When Your Best Performer Is Damaging the Team
They bring in the biggest accounts, solve the hardest technical problems or deliver work nobody else can match. They also interrupt colleagues, dismiss questions or leave other people dealing with the consequences of their decisions.
As their manager, you may feel caught between protecting their contribution and protecting the team.
The way forward is to assess both: the results the employee produces and how their behaviour affects other people’s ability to work. Identify specific concerns, hear their perspective and set clear expectations for change. Strong individual results do not make the wider impact irrelevant.
Look beyond the easiest number to measure
Consider a hypothetical salesperson who consistently exceeds their target but promises delivery dates without checking with the operations team. The revenue is visible. The rescheduling, extra work and difficult customer conversations land elsewhere.
Or consider an experienced specialist who answers every question with impatience. Colleagues may stop asking for help, leaving mistakes undiscovered for longer.
Neither example means the employee’s contribution has no value. It means the assessment is incomplete if it stops at sales, output or technical expertise.
Ask what their results require from everyone else. Look for avoidable rework, incomplete handovers, missed information and patterns of disruption. These are more useful starting points than a general impression that someone is “difficult”.
Describe the behaviour before labelling the person
Labels such as “toxic”, “arrogant” or “not a team player” can make a conversation personal before the facts are clear. Translate the concern into something observable.
Broad label | A more useful description |
“They dominate everything.” | “In the last two project reviews, they repeatedly interrupted colleagues before they finished explaining their proposals.” |
“They never cooperate.” | “The agreed handover information was missing on three occasions, and the next team could not complete its work.” |
“They have a bad attitude.” | “They described a colleague’s question as stupid during the team meeting.” |
These examples are illustrative. Use your own accurate observations and distinguish what you witnessed from what someone has reported.
Also check your assumptions. Disagreement, a direct communication style or a different way of working is not automatically damaging behaviour. Focus on relevant standards and impact, rather than whether someone is sociable or similar to the rest of the team.
Ask what the organisation has been rewarding
Before the conversation, examine the conditions around the behaviour.
Have you praised speed while ignoring incomplete handovers? Does the bonus structure reward individual results without recognising the work other teams must do? Have you previously laughed off comments that you now want to challenge?
These questions do not excuse the employee’s actions. They identify management decisions that may also need to change.
It is hard to ask someone to behave differently while continuing to celebrate the shortcuts that created the problem. Make sure your measures, feedback and everyday decisions support the standard you intend to set.
Have a specific, private conversation
For a concern suitable for an initial management conversation, explain what you have observed and invite a response. Avoid opening with an anonymous verdict such as “everyone finds you difficult”. It leaves the employee defending their character rather than discussing events.
A manager might say:
“Your technical work on this project has been strong. I also need to discuss how the reviews are running. Yesterday, you interrupted Maya several times and dismissed her proposal before she had explained it. We did not get to test her reasoning. How did you see that discussion?”
The purpose is to understand what happened as well as to address it. There may be missing context, unclear responsibilities or a genuine disagreement about the events.
Listen without giving up the standard. You can understand why someone was frustrated and still require them to raise concerns respectfully.
For Australian employers, the Fair Work Ombudsman’s guidance recommends identifying specific problems, discussing them with the employee and considering appropriate support and follow-up when managing underperformance. The correct approach depends on the circumstances. Read the Fair Work guidance.
Explain what better looks like
“Improve your attitude” gives someone little to act on. Agree behaviours that relate directly to the concern.
For example:
- Allow colleagues to finish before challenging their proposal.
- Explain the concern with the work without making personal comments.
- Check delivery commitments with the responsible team before confirming them externally.
- Complete the agreed handover before passing work to another person.
Ask what support would help. That might include clearer decision rights, coaching or a change to an overloaded workflow. Agree how progress will be reviewed and keep an accurate record of the discussion.
Avoid treating a generic timeframe as suitable for every issue. The seriousness of the concern, the work involved and any formal process will affect what happens next.
Support the team while keeping individual matters private
Other employees do not need access to someone else’s management discussions. They do need consistent standards and a credible route for raising concerns.
Address behaviour you observe in the moment where appropriate: “Let’s allow Priya to finish, then we’ll come back to your objection.” Reinforce the working process without turning the meeting into a public reprimand.
Check whether colleagues are still carrying unnecessary work or avoiding interactions. Do not require them to absorb the problem while you wait for change, or turn them into informal monitors of another employee.
Recognise when the matter needs a different response
Allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, threats or other serious misconduct should not be reduced to a conversation about being a better colleague. Use the appropriate reporting, assessment and response process, with relevant HR or legal advice where needed.
Equally, do not jump from an uncomfortable interaction to a predetermined disciplinary outcome. Establish the facts and give the employee a fair opportunity to respond through the process appropriate to the situation.
Review the full contribution
At follow-up, look for concrete change: more reliable handovers, space for others to contribute and fewer avoidable disruptions. Consider the quality of the evidence rather than simply whether complaints have stopped.
If the behaviour continues, address it through the appropriate process. Repeatedly resetting expectations without following through makes those expectations less credible.
Before your next performance discussion, write two short lists: what this person contributes, and what their colleagues need from them to do their own jobs well. A fair assessment should be able to discuss both.
Need help navigating HR in your business?
Get practical advice tailored to your team and stage of growth.
