Combine a technically brilliant performer with a toxic influence. Combine quality prowess with constantly stealing credit, undermining colleagues, and yet, positive individual results that keep them in line for promotion.
This isn’t just a management headache; it’s a critical leadership test. The decision you make sends a powerful message that will either build a resilient, collaborative culture or systematically dismantle it. It’s never been easier to destroy an organisation’s culture.
Let’s examine this through a real-world case I recently advised on. For simplicity, we’ll call the manager Matthew and the employee Daniel.
Daniel was a very good performer when it came to the technicalities of the position. He fitted the job description rather well and had senior-like knowledge and demeanour about the job to be done. Daniel had plenty of valid successes on his own, as well as an excellent track record of successful projects. Feedback from his colleagues on the quality of his work was positive.
However, Daniel was also constantly found to be claiming credit for achievements made by not only his other peers, but even Matthew himself, the manager. This was constantly done in public, in meetings, and in every chance possible. Daniel had become basically immune to any shame or questioning, as the scrutiny of those around him was rather fearful and most team members (and Matthew) would rather prefer to avoid conflict.
You would think this was the greatest issue that Matthew had to manage for Daniel, but also Daniel was a gossip machine, constantly talking down about others, criticising colleagues and his manager, and generally setting the whole mood (and even performance) of the department down.
Matthew’s main question was “How can I manage this gossip circle without making my life harder than what it is?”. “How can I avoid Daniel to continue getting the mood of the team down?”
We must first start telling ourselves a simple truth. Leadership is accountable and responsible for everything (bad) that happens in an organisation. And where we need to start resolving this issue is first looking at us as leaders.
What are the true problems we need to fix? We could easily start looking at Daniel’s behaviours and say those are the problems. But in reality there is a context, there is an environment which is enabling Daniel not only to act these behaviours, but even to succeed. I was personally even more baffled when I learned that Daniel was still being considered for promotion because of his quality of work as individual contributor. This was definitely one of the worse things you could do in an organisation. Place an unbalanced amount of importance on the technicalities of a job, and not look at how an individual fits in that organisation, and the effects it generates around the others.
An organisation always is a breathing organism that has processes, frameworks, methodologies, ideas, products, etc. But most importantly, it has people. If the “system” of the organisation allows for these behaviours not only to exist but to even be rewarded, then the message is clear: Be like Daniel.
So before we discuss Daniel’s behaviours, we need to think on what are our values as an organisation. What do we do with gossip? What do we do with people taking credit for something they shouldn’t? How do we deal with feedback? How do we choose our leaders? These are the key strategic concerns of any leader. This is not simply a team issue, but a grave business risk.
Every answer to similar problems like these is context heavy, so we can only start with a high-level guidance on principles and values we should look for. We need to answer these so we can further guide our decisions later.
Respect: Gossip is a huge problem that destroys team culture and must be cut out immediately. Matthew needs to confront Daniel directly, state that this behavior is unacceptable, and then redirect the conversation to something productive. Gossip is a way to disrespect your colleagues, both victims of the gossip as well as the receivers. It is acceptable to discuss facts, discuss decisions, and it is acceptable to disagree. However, what is not acceptable is to discuss personalities and individuals when they are not in the room. Matthew, and the organisation, needs to set a clear boundary on what is considered respectful communication.
Integrity: When Daniel claims credit for the achievements of others, he is acting without integrity. He is creating a culture of distrust and discouraging collaboration. Matthew needs to have a direct conversation with Daniel about this specific behavior, presenting the facts of who contributed to which achievement. More importantly, Matthew needs to have a process in place to formally recognize achievements, ensuring that credit is given where it is due, to all contributors. This removes the opportunity for credit thieves to succeed and reinforces a culture of honesty and teamwork.
Accountability: The fact that Daniel’s behavior has been allowed to continue is a failure of accountability, starting with Matthew and then all the leaders further up the chain. As the leader, Matthew is accountable for the team’s culture. He must set clear expectations for behavior and performance. In Daniel’s case, a crucial step is to formalize the feedback process, linking both his technical performance and his behavioral impact to a clear set of expectations. He needs to understand that his negative behaviors, despite his technical skills, are a primary obstacle to any future progression. The moment a leader realizes they are accountable for the culture is the moment they reclaim the power to change it.
The core issue is not Daniel, but the system that tolerates his behavior. When Matthew and the organisation address these fundamental principles—Respect, Integrity, and Accountability—they will be better equipped to manage Daniel. However, if Daniel cannot adapt to these new values, then the organisation must be prepared to make a difficult decision. This is a critical leadership moment: will the company promote a talented individual who is a toxic influence, or will it uphold its values and protect the health of the entire team? The choice made here will send a powerful message that will define the organisation for years to come. That will define their culture for years to come. What will yours be?