Hire-archy. Managing mavericks at work

When you think of Navjot Singh Sidhu, Subramanian Swamy or Mani Shankar Aiyar what comes to your mind? Do you think of their achievements or oratory brilliance or their embarrassing remarks? I leave it to you to decide, depending on how you process them.

It must be quite an ask for their party chiefs and colleagues to deal with them. Let’s also not forget that there must be something unique about them that justifies their being in their organisation. How do their leaders internalise their consistently inconsistent behaviour which they need to defend frequently?

Leave aside political parties, every organisation has similar people who put us in embarrassing situations by their behaviour or quotes. Their odd behaviour may occasionally be overlooked or need damage control. It is a catch 22 for HR or the CEOs as some of these motormouths are also exceptionally talented and perform their job well.

Yes, their expertise and track record would have brought them to their current glory. However, their tenure can be a ticking time bomb as their teams wouldn't know when the next obnoxious comment is coming. Social media platforms can be an explosive stage for such oddballs who forget that they are representing their organisation while shooting off their mouth. On the positive side, we can call them mavericks who make the workplace more interesting.

Punching above their weight

Maverick is how one of my bosses used to describe me in my absence. However, he never mentioned this directly as I used to contribute to his revenues significantly. In my younger days in a benevolent organisation, I think I used to shoot my mouth off either out of overconfidence or arrogance.

My excuse was it is in my DNA to say things as I see them. I don’t know if I have paid any price for such behaviour. But, some of my colleagues later told me that I was packed off to another assignment in the disguise of a promotion. It seems my boss was done having a prickly shirt in his team.

One of the CTOs who worked with us also used to give us creeps. He was a knowledgeable technocrat but also famous for his controversial outbursts. Once, in a town hall, our COO launched a tech platform and asked for early adopters’ feedback. The CTO shot back saying only an ignorant will criticise it. On another occasion, he threw his Blackberry in disgust as the CEO and a stunned executive team watched helplessly. He knew his role was critical, and was confident of his unique skills, and maybe felt entitled to his boorish behaviour.

Soon the CEO made some structural changes to limit the CTO’s share of limelight. Predictably he resigned and there was a massive sigh of relief. I have to admit that during his four years’ tenure, the organisation moved leaps and bounds in terms of technology though many of us cringed at the sight of him.

In the world of work, large corporations are less tolerant of maverick behaviour and take quick action. The code of conduct prescribed by large organisations is an attempt to control adventurous employees. Many of them don’t allow their leaders to participate in social media conversations fearing transgressions. When they can’t control these outbursts, employers often push these oddballs to parking roles to limit the damage.

Yes men

Picture the contrast if, as a leader, a bunch of sycophants surround you. They may not open their mouths even if you are drowning. For a narcissist leader, yes men make for a perfect team than a bunch of errant misfits.

Some of the current political parties’ leaders display this self-serving trait. Imagine this; you have your global CEO visiting your country operations and wants to talk with all employees. A couple of motormouths say the new global strategy isn’t in the best interest of your country or the new benefits policy is not competitive.

How would the local country head or the visiting CEO feel? He is likely to get out of the meeting and ask the HR who those idiots were? He would rather prefer a town hall where some long tenured loyalists appreciate the culture and how it should be continued.

Odd benefits

I believe in the organisational context oddballs are necessary. We don’t prefer to go recruiting for them. But, when we discover such colleagues who possess the guts and bravery to play the devil’s advocate, we shouldn’t mind them. The plus point of mavericks I have seen is that they like standing out, which means they consistently perform to ensure their behaviour doesn’t harm their odd behaviour. These are the people whom you can count on for turnarounds or take on the competition when the going gets tough. They can be significant assets in adversarial situations.

In politics, mavericks are very precious as they can say things their leaders wish not to say in the name of political correctness.

The utility of the oddballs is never in question whether in politics or organisations. The only issue is one doesn’t know the damage their next muckraking comment can inflict. The oddballs are definitely assets for political parties but I doubt if large enterprises know how to get the best out of them. Only in entrepreneurial settings are mavericks tolerated and may thrive longer.

Going by the new ministerial inductees, it is clear that mavericks are kept out of powerful positions. In the long run, we all need people who say the things we want to hear or meet the so called organisational décor.

Kamal Karanth is co-founder, Xpheno, a specialist staffing firm

COMMENT NOW