Online exclusive
Sandy Burgham is a principal at Play Contemporary Leadership CoLab, a consultancy practice specialising in leadership development and organisational culture. Her fortnightly This Corporate Life column on listener.co.nz explores the trails and tribulations of modern working life.
There is often one person in a team or group who is the Problem Child.
It’s usually the employee who is cynical and critical of the team or organisation’s attempts to change. Problem children are usually low in self-awareness and this is not helped by conflict-avoidant leaders who are lax at giving direct feedback.
So, the Problem Child continues with their behaviour, often taking on the idea of being the naysayer as a type of persona. They might even delude themselves that they are an important agitator speaking for the crowd, defending their antics by saying, “I’m the only one with the courage to say anything around here.” This might be true on one level, but the issue is that their real motivations are egoic rather than heroic, ie, Problem Children live in a fantasy that they are Juror 8, the protagonist of the famous courtroom drama 12 Angry Men.
Juror 8 refused to go along with popular opinion just because it was convenient to do so. But what Problem Children don’t understand is that Juror 8 was peaceful and compassionate. Problem Children are the opposite of this; they actually enjoy throwing cultural hand grenades.
Often, Problem Children create a bit of a fiefdom with those within their power. The latter act like dedicated fans, but don’t usually have a lot of choice, particularly if the Problem Child is their boss. The group then becomes a guerrilla unit and fancy themselves an important resistance movement to cultural change. They can’t seem to see that they have become cultural terrorists for an organisation that needs to radically reinvent because of the very employee behaviour they are demonstrating.
There is a lot of HR energy focused on working around this particular employee. The Pareto principle would apply here – ie, the idea that 80% of HR energy goes into 20% of the problem children. More self-sufficient and positive employees do not get so much attention, even though it would be a far better return on investment to spend more time on them.
Because constructive criticism is often never really addressed directly with the Problem Child or is delivered poorly, these Problem Children simply move from organisation to organisation, causing havoc wherever they go.
Rather than having direct conversations that call out the Problem Child’s behaviour, the energy invested is in the extra emotional labour to work around the roadblock – talking about the person rather than to the person.
In our practice, we make it a rule not to spend time coaching the Problem Child even if asked, as it would simply be enacting the Pareto principle. Rather, we turn the lens to the person with the most power to change the situation. The usual response to managing the situation, after months of collateral damage, is to restructure a whole business unit in order to make the Problem Child redundant.
For some reason, this seems easier than dealing with issues as they arise, head on. While a leader will position the decision to restructure a team as a good opportunity to look at leadership-bench strength, the question is never asked why deadwood is there in the first place.
Because constructive criticism is often never really addressed directly with the Problem Child or is delivered poorly, these Problem Children simply move from organisation to organisation, causing havoc wherever they go. I know one who has been in at least three organisations during five years, but no one has had an effective conversation with them to try to understand why they are acting in such a destructive and Machiavellian way.
It is uncomfortable talking to someone about how they show up negatively; there is the risk that the other person will get defensive, unpredictable or even worse for some – “emotional”. I have coached many leaders who needed support in having a hard conversation with a Problem Child when the latter held all the social power in a dysfunctional business unit.
When confronted, it is not uncommon for the Problem Child to dissolve into floods of tears, divulging personal life situations that one might think was “too much information”. Leaders who are unpractised (and unskilled) at having tough conversations find it awkward enough having the conversation in the first place. So, tears make the whole thing even more excruciating, but getting behind the bravado can be a real breakthrough for all involved.
Often when one effectively performance-manages the Problem Child, the scaffolding of the latter’s identity becomes destabilised. From a coaching perspective, this is the place of growth, not only for the Problem Child but also for the leader. It all starts with having the courage to open a conversation, one that will initially feel uncomfortable for both parties. But if it feels uncomfortable, then it’s probably leadership.
