One of Steve Jobs first positions in the corporate world was at the legendary game-maker Atari. (Pong anyone?) Eventually Atari’s management put him on the night shift. It seems Jobs prickly personality and hygiene habits (he didn’t bathe regularly) were putting off his co-workers. Atari’s management recognized Jobs talent but didn’t quite know what to do with him. Thus, they ‘fenced’ him. On the night shift, Jobs could still contribute while having far fewer interactions with others.
Jobs was a ‘productive misfit’—someone who was obviously capable but, for whatever reasons, didn’t really fit in. Sometimes the reason(s) the ‘productive misfit’ doesn’t fit in is of their own doing, sometimes it isn’t. Regardless, the dilemma for leadership is—what do you do with them? You want the production, but you don’t want the drama that goes with it.
Be clear that the productive misfit typically has a unique (and challenging) personality—either a non-conformist, an over-achiever at heart, a contrarian, or just an (unbridled) stallion. Sometimes it’s combinations of all four!
Fundamentally there’s three options for productive misfits—you can fix ‘em, fence ‘em, or fire ‘em. Notice we’re talking about people who are productive (or could be). We’re not talking about the non-productive employee, a disgruntled employee or someone who is just a naysayer.
Atari ‘fenced’ Jobs—they took him out of the mainstream and had him work more independently. Sometimes this works, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s not possible to ‘fence’ someone due to operational dynamics. Terrell Owens, the brilliant (but culturally poisonous) wide receiver who once starred for the San Francisco 49ers, would have been an ideal candidate for such an arrangement absent his playing a team sport.
In Jobs case he was exceptionally bright, saw himself as special, and felt that the rules didn’t apply to him—a natural set of conditions when considering whether to ‘fence’ someone or not. Turns out, Atari had operating flexibility on its night shift and that’s where Jobs ended up.
Misfit mega producers are natural candidates for the ‘fencing’ option…as it initially feels like a better option than firing the individual. For instance, consider the partner in the law firm who brings in 30% of the firm’s revenue (a gargantuan amount) based on one long-standing mega-client. No one in the firm knows much about this client …as the partner who serves the client is not forthcoming (others call it secretive) about the client’s issues and needs. The partner, in effect, has created a dependency—which only he can fulfill.
Given that the partner in question is eighteen months away from retirement…the other partners are between a rock and a hard place. Firing the misfit partner (if that were even possible) would more than likely result in losing the prized client…and the enormous revenue stream that goes with it. For now, the partner in question has effectively ‘fenced’ themselves– much to the chagrin of his fellow partners.
Of course, firing can be an option…but most leaders typically consider this a last resort. Unfortunately, this often delays the inevitable. General Myers (the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) told me about a wildly successful general they once considered for promotion from two star to three star. They ultimately passed on him (effectively firing him). The reason? The guy was a renegade…and the approach he used as a two star to get his impressive results would surely backfire on the bigger stage brought on by a three star’s responsibilities. Worse yet, the general selectively lived the values the organization subscribed to.
This last point—a disconnect in values—is often where many ‘values-centered’ organizations draw the line when it comes to firing ‘productive misfits’. Because values are considered to be a fundamental prerequisite to such an organization’s success, no one is above them—regardless of one’s ability to produce in the short term. Getting results the wrong way in a company like GE or Nucor Steel will get you shown the door.
Of course, coaching (fixing people) is always an option. It’s commonly the first tool pulled from the ‘three f’ bag in attempting to help productive misfits. Coaching can certainly help…and there are many approaches when considering coaching options…but you first must be dealing with a willing candidate…one you can confidently envision achieving success. For strong personalities (e.g. the two star general or Steve Jobs for that matter) coaching may not prove to be particularly helpful.
It takes great judgment when dealing effectively with productive misfits…largely because there’s a myriad of factors in play. The choices are pretty limited and ultimately require as much courage as they do judgment. In the end, what makes the process easier is being extremely clear about your values and as an organization what you’re trying to be. When you’re clear about these two items, what you should do about the productive misfit often becomes rather intuitive.