The fundamental premise of Extraordinary Influence rests on the belief that bringing out the best in others embodies a leader's highest calling. Affirmation of someone's customary style and competence contribute significantly to that aim. Speaking Words of Life into a person's core can be truly transformational.

Another basic premise of this book—Alliance Feedback (connecting a needed change to a person's personal aspirations) provides a powerful means to bring someone into alignment with the goals, mission, strategies, and culture of the organization.

Performance problems are usually addressed individually. Though not always, performance problems are typically rooted in a person's ineffective style, their lack of competence, or a breached core or some combination of the three.

Some critically important questions:

• How do we bring out the best in others experiencing performance problems?
• Are there instances in which a person and his or her work performance problems simply cannot be remedied?
• If we embark on an effort to develop a person, what are the chances of success?
• Can we realistically bring out the best in anyone?

Performance problems are typically rooted in a person's ineffective style, their lack of competence, or a breached core or some combination of the three.

To answer these questions, let's consider three true stories.

True Story 1

When I finished graduate school and started my first consulting company, Anne gave me a beautiful antique desk with a hand-tooled, tan-colored leather top. The desk was a work of art and became a prized possession. It remains the centerpiece of my personal office.

A new administrator in our firm made some significant mistakes on some work I requested she complete. To make amends, one morning she stopped by the muffin shop in our office building and bought my favorite—a blueberry muffin with the great crispy top. She delivered it to my office before I arrived that morning and set the delicious muffin right on my leather-topped desk with no plate, no napkin—nothing between my desk and the waxed paper muffin wrapper. When I arrived, my eyes went immediately to a giant oily splotch underneath the muffin on my beautiful desk top. The cooking oil from the muffin had wicked straight into the leather leaving an ugly dark blob. When some of the other team members realized what had happened, they sprang into action to try to get the oil out of the leather but to no avail. They even quoted Shakespeare, “Out, out damned spot.” Our newest staff member quietly withdrew to the materials production room.

Melissa was very principled, highly intelligent, and interpersonally skilled, but she didn't have the skill set or personality to do the growing load of demanding and detailed administrative work in our office. The muffin blob was not the real problem, but it served as the catalyst we needed to address her challenges at the office.

We were at a moment of truth, not because of my desk, but because of the poor fit between her strengths and the requirements of the job. In the process of talking with a few trusted staff members, some important information surfaced. Melissa hated detailed administrative work. Her passion was interior design, and she desperately wanted to find a way to enter that business. We decided it best that she move on but with a transition period that helped her pursue her higher aspirations.

Melissa seemed quite relieved and appreciative that we gave her a long runway to transition into a new job. Three months later, she left the firm to apprentice under a leading interior designer in town. Melissa's performance problems also reminded us that if we want to hire an excellent person for a particular job, there is no substitution for a discipline process that vets the person in every way possible to ensure a good fit. We performed this service for our clients, but the “cobbler's children had no shoes.” Over the years, Melissa's oily muffin spot on my desk faded into other accidents, including my own coffee spills. Those accidents created a nice patina, thus adding beauty to the desk!

Did Melissa have a flawed core? Not in the slightest. She simply didn't have the style and competence to excel in an administrative position. I was at fault for not being more careful to learn about her lack of administrative skill and interest in advance of hiring her. Should we have attempted to develop her skills for the position? Her interests lay elsewhere, and we had no conviction that a developmental effort would be successful.

True Story 2

The CEO of an organization in the hospitality industry contacted me and expressed frustration about an executive in his company who performed quite well in his job, but the five other members of the executive team did not trust him. The CEO said, “David could be the person with the highest potential to succeed me but not if he can't get the rest of the team behind him. The CEO asked, “Can you fix him?” Several weeks later, I flew to Chicago to meet with the “fixee” and the other members of the executive team.

The problems that consistently surfaced in my interviews were that David:

• Talked too much and didn't listen to his other team members.
• Had a terminal case of certainty on any topic, even when there was no basis.
• Didn't show respect for the opinions of others.
• Sometimes walked too close to the edge on spending limits and other corporate policies when entertaining prospects.
• Had to be the star attraction for any event involving clients or prospects.
• Did not develop others in his areas of responsibility.
• Exercised careless management of his own direct reports.

Universal appreciation for David's capabilities equaled his peers' uneasiness about his limitations. Everyone hoped he could change, while expressing strong beliefs that it was unlikely to happen given the depth of his problems. David and I agreed to work together with a focus on helping him further develop his leadership potential and address the concerns of his boss and peers.

David and I decided that he would complete a multirater feedback instrument (sometimes called 360 Feedback) and a couple of other psychological assessments. A good multirater instrument provides very detailed and candid behavioral insight into how others see the person being rated. The results of David's 360 were dreadful and provided quite a blow to his ego—the findings clearly stood in stark contrast to his self-perceptions. We spent the next several meetings reviewing the findings and talking about what types of changes were needed.

Pain sometimes provides an effective source of motivation to grow. Joined with the prospect of a bigger job in the future, David worked extremely hard on the areas of improvement that we agreed were the highest priorities. Over the course of the next 18 months, this individual took the reins of his own development and made remarkable progress. Every month, I received some type of communication acknowledging David's progress. He forged dramatically better relationships with his executive peers. He showed respect, listened to their views, and collaborated on many cross-functional problems. Team morale improved, and his peers became his biggest advocates. Everyone considered him to be an excellent candidate for the top job in a few more years.

True Story 3

A friend's electronics components company grew rapidly and became much more operationally complex. He hired a new vice president of operations to address a myriad of problems. Phillip appeared to have exactly the right kind of background and joined my friend's company with great expectations that he could bring calm to the storm.

Keeping up with customer demands stretched everyone to the limit. Phillip and others worked long hours attempting to improve their shipping time while adding additional SKUs to their product offerings. Their inventory ballooned, tying up cash. The business line of credit nearly maxed out, and some quality problems emerged in some of their legacy products. Everyone reached a 10 on the stress meter.

Phillip displayed some dark and previously undetected aspects of his personality about a year after joining the company. He pried into people's personal lives and insisted he know the specific reasons why they couldn't work overtime on some weekends. He fermented dissent among some of the company's other managers. A hallmark of my friend's company was that he paid his staff well and ensured that the working conditions were excellent. Phillip criticized the CEO and said their compensation was too low. Phillip's arrogantly displayed disrespect for the CEO and the company culture infuriated many of the company's most loyal employees.

Others described Phillip as “mean spirited.” He made comments to female employees that were unwelcome and offensive. Complaints about Phillip increased. My friend met with him to discuss the complaints. Phillip exploded with anger and insisted that if not for him, the firm would be falling apart. The intensity of Phillip's vitriol and the disrespect he displayed shocked my friend.

Firm morale declined and teamwork weakened. My friend attempted to coach Phillip but finally gave him a written warning that his behavior must change to keep his job. Phillip did not change, and my friend fired him a few weeks later.

I did not know Phillip well, but the few times he and I talked, I sensed some troubling problems under the surface of his personality. He initially managed to keep his problems contained, but the stress of the rapidly growing business outpaced his ability to rein in his considerable flaws.

Was there something fundamentally wrong with Phillip? Yes. I could only speculate about the origin of his problems, but when my friend asked my advice, I said that no amount of coaching would provide an adequate remedy. I told him, “You need to get him out before he does more damage.”

The Three Stories Called for Three Different Remedies

1. Melissa was a person with a problem that could not be remedied with feedback and coaching. She was a gifted person in the wrong job. She needed encouragement to pursue her dream. We affirmed her honesty about her aspirations but also agreed that her lack of competence for the work we needed accomplished in our firm was a bridge too far.
2. David was a person with a problem, who needed intensive professional coaching. His exceptional job performance and receptivity to change proved his great value to the organization. He needed someone to provide Alliance Feedback in a supportive environment for him to make some fundamental changes.
3. Phillip was a problem person. It required significant stress and time for his darker side to emerge, but his core was breached. His negative impact on the organization far exceeded any value he might bring. For the sake of the greater good, he needed to leave the company.

Performance problems emerge for a host of reasons after someone works in an organization. We know people who were promoted beyond their competence. We know people whose life circumstances changed and began to impose upon the person's performance at work. We know people whose stress tolerance proved to be inadequate for the demands of a position.

We are always who we are given enough time and enough stress.

Savvy leaders size up whether the person has a problem or he/she is a problem person. Discerning this difference becomes one of the most worrisome problems we face as leaders. In my first example, Melissa was a person with a problem. David, in the second example, was a person with a problem, but it required some time and developmental resources to determine whether he could change. Phillip, in the third example, was a problem person, for whom no reasonable amount of development would change the fundamental trajectory of his breeched core. Melissa and Phillip left their respective organizations, but for very different reasons. Melissa demonstrated great skill when working out of her strengths. Phillip manifested some serious problems in his core, which were missed in the vetting stage. One problem we all experience in vetting the talent and condition of someone's core is that a person's real self surfaces only with time and stress. We are always who we are given enough time and enough stress.

The major idea of this chapter holds that we must be good stewards of our organization's resources (time, energy, and often, money). We must be able to quickly size up whether we should deploy resources to get a person in line with the mission, strategies, goals, and culture of the company.

The problem is that culture by its very nature can be fragile. My grandmother liked to say, “One bad apple spoils the barrel.” Food experts affirm this truth in pointing out that a rotten apple releases chemicals that rot the neighboring apples. A problem person, especially in a leadership role, can precipitate a major decay in the huge asset of strong culture and values. In my example, I predicted that if Phillip stayed in my friend's company much longer, it would have taken years to build back the good will my friend labored so hard to construct.

Members of an organization expect their leaders to make these hard determinations and follow with action. Our own credibility sometimes suffers irreparable damage when we don't act decisively to address problem people. Strong individuals often leave the organization when leaders refuse to act in these matters over time.

How Do We Make These Judgments That Have Such a Huge Impact on People's Lives?

When a person works in our organization and exhibits poor performance, how do we make the distinction between a person with a problem and a problem person? I often ask myself or the leader a series of questions, which I find helpful in getting to the right answer quickly.

1. Is the person performing their job overall with excellence? “Yes” or “No.”
2. How well do the person's skills, ability, and temperament fit the requirements of the position? Great Fit/Adequate Fit/Poor Fit.
3. Does the person's poor performance seem to be temporary, circumstantial, or more enduring? For example, does the person need to acquire technical knowledge or other skills to perform well in their job? Are there circumstances that account for an individual's temporary drop in performance, such as an ailing parent who needs special attention? Does the person work under a perpetual cloud of tension or constantly seem out of synch with the team?
4. What is the likelihood that the person in question can perform well in their job in the future within a reasonable time frame? High Likelihood/Low Likelihood.

In answering the fourth question, it behooves us to be brutally honest. In Melissa's case, we could have structured her job differently, but the improvised role would not accomplish what our firm definitively needed. She really longed to find a job more suited to her skills, temperament, and interests. In Phillip's case, my friend gave him feedback on many occasions without appreciable improvement. Phillip's problems were too deep-seated with no reasonable prospect that he could make the necessary changes. He had to go.

To Whom Should We Direct Our Limited Developmental Resources?

What are the risks and rewards of helping someone with performance problems? The following table offers a way of evaluating the likelihood of success:

I pointed out earlier that leaders potentially exert extraordinary influence on followers and help bring out their best capabilities. A major dilemma is that we cannot exert extraordinary influence over everyone. Some individuals struggle within themselves such that no amount of affirmation or Alliance Feedback or other developmental resources can bring them in line inside the boundaries of our organization. Any number of resources may help heal a person's core, but any job with even normal day-to-day stresses is not the best place to get well, especially when their problems impose themselves on others. No one is perfect, and we all have a shadow in our core. We must have compassion for all, while also recognizing that even healthy organizations are fragile. Compassion must be married to judgment and courage when dealing with a problem person.

A major dilemma is that we cannot exert extraordinary influence over everyone.

How Much Compassion?

It's not always easy to help a problem person leave the organization. Leaders express to me upon occasion that they believe that poorly performing individuals deserve the right to grow, and that under the right circumstances they will rise like the mythical Phoenix to leadership greatness. The question we must pose is, at what expense? A problem person often wreaks havoc on an organization. The amount of energy needed to address the internal disruptions caused by a problem person are often stunning. Some organizations spend so much time and emotional energy trying to achieve internal harmony, it seriously compromises their ability to achieve external goals and make a profit. A client organization almost lost their most gifted player recently, because they would not deal with a problem person. The emotional pain this problem person caused over a long period of time merited his firing years earlier.

Some organizations spend so much time and emotional energy trying to achieve internal harmony, it seriously compromises their ability to achieve external goals and make a profit.

I know that some readers will take issue with my opinions expressed in the last few paragraphs. They advocate that with proper coaching and encouragement, even a person with a problem can overcome their difficulties. Other readers who have a strong personal religious faith maintain that any person can be redeemed and transformed. While I agree with those views in theory, I believe that most organizations pursue a different mission than the personal healing of some excruciatingly disruptive traits or wayward actions in their employees.

This may appear to conflict with this book's theme of bringing out the best in others, but the pain inflicted upon those who must work closely with the problem person, the disruption to teams, and the diminishment of cultural health caused by fundamentally unhealthy individuals supersedes the developmental needs of a given individual. I argue that helping problem people leave the organization is, in fact, a key element to bringing out the best in others. The impact of a problem person can be so toxic if not removed that a leader forfeits the opportunity to bring out the best in those needed to conduct the vital work of the organization.

Leaders are stewards of organizational health and to not remove highly disruptive people, even if the problem person achieves results valuable to the organization, is very shortsighted. To force a person's dark tensions and instabilities on others trying to do their jobs conscientiously may appear noble to some, but in actuality, it eviscerates the hope and joy of the work for so many others affected by the problem person. I also wonder if, in some cases, a leader's stated compassion is, in fact, a cover for lack of courage to address the problem directly.

Resistance to Dealing with a Problem Person

We may encounter considerable headwinds when attempting to remove a problem person from the organization. The person may possess certain attributes deemed vital. Perhaps key technical skills, industry knowledge, or vital sales relationships appear to be irreplaceable.

In making the case for terminating a problem person, the leader should first demonstrate that he is acutely aware of the value the problem person brings to the organization and the risks of firing him or her. The leader ideally demonstrates some sense of calibration for the fallout from the firing and some plan to mitigate the risk. These steps lay the groundwork for change. The CEO should encourage any detractors to express their views in the proper setting, but then seek consensus on the needed action.

Every person serving in an organization has a value/price index. This sounds harsh, so let me point out that I do not mean this existentially or spiritually, but rather in the sense of the value of a person's contribution to the organization and the corresponding price of their involvement. Financial compensation is certainly a consideration but more importantly, some people are very high maintenance (and I don't mean what the person orders for lunch). A problem person often requires a lot of damage control from their actions with others. A CEO who wants to fire a problem person must make a compelling case for how that individual's price exceeds his or her considerable value to the organization.

One approach I've seen used effectively is for the person advocating the departure of a problem person to use a powerful example of damage caused to others. I know of one organization in the Midwest where the CEO disclosed that the most successful vice president of sales in the company's history was considering a job offer from a competitor because he simply could not work one more day with a very toxic vice president of marketing. Everyone knew the head of marketing was a problem, but she brought so much value to the company through social media and other nontraditional channels. Some members of the executive team deemed her to be irreplaceable. When the CEO dropped the bombshell that the VP of sales might leave because of her, it changed the calculus on the VP of marketing's value/price index. The senior team went into a frenzy figuring out how to reel back in the VP of sales, including parting ways with the VP of marketing.

The Him or Me Card

The ultimate escalation in dealing with a problem person is the him or me card. Sometimes opposition to a problem person's departure is intense. The CEO and a few others might feel strongly that a person needs to leave, but others may believe his or her unique value makes that person essential to the future of the company. The him or me card realistically can only be played once in the tenure of most leaders. A CEO of a Florida construction company played this card in a meeting with a group of senior managers in order to fire a very popular (but disloyal) member of the team. It took the opposition's knees out. The problem person was gone within a couple of days; however, the cost to the CEO's standing with the members of the opposition was incredibly high. The CEO will be rebuilding trust for a long time with those leaders who opposed his decision. It was a very heavy-handed move, but the CEO felt the problem person to be so disruptive that he had to go.

Ideally, a strong consensus emerges around helping a problem person to depart the organization, such that no one actively opposes the move. When leaders skillfully manage the departure of a problem person, it often provides tremendous relief. I firmly believe that decisions at the top are more about building alignment among diverse constituencies. Alignment needs to be built so that a critical mass of those impacted most by a decision are on board. When a senior leader determines that a problem person needs to move on, it's really about timing—securing agreement among the right stakeholders.

The Virtue of Redemption

The narrative that is implanted into the collective psyche of an organization when a person with a problem changes, grows, and realizes their potential is of paramount value to the health of any organization's culture, as in the case of David. By the way, he has become a serious CEO succession candidate. Redemptive stories are truly uplifting.

We will now turn our focus to special applications of extraordinary influence. The attention up to now considered the application of these principles to an individual. What is the relevance to teams—the topic of the next chapter.