Failure to take into account the needs of other staff members isn’t a work style issue, it’s a character issue.
Even superstars have to play well with the rest of the team. Otherwise you’ll end up with the Barry Bond’s Syndrome (a great performer who destroyed every team he was on).
If availability and predictable hours are genuinely important to the performance of other staff members (who need input or a timely response), then someone who refuses to play along needs to go—no matter how well they are doing “their job.”
But in an age of cell phones, texting and email, it’s a mistake to confuse timely access with lots of hours sitting in an office.
Bottom line: Wise leaders never forget people and staff are hired because we have a job that needs to be done. As long as they aren’t poisoning the team, and as long as they do their job ethically with excellence, it really shouldn’t matter how they go about it or how many hours it takes.
Quickly or methodically, in the office or at Starbucks, in the middle of the night or banker’s hours—all of these are secondary.
When it comes to evaluating a staff member’s performance, the only question that really matters is: How well are they doing the job they were hired to do?
So what do you think?
How do you evaluate? How does your board and the rest of the staff evaluate?
How do you want to be evaluated?
