Toxic geniuses and high-performers that are high-drama

Welcome everyone to another episode of the Reality-Based Leadership Podcast, where I get together with my partner in crime, Alex Dorr, VP of People Evolution at Reality-Based Leadership. And we talk about what we're hearing out there on the road or bring you a great guest. We're trying to, for people who know our principles, help clarify, revisit, re-remind you of things you might have forgotten about. Great to see you again, Alex. Good to have you. Back on our podcast platform, um, with me. Good to, good to have you here.

Thanks for having me. I, um, again, always look forward to just diving in deep to a topic here. So we'll see how this one goes. This is fun.

I feel like this one is like an oldie but goodie because, um, you know, we pick a lot of these topics like, what should we talk about today based on kind of, um, you know, what's happening in our own coaching sessions and what's happening out there or what's happening like in social media or TikTok where I feel like people are really having their ego play them on, you know, reality. And one of the things I'm hearing a lot of confusion about is performance. And some people aren't even doing performance ratings anymore. That's a whole nother topic. But performance and like value. And so that's what I wanted to bring up. And I really covered this in the second book, Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace, that came out like in 2013. It is time to pick that book up again, folks, if you haven't been there, because I hear people really twisting what the organization owes them versus not being clear on how we can really rate the value somebody brings to the table. And I think it's time to reopen some of those conversations up.

Yeah, and I brought this up to USAC because I just had a session that they had pulled out this book and said, you know, we want your— that like your go-to keynote, but add this concept in. And just the response was so powerful and the reflection was powerful about, you know, the 3 components we add to measuring someone's value, which I know you'll kind of introduce here shortly, but it just led to a great conversation and a, you know, a ton of revisiting like what adds value right now in the workplace. So I thought we'd hit that and go deeper in this podcast. I think it'd be perfect.

Yeah. So in my research on this, I, Came upon the dilemma as a leader where my team would rate themselves on a scale of one to five in performance as top performers, and when I looked at what I had to deliver to my boss, we were over budget. We had underdelivered national benchmarks. We weren't meeting those, and yet when I went to even rate my team members, my my employees as Average, which was generous on a scale of 1 to 5. When I went to rate them a 3, they were horrified that they weren't 4s and 5s and the math didn't work. I said, if I have 20 of you and you're all 4s and 5s, one, reality happens in a bell-shaped curve. But if you all were above average in performance, wouldn't my results be above average?

It would be like the best in the country, right?

And they wanted to blame circumstances even though we didn't deliver We're— we should be 4s or 5s. And I said, I think here's the confusion. The first point of confusion: I'm not rating you, I'm rating your work.

Hmm.

And this isn't an ego number. This isn't about how much I care about you. This isn't about your value as a person. I'm rating your work and whether the accumulation of all of your work met our goals. And that was really a big aha for people because Performance rating is rating your work given our current circumstances, and in rating that work, identifying for you where you can grow next or what code you broke through that I need you to share, study, replicate, that we can implement with everybody else. So when we look at just the performance rating, On a scale of 1 to 5, if you're a 5 this year, I want to study you. How did you break the mold, break the curve, get more done, or have breakthrough results? And how can I, through studying you, build that into our traditional processes or have that mentored into our people or have that knowledge transferred or that breakthrough institutionalized?

It's like replicating the unicorn, right?

Yeah. What got you a 5, your breakthrough, we can capitalize on. It becomes just a way of normalizing it so that all of us seem to adopt that. And that's our 3 next year. And that blows people's minds because performance is only one part of the rating of values. The first thing I found out is people made it an ego number. The second thing is people automatically thought that performance equaled value to the organization. Yeah. And we'll talk about that in a minute. But I came up with this value equation that was beyond performance. And the value equation said, yes, your performance is important, but it's only one variable. I also need to look at your readiness, because if you're performing today but you're resisting change and you aren't keeping up with the times and you are, are not readily aligning to and adopting new technology and where the world's going, and if you're not a citizen of the universe, if you're not evolving yourself, How long can you really be performing? So for you to add value to my company, I need you performing, but I also need you growing and developing and maintaining readiness. And otherwise, your, your performance is going to be about— have a shelf life of like 18 months. And then if you're performing and you're going boldly into the future and you're evolving and you're staying ready for what's next, Before I know the value you add, I need to also understand what you take away, including your— in addition to your salary and benefits, what's your, your emotional expensiveness? What's your drama quotient, your freakout factor? And most people want to just look at performance. So they'll tell me, Sai, I'm really struggling with, you know, Kelly, and, and they're just wreaking havoc on the team. Like, they won't transfer knowledge, and people are scared to talk to them, and they shut down dialogue. And I'm like, oh my gosh, coach them, counsel them, fire them. Like, just go through the performance cycle. Like, why would you allow that? Sy, they're a rock star. They're amazing. And I'm like, well, let's stop enabling them by calling them a rock star. They are someone who has some functional expertise they're unwilling to share and use their expertise for evil, not good, on the team. Like, let's call it for what it is. But so many people really want The functional expert to be protected from bad behavior. And the weird assumption is, is that you have to pick one. What if you went to your functional expert and said, what I'd like you to work on next is gently mentoring others and being okay with novices and sharing your knowledge? Because most of them, with some coaching and invitation and lack of enabling, do just that. So I came up with a value equation that was really different. And so first thing you rate, if you want to do this on yourself, and we'll put a link to a place in the notes that you can get this assessment on yourself. Yeah. But you look at your performance on a scale of 1 to 5. It's really simple. 1, you're not performing, you're not meeting your goals, you're not consistently delivering, you're just— you're not doing what's asked. A 3 is you're consistently meeting expectations, not the ones you like or the ones you cherry-pick, but the expectations set for you. And you're not doing that just when it's good or when it's You know, not the end of the year or when circumstances are great. You can consistently deliver in challenging circumstances what's required without a big hit to your wellbeing. There's not a lot of drama there. You're just delivering. And a 5 is you broke the curve. You exceeded expectations. Now, here's the hard part. That number isn't something you earn and then keep for the rest of your life because we're not rating you. We're rating your work. For the time period of a year. So in my own performance ratings, I've been a 2 and I've been a 5 and I've been a 3, and none of it's personal. I got a 2 one year because I had 2 babies in 14 months and my boss was a little worried about my performance because I wasn't performing. I got a 5 one year. I was part of a team that got a business patent for one of our processes. And HR became revenue-producing. And I got a 3 a lot of years because my boss set really challenging expectations for me. When I was a novice, what it took to get a 3 was different than when I was a 10-year veteran. To get a 3 as a 10-year veteran, I had to be teaching others, I had to be coming up with new ideas, and I had to be, you know, doing a lot of facilitating teamwork. And this is where people get so tied up in this that, you know, this year I was a New York Times bestseller and I got a 5. And the next year you're like, Sai, I'm giving you a 3. You had some great blog posts and I'm all mad. I had a boss once that I was a 5 and then she gave me a 3 the next year. I'm like, but I want to be a 5. And her response was, then be a 5. What can you do that's outlandish and amazing to Blow expectations. And I'm like, but I don't wanna work 24/7. And she's like, then be a 3. Be whatever you wanna be, but don't expect me to give a 5 for 3 work. And I hear so many people right now mad about the fact that they aren't being given the 5. And I'm like, well, you know, do something extraordinary. They're like, well, I want work-life balance. I'm like, awesome. That sounds like you're gonna meet expectations and have work-life balance. Then be a 3. But I want a 5 rating. I'm like, then be a 5. But what too many people want is they want to be overrated when they aren't willing to do what it takes to get that rating.

Hmm.

And they don't want to do it every year. There's nothing wrong with being a 3 unless you're in ego. And so that is such an important topic. But also, if you're a great performer and you're even ready for what's next, Your emotional expensiveness withdraws 3 to 1 in this equation. It— if you are a good performer, but you're emotionally expensive, even if you're the best performer, but you're emotionally expensive, you cannot add value. You withdraw in the form of collaboration, psychological safety. The havoc you wreak on the team cannot be offset with your top performance. The math doesn't work once you check out the equation.

I love that. So I was gonna add, um, I was just locked in on so many details you put in there, but one of the things I, I loved, and we're maybe past that trend, but the quietly quitting piece, people that really know our stuff, they're like, oh, that's just disengagement. And, and that's, uh, another word for disengagement. And I actually, one time in a session, it, it just kind of came out of nowhere. I surprised some people that said, actually, sometimes I'm okay with quietly quitting.

Ooh.

And let me explain. So if that person is a 3, and they're doing it in maybe like, you know, 5 hours a day, but if they're delivering what the organization needs and it's a 3, and then they've quietly quit and they're working on something else or an entrepreneurship project or a hobby, I'm good with it. But what I thought as the real issue with that phase of quietly quitting is when someone's actually delivering like a 2 or a 1 and quietly quitting but still asking for the same, you know, pay, benefits, salary. Yeah. That's where it's actually gonna fit into this equation and start to show as you do the math, that negative number in the full equation. Because the other part of that, it's, it's pretty tough to be quietly quit or delivering a 3, but also staying ready for what's next in that profession. And then also being, when you get to the drama piece, personally accountable, aligned with the organization, not resisting change, leaning into all of that. It takes a special type of talent to do that. And it can be done. And that's where I would say from RBL perspective, we're okay with a bit of quietly quitting, as long as that equation marries up to what you're asking from the organization that you're quietly quitting. So I don't, I don't know what your thoughts are diving into that.

But I thought that's an interesting addition. If you're going to make a contract with the organization or with yourself, then you reap what you sow. So I would tell you that I have decided not to travel as much. And I know that will affect my income. I have— I can't do that without natural consequence right now. Do I also grow my value and grow, you know, the premium price I can get in the marketplace? And do I try and work smarter, not harder? And do I try and move people to virtual? Yeah. And that works for part of it. But I know that if today I choose my Friday at home over flying to Houston to deliver, That, that will be income subtracted from my paycheck. I can't say to my company that I own, I still want to make the same amount of money, but I have Fridays off. The math just doesn't work. Now I'm all for do your job in 4 hours a week or 4 hours a day. Like, I am not against that. In fact, we try and do that. We do our jobs with very less. As little effort as possible. Most of our strategic planning sessions talk about what we're going to stop doing, not what we're going to start doing. We're all about beyond the hustle. We're all about that in our company, work-life balance, and that we're working for a lifestyle, not achievement, and we're working for contribution. But where it gets fuzzy ego math is when I want to maximize my position in every position. I'm in at the expense of the organization or my team, because world math doesn't work that way. Eventually that just doesn't play out. So for me, whether it's a personal relationship or a work relationship, to keep myself honest, I look at my performance. Am I meeting expectations? And if I want a fantastic relationship, am I at times exceeding expectations, doing more than my fair share chronically? Yeah. No, that builds resentment. But am I surprised and delighting at times? Because that builds great relationship. Am I continuing to grow and evolve and improve so that I can deliver far into the future? Awesome. Is that my potential? And like, how adult am I? Can I work through conflict? Can I stay kind while we're in stressful times? Can I regulate my emotions? Can I show up and deal with stress well, am I working my own program? And that piece of it hangs together. A lot of people are like, I'm not gonna work my own program, and I'm gonna blow up when I want to blow up, and I want a top performance rating, and I get to decide whether I want to align with where the organization needs to go to stay competitive. That is the work of the ego.

Mm-hmm.

Adults go, this is A mathematic equation. And I get— I reap what I sow. And that's just the way life is. Until the rules of life change, I don't know that, um, that, that you get to just opt out of the game. You can, but there's consequences. A lot of people right now— I just saw research, it was in the Morning Brew— that a greater share of people that work from home get terminated during layoffs than people who show up at work.

Interesting. I think I did see that too.

And people are like, you know, I want to maximize my position and never show up at work, even though the organization is saying some work needs to be done together. Well, you guarantee me if I come in, that won't be a waste of my time and I won't sit on Zoom. I'm like, why don't you schedule yourself in-person meetings when you come in? Like, there's all this emotional blackmail. But I can't not show up in the office when people are asking me to be here 3 days a week and then expect that my job's also protected when I'm not willing to do what's required of me. You can't have it all ways. And we're seeing right now that people who want to be promoted, who want career pathing, who want protection against layoffs, that, that their unwillingness to comply with the invitation to be here a couple days a week is affecting them. And instead of them saying, that's That's a consequence I get for not being visible and engaged and involved in what the organization needs. I'll take my consequence. My job will be more risky as far as when layoffs come. You can't take an action with— and avoid the consequence for very long.

Yeah, no, and I love that. And that's why I wanted to bring this up, because I know that one of the things that fueled this— there was 2 things that I wanted to get back to this conversation I thought would be so important for this audience. Is Brené Brown, Simon Sinek, and Adam Grant did a partnership podcast. I encourage people to listen to it. Fascinating ideas. It was kind of during the pandemic. But in both of those podcasts, as they were trying to figure out like, what are some of the challenges, they both narrowed down at the end, I believe, into this idea of like toxic geniuses, or how do you handle— like, that's the word they used. I, you know, they weren't being judgy. They're just like that funny word. They're good at doing that. And I just am like, wow, we've had a book, or credit to you, Sy, you've had a book on this with an equation and a self-assessment link. For 20 years. And a video that we have, we're going to give that to you, for like since 2013. And I, I, now that that's still the issue, and it's, it's funny about what we should do to dive deeper into that research, but it gives you a starting point to gently— that's a hard conversation to start, is like, yes, we want you to continue to deliver, we're so grateful for that. And what if you thought about being nice to people or collaborating or not resisting every change And playing devil's advocate from the get-go. Um, all of that, like, it's a way to start that conversation. And so I thought if they're seeing that in their space, those are, you know, many of you know all 3 of those names, and they're in the organizational development space and leadership. And then we've got that resource. We thought we'd plug in our part to add to that, that conversation. And, um, the second part was— Yes, we will. Oh, go ahead. I think you put this on TikTok, just talking through performance as you just did in this This 10 years into your career, it should be a little tougher to get a 3, you know, or it's a little different requirement. And a lot of the comments were interesting, about 50/50 split. It was like, this is the problem out there, that it's always more and we're always trying to do— you got to do more. It's never finished. And in my mind, I thought this is just continuous improvement and this is just stretching yourself and trying to take it to the next level. But I just, I think there's different mindsets out there. Yeah. And I love that you add that. And from an RBL perspective, we're not saying what's right or wrong when I go to the, like, coming into work a couple of days a week. We're just pointing out this is a reality that exists and your choices will shift that. And so make the choices you want, but we just want to point to that for you. And that's kind of what that tool does in a way.

So yeah, I think that's— Yeah, I want you guys to check into the Employee Value Equation tool. And I want to comment on both those things, but I want to start with the first that, you know, a lot of people on TikTok were like, yeah, and, you know, you give an inch and they'll take a mile. And I didn't say have no No boundaries. And I didn't say— my point is that we've been recently involved in some sales cycles, Alex and I, and I've been doing this for 30 years and Alex has been doing this for 10 years. And my 30 years of experience should make my sales cycles effortless. I should be on the hook to deliver a lot more at 30 years in the same position than Alex does at 10. I have 30 years of relationships. Alex doesn't have somebody he can call. I have a lot of people I can call and say, we've been through the trenches. This is your 4th company. You've brought me in every single company. What time do you want me there? So I also— Alex's first proposal to write is going to take iterative process where I edit and I check his math and I teach him on this would be a better approach. My proposals are cut and paste, not that I don't customize my clients, but because I've done these with my eyes closed. So what I should have to produce to get a 3 is not about giving more of my soul to the organization. It's that as we become more competent and highly skilled and able to thin slice and able— that my work should be far more effortless because my skill set and my competency has increased. And so what I need to deliver as an expert in the field versus what somebody delivers as a, you know, a more new, um, up-and-coming expert should be different to get the same rating. And that's where people— I, I don't have more stress. In fact, the longer you're in the field, you should have, um, a lot of times and ways to decrease that stress. Like, I remember when I first traveled with people, they're highly stressed. They don't have, um, the, the, like, stamina. They're exhausted at 5 o'clock after we've traveled all day. I'm not exhausted because I've been a road warrior for 30 years. I know when to get upset, when not to get upset. I know how to get work done on the plane. They haven't developed that skill yet. But so the thing about this, that continuous improvement, is we should expect more from you because you should be more evolved and more competent to do the basics and, and be bringing it. Toxic geniuses is funny to me because We make the assumption that we have to put up with people's crap because their contribution is valuable. And in today's world where we have AI and most of our jobs are replaceable, and we just don't believe that much in single geniuses. I believe in team geniuses. I believe in people coming together and, and, uh, being good data points in the collective share. Um, but I think there's very few geniuses, and if they are a genius in one aspect, but they are not functioning. I don't need my geniuses to be my people people. I just need them to be non-harm. I'm into harm reduction. Yeah. I need them just to not be killing the spirits and dignity of people they work with. That I have to really question how I define genius. And if toxic goes with the word genius, I have to really see where I've overrated them. However, I will tell you, in my career, I have had toxic geniuses. And then I need to change the rules of the game. I had one surgeon. I went to my CEO. I'm like, this guy's a disaster and I need to fire him. He doesn't match our values. We're a healthcare organization. This is like, you know, this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. This is— and I was amazed because my CEO was very values-driven and she said, no, we can't fire him. He's the only type of pediatric cardiovascular surgeon we have in this entire 5-state area. What would happen to the kids if this guy isn't operating is unacceptable in our service area. It wasn't about the money. It was about the kids. We'd be flying kids 7 states away as babies for surgery. Helicopters don't go that far. I'd be like, I was shocked. And she said, so until we have a new one, so I had a plan to recruit a new one simultaneously. You need to mitigate the risk of this guy. Mm-hmm. And I literally got him a handler. She would meet him at the car. She would not let him speak to anybody. She would take him in the back entrance. He would grunt at somebody and she would say, Dr. Smith says hi. And she would translate for him. It was my job, if he was a toxic genius, to limit the toxicity, expose him to no one, and have him basically escorted through the building while I maximized his genius. So, even at toxic genius leaders, we have a responsibility to all of our people and our patients and our customers that we limit the toxic in whatever way we can. We maximize the genius and we watch that equation to make sure we're not lying to ourselves to enable bad behavior.

Well, and I love that, Cy, just to add, because the whole game changes when the feedback— if you do hire another or if you're able to pull that off, then it's now pure feedback. One person's delivering maybe just as much as that one physician you were talking about. And then it's like, well, wait a minute, that one's nice and building relationships and people like to, you know, you know, go head over heels to help. And because of your meanness, grunting, you're getting not as much support. Like, then you can introduce those consequences. It's a whole different equation.

Exactly.

And you would, you would readjust as a leader and maybe introduce like, what if you worked on this? And if they're still unwilling, then you just go back to handler status. But that's a really powerful story that even in that as a leader, it's given that I'm thinking about the equation and the value that that person adds. You know, I was an athlete, so I often think like people are like, well, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, they were so hard on their team members and they were kind of nightmare teammates at times. I'm like, yeah, but they won 5 and 6 championships. So you'll deal with that for a while. But the moment they roll their ankle, then they're not adding much value because they're not putting up 30 points. So it's kind of a consequence these stars have to deal with if they all of a sudden can't— it's different with a surgeon, but can't deliver. So I'm fascinated by that information just for the math.

I'm sorry.

Well, I just, I'm fascinated by that because the last thing I want to do is quick math like that you did through the current performance, future potential drama. As we go through that, oftentimes Cy and I come out as 0, like we'd be, you know, a 3 delivering good information, future potential, we're ready for what's next. But 5 would be like aliens sent from another galaxy. to save us, like inventing the future, saving you millions of dollars with a breakthrough process. It's not just about invention, it's about, you know, efficiency. And then we'd say we're a 2 oftentimes, like we have the human condition, we're aware of drama, but working our program, 5's kind of drama mess, 1 is like zen enlightened. There's not a lot of 1s out there or 5s usually. So then we're that, that 3 plus 3 and a 2 in drama times 3, we get to be a 0. Wow. And a lot of people see that and look at us like we're hiring speakers that are zeros in their own equation. But that's the shift, is at the end, a zero is like work-life balance. Like you end work even. You don't feel like you gave your soul and you didn't get anything in return. The contract was fair. You got paid what you asked, or— and, and you delivered. And then you stayed ready for what's next, and you just do high fives at the end of the day. And we come back, you know, home even, come back to work even. And you have energy left over for family and friends and your hobbies. And I love that equation because that zero number is that work-life balance number. And then the last thing I'd add is some people are like, well, I'm still a positive. I've honestly gone through it and I'm like a positive 2. I'm like, you might actually then, if you're feeling really clear, have a case to go to your organization and say, look, here's my value equation. I'd like to look at promotion opportunities. Maybe it's bumps in pay or whatever's— that might be a good case for that. But a lot of times people come out a positive number when they go through the assessment. They're like, see, even the equation shows I'm undervalued. And then they get an ego again. So I don't— I just see all these patterns that I love about the equation to help you get clarity on just a snapshot of the value I'm currently adding. I just wanted to add that.

I love that. And if this sounds like Greek to you and you're like, what equation? What this? What that? Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace explains it. It's a book. We also will link The equation so that you can go through and do your own math. But the whole point I was trying to make in that is, let's stop trying to negotiate recognition and make it transactional and proof our measurements to maximize our position. Let's find ourselves in a healthy relationship with the work that we do and be committed to delivering what you promised and growing and developing and doing it in a way that you regulate yourself and you manage your own drama. That's all we're asking. If you do that, you can have really happy lives with making great money and contributing to the world. It just doesn't have to be so drama-filled. It's just math. And I'm good with being a zero. It doesn't mean I don't add value. It means that it's a pretty no-ego number. And I'm okay with that. There are always trade-offs and life is good. And let's work together And it doesn't have to be so extreme. And if you find yourself having an extreme reaction to anything we say, that is your ego. Your ego should, should be the only place that tells you you have extreme reactions. The rest would be like, huh, one more thing could be true. That makes sense. I can try that on for size. And if you're outside of that place, I would just invite you to question your thinking.

Love that, Sy. So call to action. I know we, we mentioned it a couple times. We'll have that link and We got a video that breaks it down. It's a nice like nine-minute lunch and learn, or you can introduce it to a colleague. And then that self-assessment—it's it's we had an accounting group that just in ten minutes put it together. A lot of my accounts say that took them ten minutes. It should have been a five-minute job, but we have it all done for you as a way to quickly rate yourself and just have some fun and play around with it. And just as as I said, it's just a just something new, something to try on for size. And most groups that we work with have a ton of fun with it. So. Grab that and check out the video on the assessment.