Sure He’s A Jerk, But He’s An All-Star Jerk
11.08.2005 | Chris Bailey | Focused on Work
Oh the saga that is the life of Terrell Owens. For those who don’t follow football, he’s the fellow that seems to find fresh and unique ways to piss off teammates and coaches regardless of which team he’s on. He’s the guy who takes self-centeredness to new heights. While many athletes can be considered prima donnas, he finds himself in a class all to himself (well, he might share a cab with Keyshawn Johnson and Randy Moss).
Here’s the problem: if he was just a loud mouthed, obnoxious jerk who couldn’t catch a pass, that would be one thing. But he’s a talented wide receiver who can make plays for your team. The question is…would you want him on your favorite team?
To perhaps bring it closer to home, would you want someone like him on your workteam? Imagine an individual with a volatile personality, but an incredible talent for selling that could take your company to the next level. You would have a dynamic all-star, but someone who might disrupt the team’s culture. Would the gamble be worth it?
7 Responses to “Sure He’s A Jerk, But He’s An All-Star Jerk”
Leave a Reply
Hi Chris,
My short answer is: no. When someone is THAT disruptive, then their incredible performance is just a tease, and more often than not will burn you in the end. Both competence and relationships are important to system performance. Our investment in people like TO simply reflects our overvaluing of technical competence, in my opinion.
This issue was brought up in a HBR article in June. Researchers noted that when you gave managers a choice between a “competent jerk†(someone who performs well but nobody likes—TO, arguably) and a “loveable fool†(someone who is not the best performer but everyone likes), they will tell you that they choose the competent jerk. Nice personality is a bonus, they argue.
But apparently the behavior is the opposite. The researchers discovered that people actually chose to work with loveable fools more than competent jerks (despite their stated preference). The researchers pointed out that the despite their ability, the “jerks†can detract from performance: “Dealing with jerks is so unpleasant that colleagues simply can’t be bothered with them.â€
You don’t have to write the “jerks†off—they can be coached and developed in many cases (not so sure about TO). It’s not that we have to love everyone on our team, but we cannot ignore negative impact on teams.
“Would the gamble be worth it?” Absolutely, emphatically not.
The clincher in your question was when you said “might disrupt the team culture.” No one person can be above the vision and mission of a company wherein every person associated with it (employees and customers alike) can THRIVE.
From what you have described here (I don’t follow the antics of Mr. Owens) Terrell Owens would not have a place in a work culture managed with aloha.
I think there is another issue here being missed by these comments TO isn’t a “competent jerk”. He is the BEST OF THE VERY BEST. And on top of that he is in a league of the VERY BEST. So him being the best makes a huge differences in that league. It ia paradigm which is hard to replicate in the business world because there is no combined league. It is a great topic though. I personally think the Eagles are making a great moral choice and a stupid business one. Now that he has apologized though I think they have gained themselves a good bargaining point. The Eagles should take that apology and rebuild their trust with TO and bring him back. He is that good. But I don’t expect that, I figure there is enough testosterone racng around that they will just let him go.
I’d say it depends on how much he brings to the table versus how much he costs you in terms of the rest of your team.
Increasingly, however, the costs will outweigh the benefit–workplaces are increasingly becoming hostile to hostile behavior. Witness recent lawsuits which ended with the judgment that if a behavior has a greater negative impact on women than men, then it can be considered actionable sexual discrimination; seems to me that makes most disruptive, agressvie, and volatile behavoir potentially VERY costly.
Well, I had decided that I wasn’t going to post about this myself, but since you did I will answer your question. There is no way on earth that I would hire a person like TO. His antics are extremely disruptive and disrespctful of the other individuals and the team as a whole. I think they are much better off without him. Having said that, I am sure that another team will pick him up if the Eagles don’t reinstate him. Because after all, sports is all about the money. And like it or not, he makes the plays which ultimately bring in the money.
Thanks all for the additions to the dialogue. I’ll admit my questions were sort of loaded…I think TO is a world class twit who is only out for himself. As so many of you have noted, he’s disruptive and a corrosive element to the whole team.
Again, back to football. Witness the dynasty that is/was the New England Patriots. They did it with few superstars. And they were able to take another supposed troublemaker in Corey Dillon and turn him around. But everyone knew their role and they executed it well individually with an eye toward the whole team’s ultimate goal: a championship.
Give me a room full of role players who have a shared goal as opposed to a room full of superstars (see last version of US Olympic Dream Team) with individual goals.
I’ll take a room full of superstars with a shared goal, please. Oh, and a side of chili cheese fries. Make that order to go – as soon as I get THAT act together, I’m taking it on the road…
- EM