September 4, 2007
‘Is being very irritating a sackable offence?’
I am the director of a team of 20 in a successful property company. All my team members are good players. There is no ‘weakest link’. I like all of them bar one. He has a whiney voice; there is something about the way he sits at his desk; and he answers questions obliquely – although his ideas are always good. His work is first-class but I just find him intensely irritating and this makes me unfair and snappy with him.
I have tried to overcome what must, in all honesty, simply be personal dislike. I guess it’s just a question of personality clash but it’s damaging the way we do things. Should I get rid of him, even though he’s doing a great job?
Property executive, 49
We would appreciate if you included your occupation, age and gender in your comment, but real names are not compulsory
My guess is that your team member is gay and you’re a homophobe. A “whiney voice”? “Something about the way he sits at his desk”? Please. If he “answers questions obliquely,” then you need to sit down and tell him, manager-to-managee, what information you need and expect. But it seems you can’t do this because you can’t bear to be near him physically. You cannot fire a person whose “ideas are always good,” whose “work is first-class,” and who does “a great job.” Consider counseling for yourself instead.
Posted by: b t | September 4th, 2007 at 6:50 pm | Report this commentYou wish to get rid of a member of staff whose work is first-class? And this man is able to produce first-class work despite his line manager treating him unfairly and snapping at him; indeed he comes into work and produces the goods no doubt in the full knowledge that his boss dislikes him and wants him out. He must be exceptional. You, on the other hand, should really be asking yourself if you’re cut out for management.
Posted by: Nicola | September 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pm | Report this commentNow you’re sounding whiney and neurotic and undecided. Have the courage of your convictions (wo)man and sack him and get on with life. And if he sues for unfair dismissal - ah well, it’s part of the game.
Posted by: TK, banker, male, 34 | September 4th, 2007 at 9:18 pm | Report this commentI agree in principle with Nicola. I think that this can be a growth experience for yourself provided you try to go beyond the superficialities and really get to appreciate the positives about this person’s performance.
Dealing with (and developing) a diverse set of employees is a critical management function.
May be some introspection is in order!
Posted by: SC, Manager, male, 41 | September 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm | Report this commentYou only mention your own dislike of this employee. There is no comment about how the other 19 team members react to him. How is he damaging the way “we” do things if you are the only one irritated? Is it possible that his “oblique” answers are just over your head and you are feeling a bit threatened?
Posted by: DC,consultant,female,38 | September 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm | Report this commentThe whiney Voice and answering questions obliquely, might be a metrosexual or only child issues.
Posted by: Simon | September 5th, 2007 at 3:05 am | Report this commentEither way the first post is correct that if you require certain behavior at work, you should sit him down and go over the behavior.
If he whines at being given more work, tell him to bring it up directly, professionally with backed up arguments.
For answering Obliquely, he should be told how answer the question directly, and if he doesn’t know but can find out to say that. If it the rambling tell him to be short and to the point. You have to give them a chance to change the behavior. If you can’t isolate the behavior, this person is triggering with a past bad relationship of yours and the problem is with you not with them.
Good luck.
Is it the personality of the said employee which is “damaging the way (we) do things”, or is it your reactive-behaviour which is causing damage?
URGENT: Read and take to heart Chapter 9 of the book “Letters of a Businessman to His Son”, by G Kingsley Ward.
If you are unable to alter your attitude and behaviour, the company should immediately sack the director, and give the team a leader who has what it takes to manage–and retain–all “19 successful, good team players”.
Posted by: Michael, private banker, 38 | September 5th, 2007 at 3:11 am | Report this commentFrom your comments I presume that you and your team are able to work together successfully. The only issue is your dislike of one individual. My advice is to get rid of him, but do it as gently and humanely as is possible. If you can find 18 good persons on your team, you can find one more to replace this person. And this is not about diversity. Diversity means being positive about people in matters of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs,political beliefs, or other ideologies and not about personality types.
Posted by: Out of the box | September 5th, 2007 at 5:53 am | Report this commentTo be honest, I’d sack him. it’s not working out, and all the coaching and tree hugging exercises wont work. It’s either you or him, so it would be better him!
Posted by: Nick | September 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am | Report this commentYour annoyance is the result of repressed subconscious sexual attraction. You need to go on a date as as soon as possible.
Posted by: John | September 5th, 2007 at 9:52 am | Report this commentIf you can’t work with him, sack him. This will be all the easier if all other members of your team are homophobes (see comment from “b t”) and can’t stand him either.
Posted by: Athanase, banker, 38 | September 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm | Report this commentAlso remember that you will have to replace him with somebody equally good and who is nice, too. Hiring a cool-looking dumbhead as a replacement will make you look really stupid.
You must be a bit of an *sshole to even think of sacking someone because you don’t happen to like them - or their ability to think and act for themselves with “good ideas” and “first-class work”…
Perhaps you should use the words “I” and “my” less
and consider a little more that you are employed to run a business.
Manager, male.
Posted by: Bob | September 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentThe crass arrogance,callousness and puffed up pomposity of some of these posts beggars belief - in particular those of Out of the Box and Athanase.. (not surprising from the latter given his generally irresponsible and DISCREDITED - both senses - profession).
If you truly believe that you can sack someone “gently” and “humanely”,then you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.
My dictionary defines diversity as “a diverse range;a variety”.It does not specify of what.The definition is all encompassing so why should it exclude “personality types” specifically?
As for our successful property company director:
Depriving someone of their source of livelihood and well being, just because they irritate you ,is not only profoundly immoral, but smacks of the worst kind of fascism, genre A.Hitler.
Posted by: Passionate Crusader | September 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm | Report this commentIn my book,the most fundamental competence needed for “enlightened” management today is the ability to manage all sorts,- princes and paupers,clones and freaks.
OK, it’s a challenge but face up! Learn to override your irritations - (you probably irritate him as much as he does you) - and get the best out of his obvious abilities, develop his good ideas and above all ENCOURAGE the guy! May be that will give him the confidence to sit up straight, embolden his whinney voice and answer you directly.
If you need some help to develop your skills, why don’t you book yourself on an Interpersonal Relations programme at Roffey Park and…..why not, take him along too!
FROM THE TEAM’S VIEWPOINT: the choice is between (A) continue to benefit from 19 who make a successful united team; or (B) lose one to suit the whim of a manager who wants to sack whoever peeves him/her.
FROM SENIOR MANAGEMENT’S VIEWPOINT: it’s (A) lose one talent, retain a whim-driven manager, damage team morale, face a lawsuit it is certain to lose at great cost; or (B) continue to benefit from 19 who make a successful united team, get a new manager who appreciates that, be rid of morale-poisoning whim-driven you.
Posted by: HKLivingston | September 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm | Report this commentAre you under the impression that you are supposed to like all the people you work with, or who work for you? Part living the world is working with people you don’t like. What matters is his work. Does your company exist to make a profit, or to help you make friends? It really sounds like you have maturity issues. (This is sad at age 49)
Posted by: Z | September 6th, 2007 at 12:12 am | Report this commentThe solution is not to fire him, but for you to get over it. It sounds like your being snappy and unfair is what is causing the problems in the office.
Flat management structures may be much in vogue but one person managing twenty direct reports seems a bit extreme. It also seems a bit ignorant and irrelevant that some respondents deduce from the described tone of voice, sitting position and oblique answers to questions, that the employee concerned might be inclined to jump a little bit low in the leap frog.
Annoying personal characteristics are easier to deal with in the positive, so let the employee know that you appreciate positive and hope filled communication, you are impressed by people looking alert at their desk and that an un-nuanced answer to a question is all that you can cope with. Whatever you personally decide in your own career, don’t ever move to an organisation that values employee performance.
Posted by: Ironybrew, 57, Retired, Male | September 6th, 2007 at 1:20 am | Report this commentSomewhat misplaced passion in some of the posts here - your business raison d’etre is delivering value to your owners/shareholders and customers primarily, and with this responsibility you should have the freedom and the authority to choose your team members. Enlightened management should normally include the ability and the talent to get the right team and does not include the crusade or the challenge of managing with a “misfit” team member. The ability to get along (in work) with senior colleagues is a pre-requisite in today’s corporate world and the reason for this is not a sudden outburst of fascism in the free world, but rather the more immediate pressure of delivering value.
Posted by: Out of the box, 42, Male | September 6th, 2007 at 10:11 am | Report this commentWhat’s wrong with a bit of passion now and then? After all we were all being told a few management fads ago to be “passionate” and ” intense” about our work, weren’t we.
You trot, out of the box,the same old worn out liturgical cliches to Mammon and the great god Markets that we have heard from the business schools for the last 30 years.”Delivering value to owners/shareholders and customers etc,etc”.It’s so boring and so “old testament” - slaves delivering offerings to the golden calf and the high priests of the market.Isn’t there anything new in the brainwashing resources of the corporate world than this empty hogwash?
It is flesh and blood people with individual and DIVERSE personalities and souls who deliver for businesses,not just a set of cogs and clones constantly subservient to the (often abusive)top down authority of senior colleagues in the company hierarchy.
Read the Property Executive’s question again.He admits that ALL his team members are good players and that there is no weakest link.This includes the whiney guy you call a “misfit”.How do we know that he is? All we know is that he irritates his boss.We have no idea of his other colleagues’ reaction to him.
I repeat .Enlightened leadership includes the key ability to manage all sorts regardless of indidividual characteristices and behaviour.We waste too much talent AND actually destroy too much value for owners/shareholders by firing good people simply on the arrogant whim of perceived ” poor chemistry”. I seen too much of it in my career, hence the crusade and the passion!
DON’T EXCLUDE ,INCLUDE!
If our Property executive is unable to manage his irritations to the extent that he is considering firing the irritant, an acknowledged good player, then he shouldn’t be in management - full stop.
Posted by: Passionate Crusader | September 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentEither sack him or keep him, both would work. If you keep him you must get over your personal issues with him and deal with him as you’d deal with any other member of the team. Keeping someone and humiliating them daily with your attitude is as bad as getting rid of someone. Maybe it’s also worth discussing with him. (”I feel that sometimes we get across each other - what’s your impression of the way you and I work together?”)
If you sack him do it quickly and as fairly as you can (good reference, reasonable pay-off (but not suspiciously generous), any help you can offer finding something else for him). Get a replacement as quickly as you can and then move on. Try to make sure the replacement is (a) good and (b) not a clone of your mates.
Posted by: Bob Hughes | September 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm | Report this commentDo you lack confidence in your own sexuality? Are you tempted to stray? Do your team regard you as inadequate or a figure of fun?
Try to seek help.
Posted by: sigmund | September 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentI’m amazed that some people are actually suggesting that firing a good employee that does “first class work” is okay if the boss finds him irritating!!
Wow, I guess that’s why mediocrity in performance seems to be a growing menace in corporate America while liking someone whether they are performing or not is alright!
I agree with the person that said that diversity encompasses not only race, gender, age, political views, but personalities also. Let’s stand by high performance and “first class” work and irritating personalities!!
Posted by: CJ | September 18th, 2007 at 1:24 am | Report this commentYou said he had a winey voice. Drinking on the job is a sackable offence !
Posted by: Bob | September 20th, 2007 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentIt’s so good to read that you are aware of your feelings. In my humble opinion, the next step is to honestly recognise that it is you who is irritated and to stop blaming your colleague. In my experience, people who wind us up are not bad for us. They remind us of something about ourselves that we find disagreeable. If you genuinely care about this person, I suggest you spend time thinking deeply about what he or she reminds you of. Then thank them for helping you overcome your own issues. Good luck.
Posted by: Male at Investment Bank | September 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Report this commentWhat’s wrong with disliking somebody? It happens all the time! The high-handed indignance and vitriol of some of the comments above I find very amusing. Whilst I don’t agree with the notion of sacking someone purely because of dislike, particularly when they are a good worker, people have to accept that sometimes, colleagues just don’t get on, or like each other. It’s human. I find whiney people annoying too. So what? Does it make me immature to admit that I would rather not spend time in the company of someone who I find irritating?
Posted by: Financial Analyst, Female, 31 | September 21st, 2007 at 10:45 am | Report this commentHaving said that, in my own experience, if I feel irritated by someone in my workplace, my only solution is to make the odd deliberate attempt to seek them out and have a short, albeit inane chat about something non-work related. Establishing any kind of decent rapport causes a feelgood factor that eventually abolishes that creeping feeling of dislike that is, in itself, an irritant. The workplace can be stressful enough without having to deal with such tension, and if it can’t be resolved, one party may just have to make the decison to go.
Every day, movie executives, newspaper editors, advertising creative directors and hedge fund managers walk into an office filled with rampant egos, childish tantrums, drug and alcohol abuse and everything that goes with it.
Why do we tolerate it? One word: talent.
If our industries hired people because they were easy to get on with, there wouldn’t be a lot out there worth watching or reading.
If we can do it on a daily basis, then even somebody in an industry as boring (and, it must be said, universally irritating) as property can put up with the odd whiny voice if that’s what it takes to bring home the bacon.
Posted by: Brian | September 25th, 2007 at 8:40 am | Report this commentTwo young children? And in private school? Forget it; you’re screwed.
Posted by: Cindy | November 7th, 2007 at 9:13 pm | Report this commentgo to a doctor immediately, do not pass go and don’t collect 200 pounds. you need some help.
Posted by: JB, CEO, male | November 8th, 2007 at 12:30 am | Report this comment