Most leaders have encountered this person at some point.
They might actually be very good at their job.
They deliver.
They know the business.
Clients might like them.
Their numbers might even make them one of the strongest performers in the team.
But something else is happening.
The eye-rolling.
The negativity.
The constant criticism.
The resistance whenever something changes.
The comment made just loudly enough for everyone else to hear.
The mood that seems to follow them into the room.
Individually, none of it feels quite serious enough to warrant a major intervention.
Collectively, however, it starts changing the atmosphere around them.
And that creates a difficult leadership problem.
Because what do you do when someone’s individual performance is good, but their impact on everybody else isn’t?
PERFORMANCE IS BIGGER THAN PRODUCTION
I’ve dealt with versions of this situation many times during my career.
And I haven’t always dealt with them quickly enough.
One of the traps leaders fall into — and I’ve fallen into it myself — is concentrating too heavily on what somebody produces.
Their numbers are good.
They’re experienced.
They’re difficult to replace.
They’ve been with the business for years.
So you find yourself making allowances for behaviours you probably wouldn’t accept from somebody else.
You tell yourself they’re just frustrated.
That’s just their personality.
They’ve always been like that.
They don’t mean anything by it.
Or perhaps:
They’re difficult, but they’re good at what they do.
The problem is that performance isn’t simply what somebody produces individually.
There’s another question worth asking:
What happens to the performance of everybody else when this person enters the room?
That can give you a very different answer.
THE COST IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO MEASURE
The impact of one person’s behaviour rarely appears neatly on a spreadsheet.
Instead, you notice it elsewhere.
People contribute less in meetings because they know their idea will be dismissed.
A newer team member stops asking questions because they don’t want the sarcastic response.
Someone starts checking who is in the office before deciding where they’re going to work.
A manager spends increasing amounts of time managing around one individual.
Good people become quieter.
Others start copying the behaviour.
And eventually the team learns something important:
This is acceptable here.
That’s where an individual behaviour problem starts becoming a leadership problem.
Because teams don't only learn from what their leaders say.
They learn from what their leaders repeatedly allow.
DON’T WAIT FOR THE PERFECT INCIDENT
One of the reasons these situations persist is that leaders often wait for something definitive to happen.
A complaint.
An argument.
A client issue.
A resignation.
Something serious enough to make the conversation unavoidable.
But by then, the behaviour may have been affecting the team for months.
You don’t necessarily need a dramatic incident to address a pattern of behaviour.
You need enough clarity to describe what you’re seeing and the impact it’s having.
A simple way to prepare is to separate three things:
Behaviour.
Impact.
Standard.
BEHAVIOUR
Start with what you can actually observe.
Not:
You’ve got a bad attitude.
Instead:
What are they doing?
What are they saying?
What behaviour keeps repeating?
Where and when does it happen?
The more specific you can be, the less likely the conversation is to descend into an argument about personality.
IMPACT
Then consider what the behaviour is doing to the people around them.
Is it making others reluctant to contribute?
Is it creating tension?
Is it undermining a manager?
Is it making change harder?
Is it affecting clients?
Is somebody else compensating for it?
This matters because the conversation isn’t simply about whether you personally like their behaviour.
It’s about its effect on the team and the business.
STANDARD
Finally, be clear about what you expect instead.
What needs to change?
What behaviour is required?
What standard applies to everybody?
And what will happen if nothing changes?
Without that clarity, conversations about attitude can quickly become vague.
With it, you can address the behaviour without making a judgement about the person.
Behaviour → Impact → Standard.
Simple.
But often enough to turn a frustrating situation into a conversation you can actually have.
GOOD PEOPLE CAN STILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT
This is an important distinction.
Addressing somebody’s behaviour doesn’t require you to decide they’re a bad person.
Good people can become frustrated.
Strong performers can become cynical.
Experienced employees can become resistant to change.
People can go through difficult periods.
Understanding that context matters.
But understanding someone’s behaviour and accepting its impact are two different things.
Empathy doesn’t remove accountability.
Sometimes one of the most useful things a leader can do for somebody is make them aware of an impact they may not fully realise they’re having.
And sometimes the fairest thing you can do for the rest of the team is stop asking them to absorb it.
VERSED PERSPECTIVE
The longer behaviour goes unaddressed, the easier it becomes for everyone involved to assume it has been accepted.
So if there’s someone in your team whose attitude or behaviour is beginning to affect everybody around them, don’t start by asking whether they’re a good or bad employee.
Start somewhere more useful.
What is the behaviour?
What impact is it having?
What standard do I need instead?
Address the behaviour before you judge the person.
And remember:
Performance isn’t only what somebody produces.
It’s also what happens to the people around them while they’re producing it.
