Dealing with High Maintenance Employees

Posted on February 18, 2011

High maintenance employees sap all the energy from team and upper management. Here are some examples of the breed and suggestions for resolution of the problem.

Few things can trigger a reaction in me as quickly as high-maintenance employees. My allergy to this behavior developed the way all allergies develop—through repeated exposure. After 20 years of leading organizations I swore the oath: No more babysitting. (I know, I can be a slow learner).

A few examples of what I call high-maintenance employees:

Ms. Over Her Head:  She graduated top of her class, so I put her in a position that would stretch her. I decided to mentor her and she appeared to appreciate it. But she would get upset often, sometimes crying, claiming that she couldn’t do her job well. At times frustration would precipitate a meltdown, but I’d calm it all down for her. She wanted the challenge and authority, and the next day would be eager to tackle new things. I spent much time teaching her and reviewing her work. I talked her out of leaving several times until after 18 months she quit with no notice and no explanation. Why didn’t I accept her resignation the first time? I would have been better off.

Mr. Angry:  He was 6’3”, a black belt, had good technical skills and knew how to be charming. He also had anger management issues, got in a snarl often and exploded once a month. I became a pro at calming people down, counseling him about his behavior, and at accepting his promises to “be better.” His passive aggressive behavior was not doled out equally, and he endeared himself to certain people. He did advance his department from a technology standpoint, but keeping all the people around him on the rails sucked quite a bit of my time and adversely affected the culture. What a sigh of relief from the team when he moved on.

Mr. Arrogant:  This CTO had fully convinced himself that he was better than everybody around him, including his CEO. He demanded weekly meetings with the CEO, only to insist that all the other departments urgently needed to change (to his way of thinking). He maintained that their lack of understanding and unwillingness to immediately change was grounds for dismissal for most of them. The CEO kept talking him down, explaining that patience was required. But this just made the CTO angry. Terse comments and a tense face were frequent in meetings. He was quite successful in getting the whole management team into quite a twist until he left to launch his own startup (and to do it the right way—his way).

Mr. Drama:  He came in with great credentials, and in fact had some great ideas. But calm, cool and collected he was not, and on any given point at any given moment he’d jump to the extreme, make inflammatory comments, and start a firestorm. Everything he said was full of drama. His schedule was erratic, he missed lots of time. Despite all his flaws, things did improve in his department and he had a number of loyal followers. Running a meeting with him present was nearly impossible. It would go off track, get into vitriolic fights, and somebody would walk out. He blew himself out of the organization in a spectacular fashion.

Ms. Hero:  To listen to her, the company would self-destruct without her. She worked nights and weekends to save the day, over and over again. She volunteered to “help” her peers since they couldn’t keep up. She sacrificed her personal life for her work, but was under appreciated, of course. She was in the CEO’s office all the time, pleading her case for more responsibility, demanding that her slacker peers change their ways, talking about the enormous pressures she was working under, explaining how she was succeeding because of her incredible work ethic and big contributions.

Enough!  It’s making me nauseous just thinking about these examples. I could keep going, but I won’t. What they all have in common is that each person did have his or her merits, yet each person required lots of time and attention from their boss — babysitting. The boss should be a catalyst, a guide, a coach, a mentor, but not a support system or a control mechanism. Most executives have a team so they can get more done, focus on more strategic or complex tasks. Babysitting eats up time that should be devoted to building the organization. CEOs and top executives are paid to put their time to the best possible use, not to babysit.

High maintenance employees who don’t contribute much typically get fired fairly quickly, and aren’t much of a distraction. It’s the employees that have some great attributes and are contributors (or at least are trying really hard) that stick around. We convince ourselves that they are worth the trouble, since they make such contributions in other areas. First we try to fix them (and we should). When fixing them fails, we try to work around their flaws, by insulating them, or isolating them, or just by being a buffer. The truth is that when fixing them fails (after a well-defined, short period of time) we need to cut our losses and fire them. Take all the time and energy that would have gone into babysitting them and devote it to hiring a replacement that is high output AND low maintenance. They do exist, for every position.

For example, I just experienced a team of very low-maintenance executives. Despite the fact that their CEO had been in Japan meeting with a possible strategic partner, they had done their homework and were prepared for the planning meeting. They did not whine. They focused on the critical issues where there was not unanimity. They were open about the problems and challenges, even when it was their own department’s shortcomings. The discussion was orderly, decisions were made and responsibilities assigned and accepted. Those few new concerns I was able to raise (as the outside consultant) were carefully but quickly thought through and adjustments were made in short order. The meeting ended in less than half the time allocated. I was in heaven. So was the CEO. Any executive would be if he or she had a team like this.

I repeat, they do exist. Always. For every position in the world. Even for that very special pain-in-the-@#! on your team. I can’t remember firing a high maintenance employee where I didn’t find a better replacement. I have no clients that have fired such a high maintenance employee and regretted doing so. Surely there is some pain around the departed knowledge, but teams can navigate around it. Teams step up to fill in the gaps. Without the high-maintenance person in the mix, everyone feels better and can focus on what the business really needs to get to the next level. In fact, co-workers generally spot these problem people very quickly and resent the special attention these people get from the boss.

These employees are also team destroyers. When they all too often turn to their boss, it generally means that they are not able to resolve issues with their peers, and are often either blaming them or otherwise acting in a dysfunctional manner. In nearly every case I’ve come across, the rest of the team cheered with vigor when the high maintenance employee left the firm.

All of the examples above are based on managers and executives. While high maintenance employees are a problem at any level, they cause the most damage when they are part of the organization’s leadership.

The executive’s duty is to lead the team to success. If success is important to you, be sure to select and retain great team members. Don’t settle for coaching a “recreational league” level team when you can cut those players that are high-maintenance and coach the great ones to success.