Joe Mull, M.Ed is a healthcare leadership trainer and keynote speaker who works with healthcare organizations that want their leaders to engage, inspire, and succeed. (joemull.com)

TRANSCRIPT:
In almost every workshop, keynote, or training I deliver on engaging employees and improving teamwork, there is a lengthy conversation about toxic employees. These are the folks on your teams who may be technically competent at their jobs, but they create drama, monopolize leaders time, and negatively impact the performance of others. I’ve worked with leaders all over the country who long to eradicate these folks from their workplaces but have failed to do so. That’s why, in this episode of Your Practice Ain’t Perfect, I’ll tell you what’s really the cause of being stuck with a toxic employee. This one’s probably gonna ruffle some feathers. Stick around…

If you are stuck with a toxic employee, I’m going to assume that a few things have happened already. I assume you’ve gotten clear on the behavior that is problematic and that you’ve had multiple feedback conversations with the disruptive person. I assume you’ve been clear about the behavior that needs to stop immediately and the future behavior that needs to start instead, as well as the consequences of not making that change. I assume you’ve been actively documenting the problem, recording specific incidents, behaviors, and followup conversations that have occurred, and consulting with your HR business partners on any corrective action available to you. Maybe you’ve even tried more than once to have this person separated from their position to no avail. If these things have NOT occurred, stop this video now and attend to them specifically, as they are key to both the legal and ethical steps needed to address an actively disengaged employee.

That said, let’s assume that all these things have occurred already, yet the toxic behavior continues. Why is this employee still there? When I ask this question in workshops, I get a variety of answers. They do too many other important things, we can’t afford a vacancy. We can’t get HR to approve termination. I don’t always see them acting out. They’ve been there forever. They’re the doctors favorite. They’re related to the VP.

Let’s be clear about one thing: If an employee who is clearly toxic fails to change in the face of feedback and corrective action and they are allowed to remain, the problem is no longer the toxic employee.

The problem is either leadership or the HR process.

When is the problem with human resources? When documented toxic behavior is allowed to continue out of fear of legal action or an unemployment claim. When this costbenefit analysis takes place, too often it occurs in isolation – as a review of incidents or circumstances. It can fail to account for the toxic employee’s impact on other employees’ engagement and performance, or on the toxic employee’s violation of organizational competencies or values. HR is also the problem when the organization cannot find talent to fill vacancies. That’s an issue of marketing, recruiting, or of compensation and benefits not being adjusted to overcome perceived deficiencies in the opportunity and effectively penetrate the market. Allowing a problematic performer to remain because they might make a fuss when terminated or because “we can’t find anyone else” is malpractice.

When is the problem leadership? In some cases, leadership fears the disruption brought about by a vacancy, so they never take action. In other cases, leaders don’t see the employee as a problem. They have lowered their standards and they are settling. They think that the toxic behavior isn’t really a big deal or a fireable offense. They believe it’s something that can be fixed by a better manager or they believe they have a great employee with some annoying quirks of personality. In this case, leadership is failing to see that, while the employee may be technically competent, he or she is doing harm for every moment they are allowed to remain with the organization. Or perhaps the leadership team has failed to effectively articulate the impact, liability, and threat posed by the continued employment of this person to other key stakeholders. Allowing a proven problematic performer to remain because maybe they can be fixed is fantasy. Their continued employment because the problem is underestimated or not taken seriously is ignorance. Both are a dereliction of duty on the part of leadership.

So there you have it. If you’re stuck with a toxic employee, and you’ve done all the performance management pieces right feedback, documentation, corrective action – the continued presence of that employee is a failure of leadership or human resources. If this is happening where you work, it may be time to reflect on what’s broken and what has to change to fix the people and systems who allow the cancerous impact of toxic employees to continue.