WHITE PAPER

Problem Employees
Identify and Manage Them Before
They Impact Your Business and Career

By: Stephen Young, Jessica Glazer, and Sydney Siver

Contents
Introduction 1
The Business Impact of Problem Employees 2
Characteristics of Problem Employees 4
Taking a Deeper Dive into “Yes, But . . .” Employee 6
Double Trouble: The Impact on Work Groups and Bosses 8
Why It’s Important to Confront Problem Employees 10
An Easy-To-Use Feedback Model 11
Reinforcing Desired Behaviors 13
10 Feedback Best Practices 14
What If Feedback Doesn’t Work? 16
Wrapping It Up: A Call to Action 17
About the Authors 19
References 18
Appendix 20
Introduction

Do you have a problem employee on your team? If so, you’re not alone. It seems that
almost everyone has worked with a problem employee at some point in their career.
And if you ask people to describe these employees, you could fill a dictionary with
the colorful adjectives used. Here are just a few of our personal favorites, culled from
popular press articles and from our interactions with leaders around the globe:

• bad apple • hot mess • passive aggressive

• bully • liar • perpetual victim
• demanding • martyr • slacker
• drama king/queen • micromanager • tantrum-thrower
• explosive • narcissist

Despite the seeming prevalence of problem employees, though, some perplexing

questions remain. Is there a litmus test to determine who is a problem employee and
who isn’t? Is a colleague who digs in his heels on certain issues a “problem employee”?
How about a team member who explodes after a prolonged period of stress? Are the
business articles with caricatures of problem employees [“the droner” (boring), “the
Einstein” (arrogant)] accurately capturing the issues facing managers today?
Unfortunately, there has not been a lot of data available to help leaders to resolve
these questions and define the characteristics of a problem employee in a meaningful
way. As a result, our team at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL®) designed a
study to learn more and to determine which of the many characterizations of problem
employees hold true.
We started by asking a global sample of 214 leaders to describe a current or past
problem employee. Using a rigorous research methodology, we coded their responses
and developed a typology of the most prevalent characteristics mentioned (see
Appendix). We also asked the leaders to rate the impact of the problem employee on
their team and on their personal leadership career.
This paper features the results we uncovered. It also includes best practices for how to
provide feedback to problem employees to encourage them to stop poor behavior and
replicate desired behavior. The process we recommend also increases the likelihood
that your feedback will be heard and understood by problem workers, even those who
are resistant to criticism and change. We hope you will find the information useful as
you set out to identify and manage problem employees in your organization.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 1

 The Business Impact of Problem Employees

Problem employees aren’t just an aggravation. They can be a real business liability. Recent research
shows that underperforming employees can cost an organization $6,000 to $8,000 a day by
reducing the motivation and effectiveness of the entire work group (Menon & Thompson, 2016).
Just consider the experiences of Nancy, a leader who “inherited” a problem employee named Andy.
By the time Nancy took on her new role as team director, Andy had been with the company for
years. By the end of Nancy’s second day on the job, however, she was seeing problem employee
warning signs. When Andy’s name would come up, people would roll their eyes. When she held
one-on-one meetings with her new team members, discussions about “what could improve” always
seemed to involve Andy. His coworkers described him as someone who routinely dropped the ball
and missed deadlines. And he never took accountability for his actions.
Over the next few months, Nancy experienced “Andy issues” firsthand. He would regularly show
up late and unprepared for client-facing meetings, wearing clothing that was far too casual for the
situation. Project groups began to ask Nancy if they could move forward without his involvement.
“We’ll just need to do his work anyway,” they would say.
Despite his shortcomings, everyone seemed to feel Andy was a really nice guy. A single father and
recent empty-nester, he was a doting parent and a good friend. It wasn’t uncommon for him to be
out changing a colleague’s flat tire or talking for hours with a colleague who was going through
tough times. And everyone sympathized with his desire to find a new partner. When Andy started
leaving to go on dates, no one complained. They told Nancy they hoped a happier home life would
help him get things in order at work.

2 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

Nancy wasn’t sure what to make of Andy. Was he a nice guy, but a lousy employee? Was he someone
who once had a lot to contribute and just needed to get back on track? And did the possibility that
he might one day improve even matter if Andy was habitually unprofessional and unproductive?
The experiences of Nancy and her team aren’t unusual. Organizations often spend significant time,
money, mindshare, and emotion trying to figure out what makes problem employees tick and how
to best manage them.
In our leadership development programs at CCL, for example, we find that problem employees
are never far from the thoughts of course participants. In fact, many of the questions fielded by
our faculty members relate to challenges with certain “special” employees. “How can I get Zoe to
stop being so negative? Her attitude ruins every meeting.” Or, “I understand that giving feedback
to employees is important, but if I called Casey on his poor performance, I think it would just get
worse!”
When we ask a group to reflect on a current problem employee as part of a module on conflict
management, we are far more likely to hear “Can I choose more than one!?” than to hear “What do
you mean by ‘problem employee’?”

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 3

 Characteristics of Problem Employees:
What Our Study Has to Say
If you want to be an effective leader, it is important to identify problem employees and
confront their behavior. But what does that problem behavior really look like? What
characteristics separate chronic problem employees from those who are just having a bad day
or a bad week?
When our CCL research team asked leaders around the globe to describe their problem
employees, we found a cluster of 11 prevalent characteristics (see Appendix for full list).
1. Poor Job Performance (25%). One quarter of our leaders said their problem employee
produced work that simply wasn’t up to expectations. Others constantly had to pick up
the slack. These individuals were described with phrases like “in over her head” and
“failed to deliver.”
2. Doesn’t Work Well With Others (24%). Another quarter of respondents identified
their problem employee as someone others didn’t like. These were individuals who had
a difficult time forming positive relationships with coworkers, clients, and customers.
3. Not Responsive to Coaching or Feedback (20%). Our leaders said many of their
problem employees were impervious to feedback and failed to make needed
improvements.
4. Resistant to Change (17%). A significant number of the leaders surveyed also said their
problem employee wasn’t open to change. Some were simply resistant, others outright
refused to change at all.
5. Lacked Responsibility for Their Own Actions (17%). Study participants said their
problem employees frequently failed to take responsibility for their actions and were
more likely to blame others around them for poor outcomes.
6. Negative Attitude (14%). Problem employees were described as individuals grounded
in negativity who never had anything positive to say.
7. Poor Work Ethic (14%). Several said their problem employees exhibited a lack of
commitment to their work. Descriptions included “left early every day” and “regularly
didn’t meet deadlines.”

4 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

11 Problem Employee Behaviors
As Described by Leaders Worldwide

1 Poor Job Performance

2 Can’t Work Well with Others
3 Doesn’t Respond to Coaching
4 Resistant to Change
5 Not Responsible for Own Actions
6 Negative Attitude
7 Poor Work Ethic
8 Arrogance
9 Poor Communication Skills
10 Skills Don’t Match Job
11 “Yes, But . . .” Weaknesses
8. Arrogance (11%). Problem employees were described as “know-it-alls” and as
individuals who believed they were “always right.”
9. Ineffective Communication Skills (10%). Some said their problem employees didn’t
listen and didn’t inform anyone when they were unable to meet expectations.
10. Skills Don’t Match the Job (10%). Certain problem employees were described as being
in the wrong role, with their performance suffering as a result. Others were described as
having been promoted too quickly and “not able to cut it at the senior level.”
11. “Yes, But . . .” employees (10%). Some problem employees had their strong suits, but
those strengths were overwhelmed by major weaknesses. One example: “Smart, but did
not know how to build relationships with clients.”

We also found that 70% of respondents reported that their

problem employee showed 2 or more of the problem behaviors,
45% showed 3 or more problem behaviors, and 24% showed 4
or more problem behaviors. This means that when someone is
thought to be a “problem employee,” he or she is likely to be
experiencing several different issues that need to be addressed.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 5

 Taking a Deeper Dive into the
“Yes, But . . .” Employee
When analyzing our list of top 10 problem employee behaviors, we were particularly intrigued
by the “Yes, But . . .” type. That curiosity led us to take a deeper look at this specific category
of problem employee, where we found nine distinct sub-types of the “Yes, But . . .”

High
Expertise
Hard to
Get Along
With
Loyal
Employee

Good Doesn’t
Intentions Deliver

Likeable
Not a
Good Fit
Hard
Worker

Unwilling
to Work on
Many Weaknesses
Strengths

6 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

 The nine distinct sub-types are:
High expertise but hard to get along with (26%)
Many strengths but unwilling to work on weaknesses (26%)
Loyal employee but doesn’t deliver (22%)
Likeable but doesn’t deliver (22%)
High expertise but not good fit for role (13%)
Good intentions but doesn’t deliver (9%)
Hard worker but doesn’t deliver (9%)
High expertise but doesn’t deliver (9%)
Hard worker but hard to get along with (4%)

Though we found that certain sub-types (e.g., level, are fired, demoted, or held on a career
high expertise but hard to get along with) were plateau. Right up to the point of derailment,
more prevalent in our sample than others (e.g., the superiors of the derailed executives saw
hard worker but hard to get along with), it’s them as having high potential for advancement,
entirely possible that you experience these types impressive track records, and solidly established
of employees in different proportions in your leadership positions (Leslie & Chappelow, 2015).
organization or industry. The key takeaway here is In other words, derailed executives had both
that evaluating employee behavior is not always positives and negatives. The good news is that
clear cut. Employees often have both positives derailment is preventable (Lombardo & Eichinger,
and negatives. And it’s this complexity that makes 1989/2005), and leaders who develop a high level
it hard for managers to confront their employees. of self-awareness and become familiar with the
However, as we review in the next section, a warning signs of derailment can create a plan
manager’s inability to do so can have negative for behavioral change to avoid such a crisis. The
consequences for the employee, the team, and good news for problem employees is that their
one’s career. behavior is also correctable. Research has shown
that employees who are given feedback by their
Though our study asked participants to
managers can develop greater self-awareness and
describe the behavior of problem employees
create a plan for behavioral change to avoid the
(either individual contributors or manager-
dangers of career derailment (Kluger & DeNisi,
level employees), our results also align with
1996). In this white paper, we give you tips about
CCL’s well-known research on the behavior
how to confront these employees and help them
of derailed leaders. Derailed executives are
get better.
those who, after reaching the general manager

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 7

 Double Trouble
The Impact on Work Groups and Bosses
When we asked the leaders in our survey to rate the extent to which their problem employee impacted
five work group-related outcomes, a significant percentage of them agreed that their problem
employee eroded trust, reduced output and innovation, and had a negative impact on both decision-
making processes and the team’s reputation. These results show that problem employees have a
detrimental impact on trust and cohesion within a work group. When team members don’t feel safe
sharing their ideas and input, teams are much less effective (Edmondson, 1999).

How Problem Employees Hurt Work Groups

Reduced Disrupted Damaged

Eroded Reduced Team
Output Decision
Trust Innovation Reputation
Making
42% 38% 41% 35% 30%

This graphic shows the percentage of participants who said their problem employee
negatively impacted aspects of their work group either to a “great” or a “very great” extent.

8 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

We also asked participants to rate the extent to which their own effectiveness as a leader was impacted
by their problem employee. Participants also considered four other personal outcomes, including their
reputation, their desire to stay in their department and organization, and the likelihood of promotion.
Almost one quarter of respondents identified their problem employee as having impacted their
effectiveness to either a “great” or “very great” extent (Figure 2). This confirms the belief that problem
employees can have a negative impact on the career of a leader. When too much time is spent dealing
with these employees, managers end up having less time to handle other pressing leadership issues,
such as strategy and innovation. In this way, problem employees can indirectly damage the careers of
their managers.

How Problem Employees Hurt Leaders

Reduced Impaired Reduced Reduced Reduced

Leadership Reputation in Desire to Desire to Likelihood
Effectiveness Organization Stay in Stay with of
Department Organization Promotion
25% 19% 17% 14% 10%

This shows the percentage of participants who said their problem employee
impacted them personally, either to a “great” or a “very great” extent.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 9

 Why It’s Important to
Confront Problem Employees
As our study shows, problem employees can If you need further motivation, consider this:
have a negative impact on their work group
and on the career of their boss. With the right Leaders who confront problem
moves, however, you may be able to shift the employees are viewed as more
dynamic and produce a more positive outcome promotable by their bosses.
for everyone involved. You just have to be
(McCauley & Lombardo, 1990)
willing to confront your problem employee
about unacceptable behaviors. Despite the positive benefits that can come
from dealing with problem employees, it isn’t
We have long known that confronting problem
a strong suit for most leaders. CCL’s extensive
employees results in better outcomes for
database of competency ratings for 25,000
organizations and for leaders themselves. A
leaders around the globe shows that confronting
classic study of managers shows the benefit
problem employees ranks lowest among the 16
of taking action: Leaders who consistently
key leadership competencies we track (Young,
confronted problem employees tended to
Gentry, & Bendixen, 2016).
achieve better overall team performance
(O’Reilly & Weitz, 1980). Perhaps the skills gap is the reason many of
us tend to bury our heads in the sand instead
Why does confronting problems improve results?
of tackling the issue head-on. Learning a few
In some instances, confronting a problem
feedback techniques can make the process much
employee can result in positive behavioral
less overwhelming. Rather than saving up all the
changes. It may also signal to others what
issues you encounter for one big confrontation,
effective behavior looks like, and it indicates
you can break things down into small, digestible
that managers are paying attention to the
steps that work better for you and your
performance of the team. Finally, other group
employees.
members may be more motivated when they
know that problem employees are being
properly dealt with, rather than being ignored
or left to diminish the work and morale of the
team.

10 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

An Easy-to-Use Feedback Model
CCL recommends that you give feedback using the Situation—Behavior—Impact (SBI™) model.
SBI feedback is fact-based and judgment-free. As a result, you are less likely to raise hackles and
make your employee defensive. That means your feedback is more likely to be received and heard,
especially by those who are resistant to feedback and change.
Here’s how the three-step SBI process works.
Situation. Describe a recent situation in which you observed inappropriate behavior you would
like your problem employee to change. Be as specific as possible. Avoid generalizations and
vague language like “every time you have a deadline . . .” which can lead to disagreement right
from the start.
Behavior. Be equally specific about the behaviors you’ve witnessed. Don’t share opinions or
make assumptions. Instead, focus on objective facts—what the situation was and what occurred.
And deliver the feedback as soon after the incident as possible, while memory is fresh.
Impact. Finally, focus on the impact of the behavior you observed, whether on you personally,
on your team, or on others. Again, be specific and nonjudgmental. Rather than saying something
like “it’s clear to me that you are very rude and you just don’t care about helping our team,”
share what you experienced, saw, or heard. Don’t say anything about the other’s intention.

“During today’s 9 a.m. meeting, while I was at the front

of the room sharing March sales numbers (the recent
situation), you interrupted me three times when I was
mid-sentence, and challenged the information on my
slides twice in front of the whole team (the behavior). As
a result, I was completely flustered and lost my train of
thought. Because I couldn’t finish the presentation the
way I planned, I was unable to make the case for the
budget our team needs, and I feel really frustrated (the
impact on you and on the group/outcome).”

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 11

 Here’s an example of the complete, three-step process in action:
Consider how the same feedback might be delivered in a less effective manner.
A manager giving that feedback might choose to label the behavior, or the
person, as “rude” or “arrogant” (e.g., “it is so rude to interrupt”) instead of just
describing what occurred. Or the manager might choose to deliver the feedback
weeks later in a formal review and generalize the situation as “during meetings,
you interrupt,” which can catch someone off guard. If that occurs, the employee
is likely to spend his or her energy trying to remember the specifics of the
situation, or countering with examples of meetings when that did not occur.
Neither of those reactions are conducive to having a developmental conversation
that will lead to improvement.
You’ll note that at no point in the SBI example does the feedback provider
make any assumptions about the employee’s intentions or worth as a person or
an employee. Instead the focus is on impact, which makes it easier to discuss
the behavior objectively. It turns the process of providing feedback into a
conversation that can lead to better understanding and, ideally, to a shift in the
problem behavior.

12 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

Reinforcing Desired Behaviors
For the best results, feedback shouldn’t be something people associate only with negative
experiences. Giving positive feedback can encourage the continuation of positive behaviors
that your problem employee might exhibit. By giving timely and specific feedback when
the employee is doing things you value, you may improve the odds that the behavior will
continue.
Consider Claire, who usually submits projects to her boss, Mary, days after they are due. Mary
finds Claire’s lateness to be a big concern and would classify her as a “problem employee.”
Today, though, Mary is happily surprised to find that Claire has submitted her current project
on time. Rather than just saying thank you and sighing with relief, Mary would do better to
reinforce the behavior using SBI feedback. It might go something like this:

“Claire, when you handed in your project on time this morning, I was
thrilled. Knowing that I can count on you to meet deadlines makes me
grateful to have you on my team. Richard and Warren were able to start
the next stage of the design, and it looks like we may be able to submit
the proposal ahead of schedule. That can only improve the odds that we
will win the grant we need for this project. Thank you; please keep it up.”

While sharing this positive feedback does not guarantee that Claire will no longer miss
deadlines, it will certainly encourage her and help her better understand the positive impact of
timeliness. It may also make Claire more receptive when Mary needs to provide developmental
feedback on problematic aspects of her performance that still need work.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 13

 10 Feedback Best Practices
As you use the SBI feedback model with problem employees, keep these 10 best practices in
mind (Gentry & Young, 2017).
1. Be timely. The importance of timeliness can’t be overemphasized. Saving up all the
problem behaviors you’ve observed over many days or months and presenting them all
at once is likely to lead to resistance, not change. Deal with issues one by one, as they
crop up.
2. Be open. Be open to a different perspective if the employee provides one. While the
impact may remain the same and the behavior may still not be ideal, understanding the
motivation may shift your perception and lead to a better understanding.
3. Keep it short. Limit the amount of time you devote to providing feedback. Avoid
rambling. Just describe the situation, the behavior, and the impact. Then stop talking
and let the employee respond. SBI feedback is the start of a conversation; it is not a
monologue.
4. Show empathy. Problem employees are more likely to accept and use the feedback you
share if they perceive that you genuinely care about their welfare and don’t worry that
you are out to get them. So take a caring approach as you deliver feedback.
5. Don’t use the “sandwich” technique. Don’t tuck negative feedback between two
positive pieces of feedback. Your problem employee may assume two out of three
isn’t bad and think they’re doing just fine, or they may grow wary of positive feedback
and assume that you are only using it to couch negative comments. Neither option is
desirable.
6. Give positive feedback when it is deserved. Reinforcement may lead to further
positive outcomes. Just don’t wrap positive feedback around the negative feedback that
you want your problem employee to take seriously (See #5 above).

14 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

7. Get the mix right. Aim for at least a 3:1 ratio of positive feedback to negative feedback
(see Gentry & Young, 2017). Studies show individuals are more likely to hear and embrace
negative feedback when most feedback you give them over time is positive.
8. Practice. As you adopt the SBI feedback model, take time to rehearse. Think through
precisely what you want to say and how you want to say it. You may want to write
it down, to ensure that you are not accidentally ascribing intention to the behavior.
Practicing in front of a mirror, or with a trusted friend or advisor, can also help.
9. Don’t try to be a “fixer.” Most of us aren’t open to the notion of someone trying to
change who we are. If your problem employee worries you are trying to do that, defenses
will be raised and your feedback efforts will be wasted. Instead, simply help the individual
become aware of behaviors that need to stop, start, or continue.
10. Create a favorable environment for feedback. Don’t isolate your feedback-giving to
problem employees. Work to build an environment where your entire team embraces
and uses feedback for performance improvement. You can build a favorable feedback
environment by
• improving your credibility (know each individual’s job requirements and performance
standards; and inspire trust)
• giving high-quality feedback
• delivering feedback with care (tactful and considerate, with empathy)
• providing the right amount of feedback (using the ratio in #7)
• being available to give feedback on a regular basis
• and encouraging others to actively seek feedback from you. This may be listed as #10,
but it is essential for effective leadership outcomes to occur.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 15

 What If Feedback Doesn’t Work?
If you’ve repeatedly tried to provide feedback to your problem employee and it isn’t working,
it’s time to consider other options. Sometimes we help people the most by guiding them
to pursue opportunities better suited to their capabilities, though this should, of course, be
approached with care. Seek involvement and counsel from a supervisor, the HR department,
and/or legal counsel. Before you escalate a situation, be sure that you’ve made every effort
to be fair, and that you have kept a written record of the problem behaviors, the impact of
these behaviors, and the feedback that you delivered. This could reduce both pushback from
your superiors or from the problem employee, and it may lower litigation risks or negative
repercussions that might impact internal or public perceptions of your organization.
Here is a summary of best practices from Gilliland and Langdon (1998) that you should
consider (Disclaimer: This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of best practices; you
should consult an industrial/organizational psychologist and/or attorney when establishing
companywide policies).
• Ensure that performance objectives and standards are established in advance, widely
distributed, and clearly explained.
• Be available to answer questions and provide feedback as necessary. This will allow
each of your team members ample opportunity to understand their performance
expectations. When it comes time for a formal appraisal, employees should not be
caught off guard by negative feedback.
• Be intentional about providing feedback regularly and in a timely manner, and
document that you’ve done so. If the problem behaviors are not getting better, you will
be able to prove that you have provided developmental feedback consistently over time
and have a “paper trail” you can produce if needed.
• During the formal appraisal, give your problem employees an opportunity to discuss
your interpretation of their performance and allow them to present any rebuttal
evidence they might have. If you’ve set clear expectations, provided regular feedback,
and have gone through the formal appraisal process, your HR team and legal counsel
can be of greater help to you in finding a resolution.

16 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

Wrapping It Up: A Call to Action
Now that you know the most prevalent characteristics of problem employees, you can begin to
take action.
If this paper has helped you to identify problem employees on your team, it’s time to begin
sharing feedback on a regular basis. While we’ve yet to meet anyone who relishes the delicate
task of confronting a problem employee, it is a skill that each of us can learn to do well. Waiting
is never a smart choice; our study shows that problem employees have a negative impact on your
work group and your career. What’s more, failing to confront the issue does a disservice to both
problem employee and your team as a whole. Your empathic feedback could help a struggling
employee get back on track. And it will ensure that your team, as a whole, feels supported.
So be prepared and be brave. If you get nervous, remember that bosses who provide regular
feedback on a weekly, if not daily, basis are seen as more effective (Gentry & Young, 2017). While
change may not happen overnight, with time and perseverance, you are likely to see positive
changes for your problem employee, your team, and your organization. But remember the
wisdom of Jeannette Rankin: “You take people as far as they will go, not as far as you would
like them to go.” Your will, alone, cannot change a problem employee’s behavior. Do your best,
be empathic yet firm, and try to view this challenge as another leadership lesson in your own
development as a leader.
If this paper has helped you to identify some problem employee characteristics in your own
behavior patterns, don’t worry! Think back on the words of Ernest Hemingway: “There is nothing
noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”
Self-awareness is the first essential step to developing as a leader, and it is a necessary, ongoing
process, almost like a leadership “oil change.” You need to set aside time—annually, weekly,
or even better, daily—to do a quick self-evaluation of your own behaviors, and how they affect
others and your team. You should also seek out candid feedback through in-person conversations
with trustworthy colleagues or by engaging in a 360 assessment to better understand how
others are experiencing you—right or wrong, good or bad. Remember that showing some
vulnerability as a leader can engender more support and respect from colleagues. Modeling this
self-improvement process can also be a great benefit to your team—if others follow your lead, it
can help to turn around the downward trajectory of other problem employees or stop others from
possible derailment.
Our organization was founded on the premise (and the research to support it) that leaders can
develop. Don’t be discouraged if you need to keep honing your skills; be grateful. As we often say
here: the day you don’t have anything else to learn is the day you should find something else to
do. So, again, be prepared. And be brave. You can do this.

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 17

 References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Gentry, W., & Young, S. (April, 2017). Busting Myths about Feedback: What Leaders Should Know.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Retrieved from: https://www.ccl.org/articles/
white-papers/busting-myths-feedback-leaders-know/.
Glaser, B. G., A. L. Strauss. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Aldine, Chicago.
Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998). Creating performance management systems that promote
perceptions of fairness. In J. W. Smither (Ed.) Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice, pp.
209–243.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 254.
Leslie, J., & Chappelow, C. (2015). Throwing the right switches: How to keep your executive career on
track. Center for Creative Leadership White Paper. Retrieved from: https://www.ccl.org/articles/
white-papers/throwing-the-right-switches-how-to-keep-your-executive-career-on-track/.
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1989/2005). Preventing derailment: What to do before it’s too
late. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2016). Stop spending, start managing: Strategies to transform wasteful
habits. Harvard Business Review Press.
McCauley, C. D., & Lombardo, M. M. (1990). BENCHMARKS: An instrument for diagnosing
managerial strengths and weaknesses. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership
(pp. 535–546). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Miles, M. B., M. Huberman. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Weitz, B. A. (1980). Managing marginal employees: The use of warnings and
dismissals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 467–484.
Pratt, M. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing
qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
481–509.
Young, S., Gentry, W., & Bendixen, S. (May, 2016). New Global Reports Capture the Challenges of
25,000 Leaders. Leading Effectively Blog. Retrieved from http://insights.ccl.org/blog/new-global-
reports-capture-challenges-25000-leaders/.

18 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

 About the Authors
Stephen F. Young, PhD, is a senior research scientist at the Center for Creative
Leadership (CCL®) who uses data science to help leaders and organizations
increase their effectiveness. Steve previously worked with Design Interactive as
principal investigator and technical lead for several R&D contracts for the US
Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. In his current
role with CCL, he provides employee engagement solutions (E4) that help
accelerate the return on leadership development investments. Steve has a BA
in psychology and political science from the University of Connecticut. He also
received an MS and PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Florida
Institute of Technology. You can follow Steve on Twitter: @DataForLeaders.
Jessica Glazer Jessica Glazer is a senior faculty member at CCL where
she designs and delivers custom programs that meet the most pressing
development needs of leaders across a variety of industries. In addition, she
serves as both a design solutions consultant and the lead faculty member
for the Maximizing Your Leadership Potential program at CCL’s Greensboro
headquarters with a focus on frontline leaders. She is a certified executive coach
and a key driver of the Center’s work in neuro-based leadership, resilience, and
positive psychology. Prior to joining CCL, Jessica taught in the psychology and
English departments at Harvard University and in the psychology department
and business school at The Johns Hopkins University. While at Hopkins, she also
led the MBA career education and advising department. Jessica holds a BA in
sociology from Brandeis University and an MS in mental health counseling from
Johns Hopkins University. You can contact her at [email protected] or follow her @
jessicaglazer.
Sydney Siver supported our CCL research team during our “problem employee”
study. She now works as an analyst with Denison Consulting while pursuing
her PhD in industrial/organizational psychology at Wayne State University.
She previously worked with Paradigm Personality Labs. Sydney has a BS in
psychology and a BA in sociology from the University of Georgia, as well as an
MA in industrial/organizational psychology from East Carolina University.

To learn more about this topic or the Center for Creative Leadership’s programs and products,
please contact our Client Services team.
+1 800 780 1031     +1 336 545 2810     Mail to: [email protected]

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 19

 Appendix
About the Research
• Data used for this white paper comes from leaders in CCL’s Leading Insights panel
polled June, 2016.
• Our final global sample included 214 members (men=107, women=107) with 71% coming
from the U.S.
• These 214 leaders came from various organizational backgrounds, with the most
being corporate (51%) followed by nonprofit (16%), education (13%), other (11%) and
government (10%).
• Of our respondents, 10% were at C-level, 18% were executives, 32% directors, 30%
managers of individual contributors, and 10% other.

Procedure and Analysis

• Panel members completed an online survey that consisted of questions associated with
problem employees. Members were asked: “In your own words, describe a specific
‘problem employee’—a subordinate who directly reports to you or has reported to you
in the past.”
• Members were asked to keep this same “problem employee” in mind as they rated
the extent (1 = to a very little extent or not at all, 5 = to a very great extent) to which
this person has reduced their effectiveness as a leader, likelihood of a promotion,
desire to stay in their department, desire to stay in the organization, reputation in the
organization, trust within their work group, work group output, work group innovation,
work group reputation in the organization, and work group decision-making processes.
• Several well-known sources were drawn on and reviewed to ensure that best practices
for analyzing qualitative data were followed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman,
1994; Pratt, 2008).
• A team of four researchers coded the qualitative data. First, one coder independently
categorized responses to the problem employee question. These categories were then
aggregated to form a preliminary coding system by three additional members who
made up the primary coding group. The coding system was then discussed among this
group, refined, and consolidated for use on the whole sample. Each category was given
a specific definition and example in order to calibrate coders on a common frame of
reference. Each of the 214 responses were independently coded by two researchers, and
inter-rater reliability was calculated as percent agreement (total number of times two
raters agreed divided by total number of responses coded). Coder agreement ranged
from 64%–99% (83% average). A third coder provided a final ruling on all existing
disagreements. 27 distinct types of problem employees emerged. Mentions of indicators
were then counted.
• All quantitative statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS.

20 ©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

Key Findings
• Close to half of our participants reported that their problem employee impacted trust and
output within their work group to “a great extent” or “a very great extent”; more than one-
third of participants said work group innovation, decision-making processes, and reputation
within organization were similarly impacted by the problem employee.
• Close to one quarter of respondents reported their problem employee impacted their
effectiveness as a leader to “a great extent” or “a very great extent.” Slightly fewer leaders
reported that their problem employee harmed their reputation within the organization, their
desire to stay in their department or organization, and the likelihood of their promotion.
• The most frequently mentioned characteristics of problem employees spanned a range of
distinct yet closely related issues. The top three mentioned, included “poor job performance,”
“doesn’t work well with others,” and “not responsive to coaching or feedback.”
• There were two demographic differences in participant responses. Women were significantly
more likely to report having a problem employee with “poor work ethic,” “lacks responsibility
for own actions,” and “skills don’t match job.” Participants at larger organizations were more
likely to report having greater numbers of problem employees who are “self-interested.”

List of All Problem Employee Types

Poor Job Performance (25%) Lacks Professionalism (7%)
Doesn’t Work Well with Others (24%) Dishonest (7%)
Did not Respond to Coaching or Feedback (20%) Overtly Aggressive (7%)
Lack of Responsibility for Own Actions (17%) Emotionally Unstable (6%)
Resistant to Change (17%) Self-Interested (6%)
Lack of Initiative/Poor Work Ethic (14%) Intimidating Management Style (5%)
Negative Attitude (14%) Defensive (5%)
Arrogant (11%) Confidential or Nothing (4%)
Skills Don’t Match Job (10%) Disrespectful (4%)
Doesn’t Meet Work Deadlines (10%) Gossiper (4%)
Lacks Effective Communication Skills (10%) Passive Aggressive (3%)
“Yes, But . . .” (10%) Chronically Absent (3%)
Insubordinate (8%) Substance Abuse Issue (1%)
Low Self-Awareness (8%)

©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved. 21

 The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL®) is a top-ranked,
global provider of leadership development. By leveraging
the power of leadership to drive results that matter most
to clients, CCL transforms individual leaders, teams,
organizations and society. Our array of cutting-edge
solutions is steeped in extensive research and experience
gained from working with hundreds of thousands of
leaders at all levels. Ranked among the world’s Top 5
providers of executive education by the Financial Times
and in the Top 10 by Bloomberg Businessweek, CCL has
offices in Greensboro, NC; Colorado Springs, CO; San
Diego, CA; Brussels, Belgium; Moscow, Russia; Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia; Johannesburg, South Africa; Singapore;
Gurgaon, India; and Shanghai, China.

CCL - Americas CCL - Europe, Middle East, Africa CCL - Asia Pacific
www.ccl.org www.ccl.org/emea www.ccl.org/apac
+1 800 780 1031 (US or Canada)
+1 336 545 2810 (Worldwide) Brussels, Belgium Singapore
[email protected] +32 (0) 2 679 09 10 +65 6854 6000
[email protected] [email protected]
Greensboro, North Carolina
+1 336 545 2810 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Gurgaon, India
+251 118 957086 +91 124 676 9200
Colorado Springs, Colorado [email protected] [email protected]
+1 719 633 3891
Johannesburg, South Africa Shanghai, China
San Diego, California +27 (11) 783 4963 +86 21 6881 6683
+1 858 638 8000 [email protected] [email protected]

Moscow, Russia
+7 495 662 31 39
[email protected]

Affiliate Locations: Seattle, Washington • Seoul, Korea • College Park, Maryland • Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ft. Belvoir, Virginia • Kettering, Ohio • Huntsville, Alabama • San Diego, California • St. Petersburg, Florida
Peoria, Illinois • Omaha, Nebraska • Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan • Mt. Eliza, Victoria, Australia

Center for Creative Leadership® and CCL® are registered trademarks owned by the Center for Creative Leadership.
©2018 Center for Creative Leadership. All rights reserved.

April 2018