The recent dismissal of the popular National Football League (NFL) player Terrell Owens serves as a classic example of what can happen when a "star" among employees, due to their talents, is forgiven for too long for behavior that others wouldn't get away with. Rumors suggest that Owens was fired from the NFL Eagles for repeated provocative behavior, alienating teammates, coaches, and fans alike. Despite Owens' evident success on the football field, it was decided that his behavior outweighed the benefits of his athletic talent and jeopardized the overall success of the team. All that stuff might be crusial if you're going to place a bet in the online casino.
According to Wharton School management professor Lawrence Hrebiniak, in any organization, power is closely tied to dependency: "When an organization rarely encounters someone with the skills and qualifications of an employee, that individual's power inevitably increases. If a person has such influence, they find themselves at the center of the organization and may violate rules more often than other employees."
However, even such a valuable employee can go too far, and then their behavior puts the entire organization at risk. "How employers compromise between talent and provocative behavior depends on how much they value teamwork and the overall morale in their organization," says Wharton professor of management Peter Cappelli. "If you have a 'star' working in sales who is difficult to communicate with but performs well outside the office, you might tolerate their behavior because it simply doesn't affect the company's performance. But where teamwork is crucial, you're unlikely to want to endure it for long."
Managing unruly "stars" is especially challenging in situations that require both outstanding results and collaboration and harmony within the team. This is particularly noticeable in team sports. According to Cappelli, Owens' dismissal is a signal to those who do not contribute enough to the overall prosperity of their organization, and for the company, it's an exercise in setting priorities.
For those unfamiliar with Owens' history, it's worth noting that this athlete, long known as a troublemaker, signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Eagles in 2004. However, this did not prevent him from openly criticizing the club's management for refusing to renegotiate the contract terms and pay him more money, and later, criticizing the players and team decisions in an offensive manner. Although Owens later held a press conference and apologized, there are no plans to bring him back to the Eagles.
The Owens scandal also raises ethical questions since destructive behavior from key employees, if not stopped, can go against the values of organizations whose code of conduct requires mutual respect from staff. If the company's management begins to adhere to double standards and turns a blind eye to the unworthy behavior of its key managers, it contributes to the internal decay of the organization. At the same time, "stars" in such cases get the opportunity to see that the general rules of ethics do not apply to them.
"Managing stars is an extremely difficult task even for the most experienced managers," says Katherine Nelson, an ethics consultant involved in top-management training programs. "Managing a high-performing employee with good interpersonal skills is hard enough. If these skills are weak, your job goes from being difficult to downright nightmarish. Almost nothing can destroy a work team faster than an arrogant or rude 'star' demanding special treatment. Ignoring such behavior is like throwing a grenade into the boardroom because the effect of such an attitude immediately affects the team's efficiency."
The most serious threat that a capricious star poses is to the company's reputation. By declaring a certain code of conduct on paper and not adhering to it in practice, the organization loses the trust of its employees, which is the beginning of a disease that undermines the company from within.
However, experts point out that not all key employees are dangerously protruding nails that need to be immediately hammered down to align them with everyone else. As long as the "star's" work produces results and their behavior does not conflict with the organization's values, the company gains a significant advantage. But when management feels that an employee's behavior becomes egregious, fundamentally clashes with the organization's principles, and sets a bad example for others, it's worth at least having a conversation and issuing a warning. Of course, in most cases, making an immediate drastic decision is not advisable – perhaps giving the "star" a second chance would be better. But if soft methods of influence prove futile, it's essential to remember that no one is irreplaceable. Letting go of a star is undoubtedly very difficult, and when making such a decision, it's crucial to carefully weigh all the pros and cons.
The other side of the coin is employees who are pleasant to deal with but do not deliver tangible results. According to Katherine Nelson, managers cannot afford to tolerate "good" employees just because they don't rock the boat: "If, after careful prioritization and goal-setting, the 'star' still doesn't try to interact normally with other employees, and a pleasant colleague produces results, both should be shown the door."
According to Cappelli, there is something common between the world of team sports and corporate business, namely – in both cases, rewarding key players directly depends on their individual achievements. In the latter case, this is especially true in sales and senior management. The task is to accurately determine each team member's contribution to overall success. "The real dilemma for sports teams is that they can't identify an individual's genuine contribution as a person, not just as a team member," notes Cappelli. "They can talk all they want about teamwork, but the money still goes to the stars."
