Tanya has a problem. As Vice President of Sales and Marketing at a financial services firm, she has experienced a severe shortage of staff over the last year or so. A results-driven professional, she was concerned that her targets were in jeopardy if she did not have her full team in place.
“I need bodies”, she cried to HR.
And bodies she got, including one that has turned out to be highly dysfunctional and toxic to the team. This has come as no surprise to Tanya as the red flags were there from the beginning. Even her boss had asked if she was sure about hiring this person. To which she had replied that she had some reservations, but really needed bodies. Fast. Otherwise, her targets would not be met. So, she settled for someone whom she knew from Day One was not a good fit.
The red flags she saw then were issues with attitude. Before hiring him, she had received reports that whilst he was very good at his job (competence), he is not a team player – he doesn’t connect well with other team members and is unwilling to engage in team problem-solving. His behaviour since joining Tanya’s team has affirmed this assessment.
Red flags are usually attitude problems. If there is a competence gap, you can train that. But attitude? Not so easy. So now Tanya has a huge problem – team morale is down, and the toxic employee is not performing. The situation has worsened in the last few months, with the team member demonstrating aggressive, bullying behaviour that has Tanya concerned for her, and her other team members’ safety and wellbeing.
Tanya is facing increasing pressure to perform – the organization must make up for revenues lost during the pandemic and take advantage of new opportunities in the post-pandemic landscape. But her people are leaving, even whilst others are knocking at her door to be hired. She cannot afford not to have her full cohort of her sales team. But, as she is discovering, she cannot afford to have a team member that is poisoning and jeopardizing team performance either.
This scenario may feel familiar to you. I see it with other clients as well (I am Tanya’s coach).
What should she do?
The first step is for Tanya to make a firm and immediate decision about this employee. If she is convinced that he is not the right fit and is adversely affecting the rest of the team, then no matter what his sales performance is, a separation may be warranted. It is better that she works with an incomplete team in terms of “bodies”, rather than with a team that is demoralized due to the attitude of one team member. Attitudes are viral, and if she is not careful, and fails to act soon, this employee’s attitude will likely spread to other members of the team.
Her second step is to slow down and take her time to fill the role. She was aghast when I suggested this: “I don’t have time Marguerite”. I pointed out that she is investing an inordinate amount of time managing this employee and holding the rest of the team together. What if she were to release that time and use it instead to find the right team members? To achieve this, I helped her define 3 simple steps:
- Get clear on her non-negotiables. A few years ago, I came across this quote: “People hire on aptitude and fire on attitude”. Tanya needs to pay attention to the attitudes that she most values and needs for her team and hire for those. Yes, competence is important, but once the person has the right attitude, shortcomings can usually be trained and coached. You can’t train attitude.
- Discuss with HR a new approach to finding the right team members. Make her non-negotiables clear to them and ask them to design an interview and selection process that is rigourous about surfacing attitude.
- Once the toxic team member has departed, galvanize the team to fill the gaps. There may be some healing to be done – Tanya should not be surprised if team members unload their relief, and that they wondered why it took so long for her to make this decision. A key question for her to ask: “What support do you need, and from whom, to meet our team targets?” She may also choose to engage them in defining the desired attitudes for new hires to make sure that they too are aligned with her values.
One thing that Tanya needs to be mindful of is the desire to find the absolutely perfect fit. A former business partner and I often joke that we are not trying to hire Jesus i.e., we cannot be so rigid that the new hire meets every single job requirement. “80% of perfection is enough” is a great guide. The challenge Tanya faces is to make sure that the 80% is the right 80%, and to have a process that reveals that.
In my experience, it is better to work with a vacant post until it can be filled with the right person, rather than working with a toxic team member. The latter is an energy drain on all, with attention of the entire team placed on dealing with toxicity rather than the joy of working together to achieve results.
Whilst this approach may seem to take more time, in the long run it is likely to be more effective. Regardless of the pressure to achieve targets, Tanya must release the idea of “bodies” and instead focus on getting the right people in place.
Don’t settle, Tanya.
Other blogs by Marguerite on this topic:
