a bouncy golden retriever personality that cloaks real drive, know what I mean? You never really get inside, but there don’t seem to be many in- ternal climate changes anyway. Jack’s intense, maybe an intellectual—I haven’t quite figured him out. I think he may be shy (?). Anyway, then there’s Andy Zimmerman, who’s got me slightly worried—maybe because he intimi- dates me just a bit. He’s very bright, but he’s aggressive—doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He’ll bear watching, I think. Better run. By the way, I love being back in Minneapolis. And, glory be, the hometown team is making us proud. From: Rick Lazarus To: Jane Epstein Sent: 5/14/01 Subject: Hey stranger Good to hear from you, Jane. The Twins have got people talking, all right. Though of course they’ll fold when the Yankees hit their stride.;) What a Star—What a Jerk•••HBR CA SE ST UD Y harvard business review • september 2001 page 2 Sarah Cliffe is an executive editor at HBR. What’s got you nervous about this Zimmer- man guy?—R Sent: 5/15/01 Subject: re: Hey stranger Nothing I can put my finger on. Here’s a little incident. My AA, Maureen, flubbed a meeting time—scheduled over something else—and he really lit into her. Not the end of the world—she had made a mistake, and he had to rearrange an appointment—but he could have gotten the point across more tactfully. And she is my AA. (And I am his boss, and he did it in front of me.)—Jane Sent: 5/15/01 Subject: don’t be a softie J—The guy doesn’t necessarily sound like a problem to me. I hate it when people screw up scheduling, and you’ve always been too pa- tient with that kind of thing. Clearly you have to establish your own authority with him, though, or he’ll step all over you. What’s the place like in general? Are the folks there patient with incompetence? Or is it crisp and cruel, like here? ;) By the by, Mary sends her love.—R Sent: 5/16/01 Subject: tougher than you think Funny you should ask. It’s hardly crisp and cruel. In fact, it’s probably a little too nicey- nice. Support staff’s not up to the same stan- dards (not paid as well, either). And there’s a little more coasting among professional staff here. (Culling out the bottom 20% of perform- ers every year sure keeps people on their toes!) Senior managers talk a lot about lack of hierarchy, which seems to translate into toler- ating barely average performance if the peo- ple are well liked. (Then again, this could be all wrong: I’m describing a place I’ve only been part of for a few weeks.)—Jane Sent: 5/22/01 Subject: FW: good for a laugh... You have just received the Amish virus. Since we have no electricity or computers, you are on the honor system. Please delete all of your files on your hard drive. Then forward this message to everyone in your address book. Thank thee. Sent: 5/22/01 Subject: ha! Speaking of honor (not), here’s another anec- dote in the the continuing “Who is Andy Zim- merman—” saga. Yesterday we were doing some strategizing as a group. (We need to be more aggressive about growth, and this was a pretty open-ended meeting to think about new mar- kets.) Jack (the intense, possibly shy one that I haven’t figured out yet) was going on a bit too long about a pet idea of his. I was about to re- direct the conversation when Andy cut him off: “What you’re proposing makes no sense, and here’s why.” Then he laid out all the flaws in poor Jack’s thinking, one by one—really made him squirm. The thing is, he was right. On the other hand, it was a preliminary, semi- brainstorming kind of meeting, so his tirade stopped the free f low of ideas in its tracks. Later, I heard him reaming out the group’s other AA, Danielle: “This is an impor- tant customer. He’s called three times—WHY CAN’T YOU GET IT RIGHT!?!?†Once again, he was right. But that kind of tongue-lashing causes people to make mistakes.—Jane Sent: 5/22/01 Subject: bottom line? Ignoring his niceness quotient for a moment, how’s the guy’s performance?—Rick Sent: 5/22/01 Subject: re: bottom line? I don’t think he’d have gotten away with his nastiness for so long if his performance weren’t topflight. As another group leader said to me over coffee, “The guy won’t win any personality contests, but you’ll love his numbers.†He brings home the bacon: He’s smart, efficient—the best we’ve got (in terms of pure performance). I’d have to be crazy not to want him in my group.—J Sent: 5/22/01 Subject: re: re: bottom line? Well, then, I don’t see the problem. I think you’re overreacting.—R Sent: 5/23/01 Subject: re: re: re: bottom line? That’s what I like about you, Rick—never one to sugarcoat... Sent: 5/30/01 Subject: Holy jelly, Batman...we’re in a jam! Can I bore you again with Andy, my low- What a Star—What a Jerk•••HBR CA SE ST UD Y harvard business review • september 2001 page 3 likability, high-performance guy? Until now, I’d thought he was just nasty to lower-level people (which I quietly asked him to tone down, btw, after the incidents with the AAs) but at least grudgingly civil to colleagues. But he’s gone and alienated Caroline, the one who’s going through the divorce. Background: She has huge social capital built up here; she’s the one everyone turns to with their problems, either professional or personal. She’s a good egg, but she isn’t at her best right now (a custody issue got messy and her mother’s sick). She probably should have taken some time off, but it’s a bad time of year—so I asked her to hold off. Okay, so here she is, this normally centered person who’s hanging on by a thread, and Andy got under her skin. She forwarded me this e-mail he’d sent her, and when I went to talk to her about it, she cried. It was a horrible scene. Anyhow, take a look: Caroline, you screwed up big time. We had a meeting with people I’d been trying to cultivate for eight months, set up well in advance, and you blew it off at the last minute, which embarrassed me and endangered the business. I can just hear you whining, “Things are a mess at home right now”—but you know what? Tough. Everybody’s got problems, and they should stay out of the office. If I don’t land this business, it will be because of your incompetence, and you can bet that Epstein and everyone else who counts will hear about it. After she was done crying—which embarrassed us both a lot—she expressed remorse for making the mistake. Then we talked...she explained how she has sort of “handled” Zim- merman until recently (which is why she felt betrayed by his accusations). Evidently, he’d often vent to her about what he saw as all- around stupidity. She’d listen, calm him down, and occasionally chide him extremely gently for being out of line. And other people would come to her and complain when he’d said something nasty, and she’d calm them down (explaining the pressure he was under, whatever). Since he exempted her from his nasti- ness, she was shocked when he turned on her. Anyhow, she wasn’t trying to blow the whistle on him—not really—but I could see that she was fed up with the smoothing-over role. (I gather that my predecessor completely ignored the whole situation—in part because Caroline kept it under control—sure wish I could do that.) Obviously, I have to have a chat with the big bad wolf. You know, when I left BCP to take a job with a real company, I imagined focusing on numbers, products, customers—on building something. Instead, I feel as if people issues—stupid little blowups like this—take up most of my time. Sheesh. These are all highly paid people, mostly with advanced degrees... Why do I feel like a kindergarten teacher? Sent: 5/30/01 Subject: could be worse... J—In some ways, he sounds like your bad cop: He keeps laggards in line, you get to be the nice guy. I could imagine worse set-ups. I’m surprised she showed you that memo, since it makes her look bad. I know you’re going to tell me it’s abusive, but is it, really? Sent: 5/30/01 Subject: re: could be worse... Abusive? I don’t know. But it is threatening. And it makes someone who’s good, and who’s defended him in the past, feel like garbage... Oh, I don’t know what I think.—J Sent: 5/31/01 Subject: whew Okay, so Andy and I had a long talk. I think it went reasonably well. With Caroline’s permis- sion, I told him about the leave she should be on. And he said he had to admit that he’d never seen anything like that from her before. Looked very slightly ashamed (but maybe I imagined that part). I wanted to establish some kind of rapport, as well as call him on inappropriate behavior, so I got him talking about his own role in the group and how he sees the work developing over the next several months. And—surprise, surprise—we had a good conversation. He’s got great insights, energy, and smarts. We talked for quite some time, in a way that was, to be honest, more productive and visionary and (simultaneously) down-to-earth than would have happened had the whole group been present. We were sort of firing off each other in the same way you and I used to—it was fun.:) Of course, I went back to the question of how he acts in the group. I said, basically, “Look, you’re talented and quick and impatient, and you just have to slow down and bite your tongue and be a little nicer to people.†(Since we’d been having a really good conversation—with the temporary intimacy that creates—it was easy to say.) He was somewhat dismissive but, when I pushed it, he agreed to try to listen better in meetings and stop reaming out the AAs. Sent: 5/31/01 Subject: words to live by... I always said you’d make a great kindergarten teacher
Paper For Above instruction
The dilemma faced by Jane Epstein regarding her top-performing employee, Andy Zimmerman, exemplifies a common quandary managers confront in maintaining organizational harmony while ensuring high performance. On one account, Andy's extraordinary productivity and results make him an asset; on the other, his aggressive, bullying behavior threatens team cohesion and morale. This case invites a comprehensive analysis of how to navigate such complex personnel issues, balancing performance with workplace environment, and instituting effective interventions that align with organizational goals and values.
The core of the problem lies in the discrepancy between Andy's exemplary performance and his detrimental interpersonal conduct. Managers often find themselves at crossroads when a high performer exhibits behaviors that undermine team dynamics. The case demonstrates that while Andy's technical skills and results are unquestionable—described as “smart, efficient—the best we’ve got”—his demeanor includes "nastiness," bullying, and a dismissive attitude that alienates colleagues and subordinates alike. Such behavior could ultimately lead to decreased team morale, higher turnover, and a toxic work culture if left unaddressed.
Research indicates that effective leadership requires balancing task-oriented and people-oriented approaches. Explicitly, managers should not ignore performance issues in favor of civility; rather, they should address both concurrently. For instance, Goleman (2000) emphasizes emotional intelligence as crucial for managers, suggesting that awareness of one's own and others' emotions can aid in managing difficult personalities while maintaining productivity. In this context, Jane's approach to tackling Andy’s behavior—engaging him in a candid conversation, establishing behavioral expectations, and attempting to align his conduct with organizational norms—is consistent with best practices of constructive confrontation (Goleman, 2000; Murphy, 2012).
Interventions should include direct feedback emphasizing the impact of his behavior, coupled with specific behavioral targets. Jane's strategy of talking to Andy privately, acknowledging his contributions, and discussing the need for improved interpersonal conduct aligns with effective coaching methodologies. Furthermore, reinforcement of expectations and the continuous monitoring of behavioral change are necessary to ensure sustained improvement (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Nevertheless, challenges persist when dealing with high-performers who display negative behaviors. Their results often create cognitive dissonance among managers—balancing the desire to retain top talent against the risk of fostering a damaging work environment. In such cases, organizational policies should support the enforcement of standards that discourage toxic behavior, regardless of individual contributions. For instance, implementing a clear code of conduct, providing training in workplace civility, and establishing accountability mechanisms can reinforce organizational values (Fisher & Ury, 2011; Robbins & Judge, 2019).
Moreover, organizational culture plays a pivotal role. A culture that tolerates disrespect or bullying, even among high performers, risks perpetuating destructive norms. Conversely, fostering a culture of respect and accountability demonstrates leadership’s commitment to a healthy work environment (Schein, 2010). In Jane's case, balancing compassion and firmness—acknowledging the employee’s strengths while addressing unacceptable conduct—is essential.
To manage Andy effectively, Jane might consider a structured performance improvement plan that incorporates behavioral expectations, regular feedback sessions, and consequences if improvements are not realized. Should the behavior persist despite interventions, more severe actions—such as reassignment, demotion, or termination—may become necessary, aligned with organizational policies and legal considerations (Latham & Brown, 2019).
In conclusion, Jane faces the challenge of retaining top performance while mitigating toxic behavior. Her strategy should involve clear communication, behavioral coaching, organizational support systems, and potential disciplinary measures if needed. Ultimately, fostering a work environment where high performers are held accountable for their behavior is essential to sustaining organizational integrity, morale, and long-term success.