What if the office 'genius' is really a nightmare?

Flicker user CheciA p

Dear Evil HR Lady,

The company I work for, like many high-tech IT companies, has a guy who is very skilled and inventive but who behaves like a madman. He insults embarrasses, and abuses fellow staff -- to the extent that some of them get depressed and cry. He is never on time with anything, causing confusion, and he is tyrannical. Anyone who tried to work for him quits. Whatever prototype or half-finished product he has created may be novel, but they are typically unstable, causing dissatisfaction among our early-user clients and driving them to change suppliers. The products take 2-3 times longer than normal to get into the marketplace. He listens to no one, especially not sales and marketing personnel.

The executive management seems to think he is indispensable (like themselves), and our nightmare goes on year after year. I've seen IT staff at other companies who are twice who are highly inventive, develop products that work right the first time, and make money for the company. They may be on the nerdy and shy side, but at least they are nice. I think it is wrong and unethical to allow the above.

[My personal view is that] if the abusive IT person is retained, he should be carefully locked up in a lab and supervised by specially trained guards. In fact, they have put him in an an office that is far out of the way, but they forgot to chain him.

What is your view? What can be done?

The smart thing to do here is to find a new job and quit. That is what many of your coworkers have done and what everyone who has contact with this employee should do. In fact, I think you should look directly at the suppliers your customers have fled to, as they most likely have a better attitude towards work.

But the real question is, why on earth does a company's management ignore and even encourage this type of behavior? It's not uncommon for there to be an "untouchable" person in the office who everybody but the boss can't stand. So what makes the bosses blind?

First of all, as you said, the guy in question really is skilled and smart and has some great ideas. The powers that be are aware of these great ideas and then the see the end failures. But instead of saying, "Gee, this guy can't execute anything to save his soul!" they say, "Holy cow, think how bad off we'd be if we didn't have this great idea in the first place!" Or, "Oh no! We just lost Client X. If we didn't have this guy's good ideas, surely we'd lose Client Y, too." They flat out don't see that the source of these "great" ideas is also the source of the problems.

And in management's mind, the mass exodus from this guy's department must be due to people not understanding his "genius" rather than the fact that he's a jerk. Because you lack the power to terminate this employee, company leaders are terrified to function without him, and he makes everyone miserable, it's time for you to go. Let them continue to dig their own graves. The chances of them recognizing and fixing the problem is slim to none.

Have a workplace dilemma? Send your questions to [e-mail].

Photo courtesy of Flickr user CheciA p

[ChrisAnanda]

Seems like a typical case of a spoiled brat. Those can be trained sometimes. You can keep in mind that they are just misbehaving kids, and do what a good parent would (except, unfortunately, give them a time out). There is a good book (and a blog) on these techniques: Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant, by Lynn Taylor (tameyourtot.com). It deals with bad bosses AND bad co-workers.

[RMSx32767]

I read the article and found no genius; only at least one self-centered git who produces shyty products which are late. However, he has mastered the most necessary skill for job security and advancement; arsekissing.

[ibsteve2u]

Hmmm...guess I read people differently, because I see all I need to know in the sentence "The executive management seems to think he is indispensable (like themselves)"...

It isn't JUST the "office genius" who is the object of the correspondent's resentment; if that were true, the sentence would have been phrased more naturally...on the order of "The executive management seems to think he is indispensable to them/the company".

So me, I would suspect that the "office genius" isn't the problem, at all...rather, I find it more likely that the "office genius" really does have an extraordinary skill set and the correspondent - likely frustrated because said "office genius" occupies a higher-paying leadership position (indicated by the "anyone who tried to work for him") that the correspondent wants - is stooping to politics in lieu of talent or acquired skills.

For support, I would point to the correspondent's apparent experience at many other companies as indicated by "I've seen IT staff at other companies who are twice who are highly inventive [sic]..." which suggests that they have never been seen as "invaluable", and further note that the correspondent apparently cannot claim to have been one of those highly inventive individuals themselves yet still lays claim to the technical knowledge required to discern the difference.

Again a marker of those who seek advancement through politics.

[joaquarius]

"...executive management seems to think he is indispensible..."

What does his immediate manager think? What, indeed, does his immediate manager DO? Performance has a number of dimensions and every employee has the right to be properly managed so they can perform. Presumably the employee who distresses you is either performing to expectations (or being coached to do so) or else his manager has abrogated his own responsibilities relating to non-performance - and the manager is therefore failing to perform.

Your personal views are just that - personal views. Unless this employee is doing something incompetent, illegal or unethical for which you have evidence which you are prepared to present, follow Evil HR Lady's advice and find yourself a job elsewhere which you find congenial.

[www.web-atlanta.com]

I immediately saw in the writer's opinions the denigration of another. I find it implausible that the characterization of this persons work ("unstable", "causing dissatisfaction", "2-3 times longer than normal", "listens to no one") is fair.

Maybe the writer is just whiney?

[LeadDiscovery]

Being directly insulting on a personal level is in-excusable.

However, its important to understand the creative rogue. As suggested above a person like this has had success because they do not follow the leader. In addition, they will tend to state their opinions directly and sharply. They will challenge "The norm" and even show a distaste for having to deal with run of the mill ideas generated to please upper management. Leaders push, challenge and be critical and that can cause friction.

Again, nobody should be allowed to dissrupt the entire dept. And if personal insults are part of the mix, s/he should be terminated. If that is not the case, understand this personality type for what it is...a maveric, a rogue. Use his rough edges so sharpen your team's saw, take on his challenge and beat him


PS: In the office Steve Jobs was not the soft fuzzy smart guy you see in TED presentations. He was aggressive and pointed, when backed up with success that was just fine with employees and shareholders.

[dougmielke]

The picture painted of this person begs a very straightforward approach.

Spend time in a private conversation encouraging an attitude shift citing the specific reasons why you are speaking. Include written notes as follow-up from this chat, period of time to get with the program (3 months max) and ramifications if the behavior does not change - termination.

Nobody is so valuable that they get a pass while causing other staff to leave and sending clients away.

[roblearns]

The problem, as stated, makes it clear what action should be taken. Fire the guy. But I would take this problem description with a grain of salt.

Highly talented people do produce results and they don't listen to suggestions at times - indeed shouldn't not listen to suggestions at times. The late Steve Jobs comes to mind, he made many a controversial decision, but his style produced good results. There are often very good reasons not to listen to suggestions. One example of a good reason, is when that suggestion will make the product worse. Another is when the person making the suggestion, can't justify what they are saying, and obviously hasn't understood the task, which happens quite a lot.

Many a company has produced mediocre products listening to mediocre types - where everyone is happy and heading headlong into mediocre results (and sometimes worse - bankruptcy).

Management is often timid - but rarely do you find a company with truly insane management. If they keep someone around, it's likely because they've concluded that finding a replacement, could result in disruptions and even worse performance in the future.

[LBrentWalker]

I had a guy like this on a very small staff for waaaay too long. He caused intense divisions within the staff, played mind games with people, and ultimately devised a plan to walk away with 20% of my business and become a competitor. I should have fired the bastard at the first sign of trouble...but he was really good at what people came to us for. #LessonLearned

[smartistartist]

When people quit, do they have an exit interview, or in anyway tell management about this guy? If these things are happening, then they should be documented, even if it is just the employees documenting. We had a guy like this a number of years ago, and by the time his behavior escalated, he had been diagnosed with a mental illness. And once this happened, it took alot to get rid of him because he was 'protected' by his diagnosis!!!