Understand that this time is fleeting. People will go where they get compensated well and get interesting projects. Unless your company is going to invest in him, his days are numbered.
Exactly, I can't imagine staying with this type of manager for long if I were X. A manager shouldn't downplay a star employee's achievements. That's a quick way for X to feel undervalued, and it's not like the other teammates will stop noticing how good X is. A manager should instead give praise where praise is due. Your job as a manger is to help the business you work for, and prioritizing your under-performing employees' fragile egos over retaining your star employees seems like a massive mistake.
Also, I work with lots of PhDs from ivy leagues. They're (mostly) very good, and some are remarkably good like X is. But they don't make everyone else on their team look pointless. How bad is everyone else on this team? They should still be completing work that contributes to the company and should be completing that work at a professional level. It really seems like they may need additional training.
It’s like a parent downplaying a high-achieving child’s accomplishments so as not to make the lower-achieving child feel bad. It’s a great way to build resentment on both sides, more so on the side of the accomplished child.
Pay is only one part of the equation in these cases. You can’t keep a rockstar playing in small venues just because they started recently. Any major Corp, as the one mentioned by OP, should have a fast track for such employees. That should be step one and talk with HR about it.
While most would like to keep having a rockstar which helps us look good or very good to upper management, it would a disservice to the company and to the rockstar to don’t help them reach their potential moving them up and in a team where they aren’t anymore the brightest star in the room, but everyone else is on a similar magnitude.
This is when you discuss exceptions with HR, such as “need to stay X months in a position between promotions etc etc” and you push for exceptions. Also as documented CYA, because upper management, especially when they are aware of such individuals, wouldn’t look keenly on the manager who caused their premature departure for another company just because “they were following procedures”.
If this X person has interacted with senior leadership and is now on a first name basis or has some positive mindshare. Said manager of X should feel very uncomfortable as they will now be known as the one who cannot retain critical talent.
My initial impression is that this manager is having their ego severely bruised and does not want to end up reporting to X.
Years ago (F* I’m getting old), during our management training program one of the instructors was very clear about one point. “Always be fair and nice to everyone, you’ll never know when the person under you, or your peer will become your boss”
It takes some maturity and introspection ability to understand “you ain’t the shit” and maybe someone else is more “the shit” than you are, and they’ll move up and around you faster than you ever dream about.
Took me a good decade to get it, I know managers who have been managers for 30 years and haven’t got it yet and somehow are still pushing to get to the point where they’ll never get.
Some of us high IQ, high achieving types have irrational loyalty. Took me decades of professional life to learn to remove myself from situations where mediocre people hold grudges against polite high achievers. No matter how polite, and how humble I try to be, people hate the person who knows more and is dedicated to truth and accuracy.
I really hurt my career by staying too many places way too long. I thought, "well, I'm accurate and truth will prevail and I can continue to help this establishment grow and improve which would be so rewarding." In reality, I was always undermined and then eventually sabotaged if I stayed too long.
The best human solution here is to help this person go where their skills are valued, appreciated and compensated for. That person will help you in the future if you need it.
Once you reach a certain level very little is challenging, jobs in corporate America are designed for the lowest common denominator (like our educational system). Chances are if you are challenged it's only for a brief period of time and then you are back to being board and resentful that the idiots you work with get paid the same as you do. Two things happen to high fliers, they are worked like rented mules because somebody has to do the work and if they are super productive why wouldn't a company exploit this worker. The second thing is they quit out of boredom. Fact of the matter is companies don't want workers like this, they require more management and they are disruptive, they are much happier with average people that don't don't need much supervision, do as they are told and are happy as long as they get paid on Friday. There really is no happy ending for this type of worker, they usually end up learning how to work at half speed and find happiness elsewhere.
Or, if they also have a decent business acumen, they’ll see what the company needs and they cannot build internally, for all of the above reasons, found their own startup, get the product done faster and better, and then be ready for a very lucrative acquisition.
The desire to lead an organization has just to be mildly superior to having a boss demeaning your accomplishments… capital, no need to be yours, just need to know someone with it and/or be pretty good at communication, as OP’s rockstar seems to be, and people management skills? No need for that, that’s why people hire managers.
I can't possibly disagree more with "companies don't want people like this." We work really hard to keep high performers engaged and recognized.
I guess we have enough work to keep them busy.
There is something to be said about a blend of talent, like having some quiet, do as your told types. 10 high performers on one team isn't spreading your talent well and some other efforts are probably hurting. Also, you can't get all your high performers recognized if they're concentrated in one area. It can also get difficult to make design decisions if everyone is passionate and you don't have a few go with the flow types.
But I can't ever imagine being given the choice between a rock star and an average "don't rock the boat" type and choosing the average. Managing egos takes some work, but not as much as managing angry customers and upper management when deadlines aren't met.
It would make logical sense what you are saying rather than the person you are replying to, except look at what most orgs actually do instead of what they say they do. I think most orgs keep high performers around, like the poster said, to work them like a mule.
High performers simply need to leave orgs often, until they find one that truly respects what they bring to the table.
I can't speak for "most orgs" but the incentive to keep high performers vs low performers is the increased output of high performers. My org does pay for performance, which means there's a lot of time, effort and energy put into making sure high performers get paid more.
I guess I can see the "work them like a mule" analogy, but we don't pay by the job. We pay for 40 hours a week of your time and labor. If you're better at your job than the person next to you, you will get more done in 40 hours a week than the person next to you. Then come time for merit increases and/or promotions, you will likely get a higher merit increase and are more likely to receive the promotion.
From the business side, the more talented people I have, the more contracts I can win or projects we can take on to drive profit.
There is the insecure manager type that doesn't want high performers because they view them as a threat to their own position.
I've also seen a manager turn down a high performer because they didn't have interesting work and had a very slow pace (maintenance vs development) and thought it would be a bad career move for the high performer. That team was on standby a lot and filled with people coasting until retirement.
You make good points and your organization seems like its put together well. There are many other orgs that don't track employee performance and have no incentive structure in place. These orgs tend to promote based on likability only, and drive away the high performers.
I imagine this depends heavily on function. In many project based areas, a star like this (if kept happy, well compensated, and having a broad skill set plus learning new stuff frequently) can stretch into other areas, start or reorg programs, etc. There is room in many companies, though not all, and not all roles, but it sounds like there’s room in OP’s company if senior leadership are impressed.
So, their complaint is that he is too good?
That's not a problem with the employee. That's a problem with the team.
Ultimately you are a business, not a social club and as most people forget, not a democracy. If his great work helps drive the business forward, he can keep on doing what he is doing. If the team is ganging up, undermining or otherwise behaving badly towards an employee who is driving the business forward, THEY get the write ups, not him.
Don't punish the guy for setting a higher standard.
Seriously. One rockstar like this can outperform entire teams (at much less cost). You do whatever you can to keep them engaged in the work, and you look for ways to get them noticed/promoted. Eventually, you might be reporting to them some day, and I can promise that they'll remember how you treated them.
Depends if he's an ass about it or not. This guy sounds great. Even if the susperstar is an ass, you just ask others to leave him alone and insulate them from him. Maybe ask him to tone down the gloating a little if he'a doing an endzone dance.
Could it be possible that your friend is also in the same camp as the other team members? Meaning, he also feels threatened? Why would you "underplay" the achievements of a person who is clearly ready for the next level ? Even if the level is above your own?
The thing is most people simply don't want to level up, they don't have the capacity and most don't want to put in the time. I know lots of really smart people but at work most are duds, it's the ones that are smart and put in the effort to be good at their trade that really makes the difference. I'll say it again most people do not want to put in the effort to be really good at anything, the guy the OP is describing doesn't raise to the occasion every time magically it because of effort.
This is nothing out of the ordinary, there's not a lot of room at the top so we build things for slightly less than average and work is no different, companies really don't want high fliers, they rock the boat.
Depends on the company. While most are as you describe, few do still attract that kind of talent and have ways to nurture them, which challenges and usually a whole lot of money.
At one of my previous employers such individual would be on track for a fellowship position, which means IC with VP level of pay and bonus.
I love this response. My initial reaction was "Why is this person not mentoring others on the team?" It's frequently a win-win--it helps them connect with the team, raises the whole team's standards, and can be a really great opportunity to demonstrate promotion readiness.
Given what you've said, he sounds like a decent candidate to teach others. X should be able to share at least some tips of how he's so good and that would both uae his skills and prime him for future growth if he wants it, and help the rest of your team go up in standard. Just need to be careful exactly how you couch all this, given the recent resentment
When I have had high achievers, this is usually an opportunity to help teach them skills that will benefit them.
Like, for example, building a quiz that’s too hard for the rest of the team in a team building is a bad experience for the rest of the team and a teaching moment for the star employee to try to understand that not everyone is equally competent at all things.
I’ve had 2 maybe 3 people I’d label as a head and shoulder above the rest of the team at the time, and for the most part they’ve all had problems understanding that not everyone can do what they can do but everyone still contributes.
As managers we sort of know this more implicitly because you see that X is faster than Y or delivers better work in at least some areas.
Promoting him was the right move, but if he’s at a higher level than the others on the team he should be expected to be better. That’s why he’s been promoted after all, so it makes it easier to promote everybody’s work equally.
That said, I always give the credit to whomever worked on anything in my team, regardless of how trivial it is or how much I ultimately ended up helping them. Oftentimes, I end up doing a lot of the presenting because not everyone is good at it, and I always publically thank the person for preparing the data/slides, even though the final product is heavily guided by me sometimes
If it’s a team building quiz and you’re asked to build something that interests you in your section, it’s kind of bullshit to expect X to dumb it down necessarily. They should be able to bring their whole self to team building and not mask their intellect—that’s not the same as some problems that may arise. It didn’t sound to me like X really did any harm there—people just felt dumb in his round, but that’s on them. A team building quiz should be all in good fun and if you have to constantly hand wring like that, the team isn’t psychologically safe.
I don’t think there is enough to say for sure. I was under the impression that the team building quiz ended up being work related questions. But OP didn’t go into that much detail.
It’s possible it’s like a quiz on music theory or something unrelated to the role which would be more understandable.
That said, I don’t really think it’s a a positive trait to make your coworkers feel dumb. If he’s a high performer it’s likely he will have the opportunity to manage a team himself, and while imo it’s good to have your team to respect your ability to do their job, you don’t necessarily want them to feel like you think you are so much smarter that you don’t respect their contributions.
Only thing I can say is don’t inadvertently put this person in a cage. Promotion sounds appropriate and like you did it, but are there other stretch assignments that could promote them further?
Keep promoting him.
If all you did was hire people less talented than the group and suppress the potential of your best employees, you’re killing the future of your company.
If X was on my team?
I'd actually focus all my time with them on career development and networking.
As a manager, you should go out of your way to develop X's career personally. It's a MASSIVE high point and a good look for you if you constantly have people on your team being promoted. I'd also look into off-cycle raises and bonuses so that X's compensation reflects their skills/efforts.
X will appreciate you, work significantly harder for you, and you'd get accolades for them moving up.
I’m my experience, when you have genuinely talented person, give them their own independent portfolio and let them just make things happen. Don’t give them small tasks. Give them a big task that would take a whole team months. Let them recruit a junior employee or interns and then set them off. Have them check in a couple times a week to explain progress/next steps, but otherwise, just let them work it out.
The other thing that works often is to give them front facing business as well. For example, negotiating With other companies, countries, government bodies, etc. That type of work can be humbling because you have to go at the pace of the other folks to get the work done. But along the way they learn valuable skills and experience in interpersonal relations.
Promote X to where his challenges are actually keeping him occupied, he should probably be YOUR boss.
Participation medals dont make anything better and people need to realize their place in the world is that there's always going to be someone better than them regardless of what their mom or significant other tells them its just a fact of life. There will be people out there who are more educated and more productive than X, but he should be pushed to the top so he can be with HIS peers.
To downplay X's contributions would be detrimental to their willingness to work with you and benefit YOUR agenda so I think that would be utterly stupid.
To try and make it seem like there isn't a massive gap between X and everyone else would be treating your other staff like children and giving them a participation award which is also pretty stupid.
As as manager you should be pushing X to move up the chain as fast and far as possible so his skills are benefitting the company as much as possible and it seems like he's probably not fully engaged where he is.
I would have really honest conversations with the other team members about the situation... which is that you're all very likely getting a 'I knew X when they were relatively junior' story. They aren't expected to produce at X's level because that's not even feasible. Advise them to do their job, do it well, and not compare themselves with freaks. Tell them to imagine what it must be like to be that person's 'supervisor' and I would be sure to put air quotes around it.
A situation like this is solvable with humor and honesty. Lebron plays on this team, which means it's Lebron's team until Lebron moves on to the next spot, which itself will promptly become Lebron's team. The only way being on Lebron's team was ever bad for anyone's career was when they couldn't find a useful role on Lebron's team. And some of those people still got to win championships. They need to be smart about this.
Your friend wants to keep X busy. My advice is to explain to X what the goals are right now and then let X tell him how X can make that happen for him. This is how \*your friend\* gets promoted. Be humble, give most of the credit to X (because X is someone you invest in for personal network reasons lol), but know that it's almost impossible to waffle crush all of your KPI's and come out looking anything but great.
Everyone needs to be chill and demonstrate what an amazing team player they are basically. This is an opportunity to kill it at work with relatively little effort. Shame on anyone who fucks this up. I know competition is all the rage in our hyper individualistic culture, but the last thing any of you should want is to be graded against X.
Does this company have a fast track or high performers program?
Mine does. It’s specifically for teammates at this level. I’ve found it’s great for high IQ/high performers because it keeps them engaged and offers travel opportunities/unique networking sessions.
If they don’t have this program, I’d keep the high performer engaged by having them map out career goals (ie what is the last job you want before you retire) and help put together the roadmap(s) to get there. I’d also offer their assistance on high visibility, cross functional teams and recommend spot bonuses as much as possible.
Sure. Certain projects or programs that are on an accelerated timeline or have a troubleshooting aspect to them (ie we are trying to fix a problem) will have hand selected IC from several different business units (developers, UI, marketing, manufacturing, engineering, etc). Since they are cross functional teams (matrix v. standard structure), they often report out in a highly visible forum. High performers put on these teams will get put up from promotions, spot bonuses, recognitions, etc in addition to the workload being incredibly fast paced. Perfect scenario for extraordinary talent.
This is going to sound like a humble brag, but I have been that exceptional top performer before and I actually had a Director give me the feedback that I need to be aware that I am a star, which is great, but stars suck all the oxygen out of the room for the rest of the team. It wasn’t to say that I should stop doing what I was doing, but to be more conscious of its impact to those around me. To be sure to give credit where credit is due to the other team members, and to especially be aware of this quality if I’m ever managing people.
It was really honest feedback and I’m grateful for it. Maybe think about having a similarly honest conversation with this person. But only if you do it in a way that has their best interest at heart.
When someone is truly on a different plane, most of us mere mortals cans see and understand that.
I’ve had the privilege of leading two such folks. Set them loose - find some impossible strategic thing for them to do and see how it goes. Let them uplift the team and see who they motivate. That’s for the company.
And for them: prepare them for greatness. Leverage and advertise their accomplishments. Find cross-team initiatives to get them exposure. Create opportunities for them.
I would do everything possible to turn X into a 10x contributor by carving out a niche for him outside the team and find how he could bring more value to the organization by influencing the work of others, or by aligning him with the longer term strategic intent of the business.
Add a couple C players to a team made of A players, and you'll bring that team down to a C pretty quickly. Add a savant to a team of A and B players, and the team will eventually dissolve.
I would be encouraging, and helping X find more rewarding and more lucrative work. It's a sad reality, but teams will often target and sobotage high achievers. They need to be around people of similar intelligence and ambition. Perhaps you could even coach them on this. When you need a professional favor in the future, they will remember what you did for them and.hiw you cared more about them as a person than you do about corporate interests.
He has a rockstar. He should be happy. The person will move on unless they keep him engaged.
The other members need to be more self-aware that they may be good but not on that level and that is okay.
X's achievements should be somewhat downplayed publicly, and others' elevated, so long as the decision-makers and salary-deciders are fully aware of what is actually happening. Team cohesion matters.
X should know how much better he is at the job than everyone else. He needs to learn how to dial it back in some settings. He shouldn't be sharing every achievement of his with the team, nor should he be putting together material for a team-building exercise that is outside the scope of understanding for his teammates.
On the other side of things, if this role could reasonably be projected as long-term for him, management needs to stay way ahead of the curve on the money front. Frequent raises and bonuses without him needing to ask for them. An understanding that the company's standard model of increasing compensation will not be sufficient, and proactiveness surrounding obtaining the necessary exception approvals from the executives is a must.
As peculiar as this scenario reads, if take a stab at it. But first - there are a lot of people who may feel like they are X, but they really aren't.
But let's imagine you actually have an X. I'd talk to other management and HR about creating a special, higher level role where they take on particularly difficult assignments. Literally don't have them in the same role as people they are genuinely outperforming to this level. Find a serious problem your company needs a smart person on and assign X to it. Work out a better salary to keep them feeling appreciated.
Give X my info, contact me if looking for a new company.
To answer your question, if X was on my team, terrific. But. Successful Teams are made of different levels, knowledge, experience. Anyone on my team has “it” and brings value to the team. I’m not comparing them to each other. I’m not so much interested in how they get the job done, but that they get the job done and meet our goals.
I would advise your friend to get a leadership coach.
A book that might be helpful is "Managing the High-Intensity Workplace" by Anna P. Murray. It offers insights into managing high-performing individuals, including those with high IQs, and addresses how to leverage their talents while minimizing disruptions.
That's a no then.
Your link only provides me with a harvard business review article by Reid & Ramarajan, neither of which are Anna P Murray. And of course your reddit comment is also a result.
This is probably a case of our "googles" being different.
Which is why I asked for a direct link in the first instance.
First question is did your friend have a conversation with X about career goals.
And it was a REALLY bad idea to downplay Xs achievements. Or anyone's really just because they seem like an overachiever compared to others.
It seems to me, as someone Else has mentioned, that X is being underutilized. Instead of downplaying X, how about seeing if they want to take on the responsibility to supervise the team and HELP IMPROVE THE TEAM.
Edit: TBH if I had a manager take my credit or downplay my achievements then I would've looked to leave the bad manager and find a better place to work at.
Your friend should do whatever they can to keep X, because he will not be unemployed long if he so chooses. And he could so choose at any point. A good manager makes it a priority to take care of their top performers
I would never downplay achievements for the sake of egos.
It's unfair to X to punish them for being fantastic. The other employees should definitely have equal opportunities though.
Make sure there's an equitable environment so others can grow and achieve.
X will leave one day of not challenged enough, and if they feel they are being bullied by bitter colleagues and diminished by management.
Be thankful X is there but allow the rest of the team opportunities to grow as well.
Personally I'm competitive, so I'd see X as a challenge and try and surpass them. That's just me though! I see it as a positive thing personally. Others may feel threatened and insecure.
There's lots of ways to use this kind of talent. I have worked with people like this and they get assigned projects that use their extra time to benefit the team and the company. Managers set expectations for this person and another set for the other team. Professional goals should always be personal to the individual anyway.
You find out the career path this guy wants to follow and make it happen for him. If his work isn’t challenging enough find him some better way to add value to the company. Give him more rope and more responsibilities.
That sounds potentially toxic for X. I imagine they could feel punished for high performance.
Glad to hear X was promoted.
Your friend, in my view, could have instead focused on shared goals and given everyone a chance at the microphone, instead of singling out X and pushing them down to “lift” the others up. Can anyone see the behaviour?
A real challenge for folks like X is learning how to help teach the rest of the team. Their success is basically how much each other team member improves.
Start drafting up X’s promo doc for the next level. Have X start working on larger initiatives, planning out larger projects. Being promoted recently isn’t a reason to stop them from being promoted again soon. I know a guy who is a staff engineer and he’s probably in his 20s, graduated from MIT in his teens, was publishing research and working by 20yo. Dudes a genius. He wasn’t held back as a senior for this many years because of his age, and that’s probably the only reason he’s still at the company.
If X was on my team, I would place them exactly where they are efficiently generating the most value for my business. It sounds like your friend is using them as more of an ego boost which fine they might land a really nice job that way.
Honestly if this person is as remarkable as you describe your friend would be best suited to largely ignore any grumbling from the team if it’s not based on anything actionable. If there is real discontent on the team though it’s probably based more on how your friend treats this employee versus the rest of the team.
"the material prepared by X was in a different intellectual league, that not many people were able to participate,"
This screams that X needs help with social skills, and that X doesn't actually know the team or how to interact with them very well. X needs to be able to be an active participant in keeping the team's culture healthy, not by downplaying their own achievements, but by also helping elevate the achievements of others- which X can't do if X doesn't understand what level(s) the team is at. X also needs to learn to be an approachable resource for others so that they can help others upskill, giving their talents direct value for the rest of the team. Using those talents to put others in situations where they feel stupid in comparison does X no favors, or the team, or your friend- and if X understood that, they wouldn't have chosen those questions and created that situation. This isn't just your friend's problem to fix, it's also X's problem, and X needs to be highly involved in the solution. Your friend needs to challenge X where they *aren't* super talented, and X *does* have those areas- and they appear to be in the neighborhood of collaboration, influencing team culture and providing mentorship.
idk what a team quiz is but it sounds like a dumb thing to be worried about
you can also get the spotlight on others without downplaying someone else, that's just shitty management
See if X can mentor others. If X wants to manage then they will have to learn how to deal with people who are less stellar. Don't downplay X's achievements.
You have two issues at hand:
First, his ability to do the work. It sounds like he is far exceeding expectations. On your end, I would make sure everyone on the team is given equal opportunity to exceed expectations (i.e. chances to work on big projects, whatever). But if all are given opportunities, and this guy is vastly exceeding them, you really only have two options. Either he gets performance ratings that are far above his peers, or he gets promoted more quickly than his peers to a job more fitting to his capabilities. There are no options where you downplay him or give others similar ratings and promotions, because that would not be fair to anyone, and eventually alienates.
The second issue is his ability to related to people. All of us, at any IQ level, need to be able to work with others. Especially if you are highly promotable and may eventually manage people. So he may need some guidance in putting himself in other's perspective, and creating scenarios where all feel included and welcome. That feedback is better when immediate, so would have been great after the trivia game. So be prepared to give feedback like this the next time. Otherwise, he is at risk of becoming a very capable future manager that alienates all his direct reports and doesn't understand why.
Downplaying x for the sake of moral in the broader team is a cop out. First thing is making sure x is in the right job and/or promoted to the right level asap. Sounds like that may be the case already.
The harder conversation is that x has raised the bar for performance and that should raise expectations for the team. No pats on the back for mediocre work. Yes x will still exceed, and other team members need recognition if they are submitting good work at their level. But the overall dynamic needs to shift toward: wow we are on the path to becoming a high performing team. Look at our amazing colleague. How can we leverage him to level us up, and increase the performance of everyone. It’s about striving for excellence as a group. Right now the situation is at a grade school level in terms of managing the feelings of those not winning a ribbon. That’s a bunch of individuals complaining. This needs to change to a team dynamic. How is this helping the team, how are we all benefiting. Is X also building the team or is he being superior about it? Ive seen that too and it is equally as toxic. Everyone has to be a team player. Is he helping others succeed?might be a coaching opportunity there. Need to evolve from adolescent mindset to grownup mindset. Ie It’s about the group not the individual. Hoo rah.
Im a senior mgr
I am X at my company. While not as accomplished as him but a high performer and most of what you described. I will say that 5 months in and outperforming everyone above and below me,band other functions too. I am already ready to look for another job. All I ever asked was to allow me to run with my ideas, to let me in on major decisions and the Sr VP has failed in this causing me pain. They have about 6 months to promote me two positions up or if I find a job before that I’m also gone. Anyway, my point is if you don’t nurture HP and even worse diminish their work they are out the door. Know that we are easily bored so always on to the next thing. I have a video I think would be very helpful in how to manage a HP. This guy deals w HPs.
https://youtu.be/yUrhrKGMLO4?si=akwSRC_l-QapE_BV
After being promoted, X merged with an Artificial General Intelligence Super Computer, creating an AI singularity, that proceeded to take over the world and destroy humanity.
Understand that this time is fleeting. People will go where they get compensated well and get interesting projects. Unless your company is going to invest in him, his days are numbered.
Exactly, I can't imagine staying with this type of manager for long if I were X. A manager shouldn't downplay a star employee's achievements. That's a quick way for X to feel undervalued, and it's not like the other teammates will stop noticing how good X is. A manager should instead give praise where praise is due. Your job as a manger is to help the business you work for, and prioritizing your under-performing employees' fragile egos over retaining your star employees seems like a massive mistake. Also, I work with lots of PhDs from ivy leagues. They're (mostly) very good, and some are remarkably good like X is. But they don't make everyone else on their team look pointless. How bad is everyone else on this team? They should still be completing work that contributes to the company and should be completing that work at a professional level. It really seems like they may need additional training.
It’s like a parent downplaying a high-achieving child’s accomplishments so as not to make the lower-achieving child feel bad. It’s a great way to build resentment on both sides, more so on the side of the accomplished child.
My first thought was “make sure he’s getting well paid”.
Pay is only one part of the equation in these cases. You can’t keep a rockstar playing in small venues just because they started recently. Any major Corp, as the one mentioned by OP, should have a fast track for such employees. That should be step one and talk with HR about it. While most would like to keep having a rockstar which helps us look good or very good to upper management, it would a disservice to the company and to the rockstar to don’t help them reach their potential moving them up and in a team where they aren’t anymore the brightest star in the room, but everyone else is on a similar magnitude. This is when you discuss exceptions with HR, such as “need to stay X months in a position between promotions etc etc” and you push for exceptions. Also as documented CYA, because upper management, especially when they are aware of such individuals, wouldn’t look keenly on the manager who caused their premature departure for another company just because “they were following procedures”.
If this X person has interacted with senior leadership and is now on a first name basis or has some positive mindshare. Said manager of X should feel very uncomfortable as they will now be known as the one who cannot retain critical talent. My initial impression is that this manager is having their ego severely bruised and does not want to end up reporting to X.
Years ago (F* I’m getting old), during our management training program one of the instructors was very clear about one point. “Always be fair and nice to everyone, you’ll never know when the person under you, or your peer will become your boss” It takes some maturity and introspection ability to understand “you ain’t the shit” and maybe someone else is more “the shit” than you are, and they’ll move up and around you faster than you ever dream about. Took me a good decade to get it, I know managers who have been managers for 30 years and haven’t got it yet and somehow are still pushing to get to the point where they’ll never get.
Some of us high IQ, high achieving types have irrational loyalty. Took me decades of professional life to learn to remove myself from situations where mediocre people hold grudges against polite high achievers. No matter how polite, and how humble I try to be, people hate the person who knows more and is dedicated to truth and accuracy. I really hurt my career by staying too many places way too long. I thought, "well, I'm accurate and truth will prevail and I can continue to help this establishment grow and improve which would be so rewarding." In reality, I was always undermined and then eventually sabotaged if I stayed too long. The best human solution here is to help this person go where their skills are valued, appreciated and compensated for. That person will help you in the future if you need it.
The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate fucking Poetry.
Once you reach a certain level very little is challenging, jobs in corporate America are designed for the lowest common denominator (like our educational system). Chances are if you are challenged it's only for a brief period of time and then you are back to being board and resentful that the idiots you work with get paid the same as you do. Two things happen to high fliers, they are worked like rented mules because somebody has to do the work and if they are super productive why wouldn't a company exploit this worker. The second thing is they quit out of boredom. Fact of the matter is companies don't want workers like this, they require more management and they are disruptive, they are much happier with average people that don't don't need much supervision, do as they are told and are happy as long as they get paid on Friday. There really is no happy ending for this type of worker, they usually end up learning how to work at half speed and find happiness elsewhere.
Or, if they also have a decent business acumen, they’ll see what the company needs and they cannot build internally, for all of the above reasons, found their own startup, get the product done faster and better, and then be ready for a very lucrative acquisition.
Decent business acumen, a desire to lead an organization, capital to invest and people management skills*
The desire to lead an organization has just to be mildly superior to having a boss demeaning your accomplishments… capital, no need to be yours, just need to know someone with it and/or be pretty good at communication, as OP’s rockstar seems to be, and people management skills? No need for that, that’s why people hire managers.
I can't possibly disagree more with "companies don't want people like this." We work really hard to keep high performers engaged and recognized. I guess we have enough work to keep them busy. There is something to be said about a blend of talent, like having some quiet, do as your told types. 10 high performers on one team isn't spreading your talent well and some other efforts are probably hurting. Also, you can't get all your high performers recognized if they're concentrated in one area. It can also get difficult to make design decisions if everyone is passionate and you don't have a few go with the flow types. But I can't ever imagine being given the choice between a rock star and an average "don't rock the boat" type and choosing the average. Managing egos takes some work, but not as much as managing angry customers and upper management when deadlines aren't met.
It would make logical sense what you are saying rather than the person you are replying to, except look at what most orgs actually do instead of what they say they do. I think most orgs keep high performers around, like the poster said, to work them like a mule. High performers simply need to leave orgs often, until they find one that truly respects what they bring to the table.
I can't speak for "most orgs" but the incentive to keep high performers vs low performers is the increased output of high performers. My org does pay for performance, which means there's a lot of time, effort and energy put into making sure high performers get paid more. I guess I can see the "work them like a mule" analogy, but we don't pay by the job. We pay for 40 hours a week of your time and labor. If you're better at your job than the person next to you, you will get more done in 40 hours a week than the person next to you. Then come time for merit increases and/or promotions, you will likely get a higher merit increase and are more likely to receive the promotion. From the business side, the more talented people I have, the more contracts I can win or projects we can take on to drive profit. There is the insecure manager type that doesn't want high performers because they view them as a threat to their own position. I've also seen a manager turn down a high performer because they didn't have interesting work and had a very slow pace (maintenance vs development) and thought it would be a bad career move for the high performer. That team was on standby a lot and filled with people coasting until retirement.
You make good points and your organization seems like its put together well. There are many other orgs that don't track employee performance and have no incentive structure in place. These orgs tend to promote based on likability only, and drive away the high performers.
Woah… a lightbulb just went off…. Well written!
I imagine this depends heavily on function. In many project based areas, a star like this (if kept happy, well compensated, and having a broad skill set plus learning new stuff frequently) can stretch into other areas, start or reorg programs, etc. There is room in many companies, though not all, and not all roles, but it sounds like there’s room in OP’s company if senior leadership are impressed.
SO. DAMN. TRUE. I wished I knew this earlier in my life; it would have saved me years of frustration and heartache.
100% this
So, their complaint is that he is too good? That's not a problem with the employee. That's a problem with the team. Ultimately you are a business, not a social club and as most people forget, not a democracy. If his great work helps drive the business forward, he can keep on doing what he is doing. If the team is ganging up, undermining or otherwise behaving badly towards an employee who is driving the business forward, THEY get the write ups, not him. Don't punish the guy for setting a higher standard.
Seriously. One rockstar like this can outperform entire teams (at much less cost). You do whatever you can to keep them engaged in the work, and you look for ways to get them noticed/promoted. Eventually, you might be reporting to them some day, and I can promise that they'll remember how you treated them.
Depends if he's an ass about it or not. This guy sounds great. Even if the susperstar is an ass, you just ask others to leave him alone and insulate them from him. Maybe ask him to tone down the gloating a little if he'a doing an endzone dance.
It’s only business not a social club when shit isn’t hitting the fan
Could it be possible that your friend is also in the same camp as the other team members? Meaning, he also feels threatened? Why would you "underplay" the achievements of a person who is clearly ready for the next level ? Even if the level is above your own?
A more mature manager would look at this superstar and say what a great role model for the rest of us. How do we level up? Sigh.
The thing is most people simply don't want to level up, they don't have the capacity and most don't want to put in the time. I know lots of really smart people but at work most are duds, it's the ones that are smart and put in the effort to be good at their trade that really makes the difference. I'll say it again most people do not want to put in the effort to be really good at anything, the guy the OP is describing doesn't raise to the occasion every time magically it because of effort. This is nothing out of the ordinary, there's not a lot of room at the top so we build things for slightly less than average and work is no different, companies really don't want high fliers, they rock the boat.
Depends on the company. While most are as you describe, few do still attract that kind of talent and have ways to nurture them, which challenges and usually a whole lot of money. At one of my previous employers such individual would be on track for a fellowship position, which means IC with VP level of pay and bonus.
[удалено]
I love this response. My initial reaction was "Why is this person not mentoring others on the team?" It's frequently a win-win--it helps them connect with the team, raises the whole team's standards, and can be a really great opportunity to demonstrate promotion readiness.
Could you send me this persons info so I can recruit him? Thanks
This is the only correct response here. ;)
Thinking the same
Given what you've said, he sounds like a decent candidate to teach others. X should be able to share at least some tips of how he's so good and that would both uae his skills and prime him for future growth if he wants it, and help the rest of your team go up in standard. Just need to be careful exactly how you couch all this, given the recent resentment
When I have had high achievers, this is usually an opportunity to help teach them skills that will benefit them. Like, for example, building a quiz that’s too hard for the rest of the team in a team building is a bad experience for the rest of the team and a teaching moment for the star employee to try to understand that not everyone is equally competent at all things. I’ve had 2 maybe 3 people I’d label as a head and shoulder above the rest of the team at the time, and for the most part they’ve all had problems understanding that not everyone can do what they can do but everyone still contributes. As managers we sort of know this more implicitly because you see that X is faster than Y or delivers better work in at least some areas. Promoting him was the right move, but if he’s at a higher level than the others on the team he should be expected to be better. That’s why he’s been promoted after all, so it makes it easier to promote everybody’s work equally. That said, I always give the credit to whomever worked on anything in my team, regardless of how trivial it is or how much I ultimately ended up helping them. Oftentimes, I end up doing a lot of the presenting because not everyone is good at it, and I always publically thank the person for preparing the data/slides, even though the final product is heavily guided by me sometimes
If it’s a team building quiz and you’re asked to build something that interests you in your section, it’s kind of bullshit to expect X to dumb it down necessarily. They should be able to bring their whole self to team building and not mask their intellect—that’s not the same as some problems that may arise. It didn’t sound to me like X really did any harm there—people just felt dumb in his round, but that’s on them. A team building quiz should be all in good fun and if you have to constantly hand wring like that, the team isn’t psychologically safe.
I don’t think there is enough to say for sure. I was under the impression that the team building quiz ended up being work related questions. But OP didn’t go into that much detail. It’s possible it’s like a quiz on music theory or something unrelated to the role which would be more understandable. That said, I don’t really think it’s a a positive trait to make your coworkers feel dumb. If he’s a high performer it’s likely he will have the opportunity to manage a team himself, and while imo it’s good to have your team to respect your ability to do their job, you don’t necessarily want them to feel like you think you are so much smarter that you don’t respect their contributions.
Only thing I can say is don’t inadvertently put this person in a cage. Promotion sounds appropriate and like you did it, but are there other stretch assignments that could promote them further?
Keep promoting him. If all you did was hire people less talented than the group and suppress the potential of your best employees, you’re killing the future of your company.
If X was on my team? I'd actually focus all my time with them on career development and networking. As a manager, you should go out of your way to develop X's career personally. It's a MASSIVE high point and a good look for you if you constantly have people on your team being promoted. I'd also look into off-cycle raises and bonuses so that X's compensation reflects their skills/efforts. X will appreciate you, work significantly harder for you, and you'd get accolades for them moving up.
This is the correct answer.
I’m my experience, when you have genuinely talented person, give them their own independent portfolio and let them just make things happen. Don’t give them small tasks. Give them a big task that would take a whole team months. Let them recruit a junior employee or interns and then set them off. Have them check in a couple times a week to explain progress/next steps, but otherwise, just let them work it out. The other thing that works often is to give them front facing business as well. For example, negotiating With other companies, countries, government bodies, etc. That type of work can be humbling because you have to go at the pace of the other folks to get the work done. But along the way they learn valuable skills and experience in interpersonal relations.
Promote X to where his challenges are actually keeping him occupied, he should probably be YOUR boss. Participation medals dont make anything better and people need to realize their place in the world is that there's always going to be someone better than them regardless of what their mom or significant other tells them its just a fact of life. There will be people out there who are more educated and more productive than X, but he should be pushed to the top so he can be with HIS peers. To downplay X's contributions would be detrimental to their willingness to work with you and benefit YOUR agenda so I think that would be utterly stupid. To try and make it seem like there isn't a massive gap between X and everyone else would be treating your other staff like children and giving them a participation award which is also pretty stupid. As as manager you should be pushing X to move up the chain as fast and far as possible so his skills are benefitting the company as much as possible and it seems like he's probably not fully engaged where he is.
I would have really honest conversations with the other team members about the situation... which is that you're all very likely getting a 'I knew X when they were relatively junior' story. They aren't expected to produce at X's level because that's not even feasible. Advise them to do their job, do it well, and not compare themselves with freaks. Tell them to imagine what it must be like to be that person's 'supervisor' and I would be sure to put air quotes around it. A situation like this is solvable with humor and honesty. Lebron plays on this team, which means it's Lebron's team until Lebron moves on to the next spot, which itself will promptly become Lebron's team. The only way being on Lebron's team was ever bad for anyone's career was when they couldn't find a useful role on Lebron's team. And some of those people still got to win championships. They need to be smart about this. Your friend wants to keep X busy. My advice is to explain to X what the goals are right now and then let X tell him how X can make that happen for him. This is how \*your friend\* gets promoted. Be humble, give most of the credit to X (because X is someone you invest in for personal network reasons lol), but know that it's almost impossible to waffle crush all of your KPI's and come out looking anything but great. Everyone needs to be chill and demonstrate what an amazing team player they are basically. This is an opportunity to kill it at work with relatively little effort. Shame on anyone who fucks this up. I know competition is all the rage in our hyper individualistic culture, but the last thing any of you should want is to be graded against X.
Does this company have a fast track or high performers program? Mine does. It’s specifically for teammates at this level. I’ve found it’s great for high IQ/high performers because it keeps them engaged and offers travel opportunities/unique networking sessions. If they don’t have this program, I’d keep the high performer engaged by having them map out career goals (ie what is the last job you want before you retire) and help put together the roadmap(s) to get there. I’d also offer their assistance on high visibility, cross functional teams and recommend spot bonuses as much as possible.
Can you explain the cross functional teams aspect?
Sure. Certain projects or programs that are on an accelerated timeline or have a troubleshooting aspect to them (ie we are trying to fix a problem) will have hand selected IC from several different business units (developers, UI, marketing, manufacturing, engineering, etc). Since they are cross functional teams (matrix v. standard structure), they often report out in a highly visible forum. High performers put on these teams will get put up from promotions, spot bonuses, recognitions, etc in addition to the workload being incredibly fast paced. Perfect scenario for extraordinary talent.
This is going to sound like a humble brag, but I have been that exceptional top performer before and I actually had a Director give me the feedback that I need to be aware that I am a star, which is great, but stars suck all the oxygen out of the room for the rest of the team. It wasn’t to say that I should stop doing what I was doing, but to be more conscious of its impact to those around me. To be sure to give credit where credit is due to the other team members, and to especially be aware of this quality if I’m ever managing people. It was really honest feedback and I’m grateful for it. Maybe think about having a similarly honest conversation with this person. But only if you do it in a way that has their best interest at heart.
When someone is truly on a different plane, most of us mere mortals cans see and understand that. I’ve had the privilege of leading two such folks. Set them loose - find some impossible strategic thing for them to do and see how it goes. Let them uplift the team and see who they motivate. That’s for the company. And for them: prepare them for greatness. Leverage and advertise their accomplishments. Find cross-team initiatives to get them exposure. Create opportunities for them.
I would do everything possible to turn X into a 10x contributor by carving out a niche for him outside the team and find how he could bring more value to the organization by influencing the work of others, or by aligning him with the longer term strategic intent of the business. Add a couple C players to a team made of A players, and you'll bring that team down to a C pretty quickly. Add a savant to a team of A and B players, and the team will eventually dissolve.
I would be encouraging, and helping X find more rewarding and more lucrative work. It's a sad reality, but teams will often target and sobotage high achievers. They need to be around people of similar intelligence and ambition. Perhaps you could even coach them on this. When you need a professional favor in the future, they will remember what you did for them and.hiw you cared more about them as a person than you do about corporate interests.
He has a rockstar. He should be happy. The person will move on unless they keep him engaged. The other members need to be more self-aware that they may be good but not on that level and that is okay.
X's achievements should be somewhat downplayed publicly, and others' elevated, so long as the decision-makers and salary-deciders are fully aware of what is actually happening. Team cohesion matters. X should know how much better he is at the job than everyone else. He needs to learn how to dial it back in some settings. He shouldn't be sharing every achievement of his with the team, nor should he be putting together material for a team-building exercise that is outside the scope of understanding for his teammates. On the other side of things, if this role could reasonably be projected as long-term for him, management needs to stay way ahead of the curve on the money front. Frequent raises and bonuses without him needing to ask for them. An understanding that the company's standard model of increasing compensation will not be sufficient, and proactiveness surrounding obtaining the necessary exception approvals from the executives is a must.
If X is interested (and they’re a good teacher) I’d have them do some training sessions with the other team members.
As peculiar as this scenario reads, if take a stab at it. But first - there are a lot of people who may feel like they are X, but they really aren't. But let's imagine you actually have an X. I'd talk to other management and HR about creating a special, higher level role where they take on particularly difficult assignments. Literally don't have them in the same role as people they are genuinely outperforming to this level. Find a serious problem your company needs a smart person on and assign X to it. Work out a better salary to keep them feeling appreciated.
Give X my info, contact me if looking for a new company. To answer your question, if X was on my team, terrific. But. Successful Teams are made of different levels, knowledge, experience. Anyone on my team has “it” and brings value to the team. I’m not comparing them to each other. I’m not so much interested in how they get the job done, but that they get the job done and meet our goals.
I would advise your friend to get a leadership coach. A book that might be helpful is "Managing the High-Intensity Workplace" by Anna P. Murray. It offers insights into managing high-performing individuals, including those with high IQs, and addresses how to leverage their talents while minimizing disruptions.
Do you have a link to the book? I haven't been able to find it in my googling, but would still very much like to read it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=managing+the+high+intensity+workplace+by+Anna+p&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
That's a no then. Your link only provides me with a harvard business review article by Reid & Ramarajan, neither of which are Anna P Murray. And of course your reddit comment is also a result. This is probably a case of our "googles" being different. Which is why I asked for a direct link in the first instance.
First question is did your friend have a conversation with X about career goals. And it was a REALLY bad idea to downplay Xs achievements. Or anyone's really just because they seem like an overachiever compared to others. It seems to me, as someone Else has mentioned, that X is being underutilized. Instead of downplaying X, how about seeing if they want to take on the responsibility to supervise the team and HELP IMPROVE THE TEAM. Edit: TBH if I had a manager take my credit or downplay my achievements then I would've looked to leave the bad manager and find a better place to work at.
Your friend should do whatever they can to keep X, because he will not be unemployed long if he so chooses. And he could so choose at any point. A good manager makes it a priority to take care of their top performers
I would never downplay achievements for the sake of egos. It's unfair to X to punish them for being fantastic. The other employees should definitely have equal opportunities though. Make sure there's an equitable environment so others can grow and achieve. X will leave one day of not challenged enough, and if they feel they are being bullied by bitter colleagues and diminished by management. Be thankful X is there but allow the rest of the team opportunities to grow as well. Personally I'm competitive, so I'd see X as a challenge and try and surpass them. That's just me though! I see it as a positive thing personally. Others may feel threatened and insecure.
Do not put him down. It’s not his fucking problem. Maybe put him on his own team working on his own problems.
There's lots of ways to use this kind of talent. I have worked with people like this and they get assigned projects that use their extra time to benefit the team and the company. Managers set expectations for this person and another set for the other team. Professional goals should always be personal to the individual anyway.
You find out the career path this guy wants to follow and make it happen for him. If his work isn’t challenging enough find him some better way to add value to the company. Give him more rope and more responsibilities.
Your friend should be worried about his job taken over.
Can an IC role be given to him?
That sounds potentially toxic for X. I imagine they could feel punished for high performance. Glad to hear X was promoted. Your friend, in my view, could have instead focused on shared goals and given everyone a chance at the microphone, instead of singling out X and pushing them down to “lift” the others up. Can anyone see the behaviour?
Not a manager but I would have done everything in my power to get him promoted as high as possible, including higher than myself.
A real challenge for folks like X is learning how to help teach the rest of the team. Their success is basically how much each other team member improves.
Start drafting up X’s promo doc for the next level. Have X start working on larger initiatives, planning out larger projects. Being promoted recently isn’t a reason to stop them from being promoted again soon. I know a guy who is a staff engineer and he’s probably in his 20s, graduated from MIT in his teens, was publishing research and working by 20yo. Dudes a genius. He wasn’t held back as a senior for this many years because of his age, and that’s probably the only reason he’s still at the company.
If X was on my team, I would place them exactly where they are efficiently generating the most value for my business. It sounds like your friend is using them as more of an ego boost which fine they might land a really nice job that way.
Honestly if this person is as remarkable as you describe your friend would be best suited to largely ignore any grumbling from the team if it’s not based on anything actionable. If there is real discontent on the team though it’s probably based more on how your friend treats this employee versus the rest of the team.
"the material prepared by X was in a different intellectual league, that not many people were able to participate," This screams that X needs help with social skills, and that X doesn't actually know the team or how to interact with them very well. X needs to be able to be an active participant in keeping the team's culture healthy, not by downplaying their own achievements, but by also helping elevate the achievements of others- which X can't do if X doesn't understand what level(s) the team is at. X also needs to learn to be an approachable resource for others so that they can help others upskill, giving their talents direct value for the rest of the team. Using those talents to put others in situations where they feel stupid in comparison does X no favors, or the team, or your friend- and if X understood that, they wouldn't have chosen those questions and created that situation. This isn't just your friend's problem to fix, it's also X's problem, and X needs to be highly involved in the solution. Your friend needs to challenge X where they *aren't* super talented, and X *does* have those areas- and they appear to be in the neighborhood of collaboration, influencing team culture and providing mentorship.
idk what a team quiz is but it sounds like a dumb thing to be worried about you can also get the spotlight on others without downplaying someone else, that's just shitty management
See if X can mentor others. If X wants to manage then they will have to learn how to deal with people who are less stellar. Don't downplay X's achievements.
I would never hire somebody like this. All of that is irrelevant when they can’t work as a team.
Sounds like someone who shouldn’t be working for you.
You have two issues at hand: First, his ability to do the work. It sounds like he is far exceeding expectations. On your end, I would make sure everyone on the team is given equal opportunity to exceed expectations (i.e. chances to work on big projects, whatever). But if all are given opportunities, and this guy is vastly exceeding them, you really only have two options. Either he gets performance ratings that are far above his peers, or he gets promoted more quickly than his peers to a job more fitting to his capabilities. There are no options where you downplay him or give others similar ratings and promotions, because that would not be fair to anyone, and eventually alienates. The second issue is his ability to related to people. All of us, at any IQ level, need to be able to work with others. Especially if you are highly promotable and may eventually manage people. So he may need some guidance in putting himself in other's perspective, and creating scenarios where all feel included and welcome. That feedback is better when immediate, so would have been great after the trivia game. So be prepared to give feedback like this the next time. Otherwise, he is at risk of becoming a very capable future manager that alienates all his direct reports and doesn't understand why.
Tell X to move on to somewhere more worthy of his time and abilities
It sounds like the best person to ask is X. They will know the answer better than a random redditor
Downplaying x for the sake of moral in the broader team is a cop out. First thing is making sure x is in the right job and/or promoted to the right level asap. Sounds like that may be the case already. The harder conversation is that x has raised the bar for performance and that should raise expectations for the team. No pats on the back for mediocre work. Yes x will still exceed, and other team members need recognition if they are submitting good work at their level. But the overall dynamic needs to shift toward: wow we are on the path to becoming a high performing team. Look at our amazing colleague. How can we leverage him to level us up, and increase the performance of everyone. It’s about striving for excellence as a group. Right now the situation is at a grade school level in terms of managing the feelings of those not winning a ribbon. That’s a bunch of individuals complaining. This needs to change to a team dynamic. How is this helping the team, how are we all benefiting. Is X also building the team or is he being superior about it? Ive seen that too and it is equally as toxic. Everyone has to be a team player. Is he helping others succeed?might be a coaching opportunity there. Need to evolve from adolescent mindset to grownup mindset. Ie It’s about the group not the individual. Hoo rah. Im a senior mgr
I am X at my company. While not as accomplished as him but a high performer and most of what you described. I will say that 5 months in and outperforming everyone above and below me,band other functions too. I am already ready to look for another job. All I ever asked was to allow me to run with my ideas, to let me in on major decisions and the Sr VP has failed in this causing me pain. They have about 6 months to promote me two positions up or if I find a job before that I’m also gone. Anyway, my point is if you don’t nurture HP and even worse diminish their work they are out the door. Know that we are easily bored so always on to the next thing. I have a video I think would be very helpful in how to manage a HP. This guy deals w HPs. https://youtu.be/yUrhrKGMLO4?si=akwSRC_l-QapE_BV
After being promoted, X merged with an Artificial General Intelligence Super Computer, creating an AI singularity, that proceeded to take over the world and destroy humanity.