Think about your company in terms of a medieval society as we consider the Mercenary. This high-performance warrior is indispensable against your enemy but you never know when he’ll abandon the cause, switch sides or kill you. Yet for today’s battle, he’s critically important.
An interesting person to have in the organization; on the plus side, typically the egos and capabilities are so high you’ll get top-notch work when their attention is on the subject at hand. He’ll dazzle customers, investors, and sometimes other employees with his skill. Don’t make the common mistake. Look out for your own interests; you owe this person nothing other than the specific compensation which they earn each day. You can’t ever fully trust him. With trust, you have a Star Performer; without trust, nothing he does can be accepted without checks and balances. Your job is therefore much harder. Not only are you responsible for the end result, you’re also the means by which you get there.
Treat him like a Mercenary. Recognize his loyalties may be anywhere, but for sure are highly vested internally. He might be with you totally on the next battle; but who knows? Double-check sources for any critical decisions or implementations; at the same time, reap the benefit of his skill. Keep him in the job while you privately look for his replacement.
The day the replacement is hired, fire the Mercenary without any empathy or severance other than what will fulfill your contractual obligation. He played you, you play him. It’s all fair.
Here are some examples. These individuals worked for me in a previous company. One of the engineering team leaders, Fred worked for several weeks to come up with an idea that would solve the company’s massive technology problem.
Without going into details, Fred gave us a plan that would give the company cutting-edge technology and a low-cost production facility. It answered formerly unsolvable problems in an efficient and time-sensitive manner. So he was a key person, he created the idea, an idea with details, that allowed this to happen. He’s a keeper, someone to reward. Right??
Well, I also spent a couple hours each week fixing problems he created. He was unbelievably abusive to the rest of the team, including hydrogen peroxide savvy engineers with the experience and knowledge to carry out the project. Sometimes he created problems on purpose. The havoc not only distracted the rest of the team but also raised issues that were not constructive and that took up the management team’s time and attention.
A less obvious mercenary was George, the Division's business manager. George had an MBA from a top-ranked program, and was very smart. He had joined the company directly out of school.
He caught the concept of the business and helped develop the winning strategy. He was very popular and a leader. He was able to make folks gather around him and got the most from them even when they didn’t report to him. He could get employees to put out more than they thought they could…not to make him successful but to further his business cause, which had the same result.
However, George always had his resume out. I learned from others that he had frequent interviews. He was smart enough not to be flagrant. He never flaunted his appeal to other employers but it was obvious that his career, whether with his current employer or not, was his principal and only objective.
Since he was constantly poised to jump ship, we really had no stability in that position. Would he leave in the middle of the night? Even if he gave notice, what if the organization had a critical need for that position to be filled at that moment? Despite his fantastic performance, how much of his attention was being siphoned off by the constant search? How well was it known that his company interests were shared with his next-step career interests?
Those who are really performing but whom you can’t trust may be an enigma to the organization. Typically there won’t be a strong or shared opinion on whether the individual should be booted or retained. More likely, some individuals will have a strong opinion for one option and others will hold an equally strong opinion for the opposite.
While it’s not the primary objective, you mitigate these mixed emotions by not pulling the plug until you have a replacement. Those who thought the individual was a valuable asset know that at least you quickly brought in a replacement. Those who thought the individual was a liability know you’ve taken action.
No matter what, get rid of Mercenaries. Reap the benefits while they’re there but pull the plug on your own time scale, before there is real damage.
Nicholas, if i may i'll compress your questions into one: does a firm have a responsibility to influence a "mercenary" to become a loyal employee, and in parallel could it do so if it wished? My experience says:
1. Of course a firm should attempt always to, in rational ways, make all their employees feel they belong and attempt "conversions", but should not be blinded by the attempt. Recognize the game and take your independent actions accordingly. If a conversion occurs, great.
2. regarding an ability to convert, some individuals, at certain or all times in their career lives, are "mercenaries": it may be in their dna. If so, a conversion attempt won't be successful. So again, don't be blinded by the attempt.
3. the absolute best time to gain a "conversion" is with new management. An individual who, under a previous regime was in this category, may have been so because he couldn't relate to the decisions and actions of that previous regime. He or she may change with new enlightened management but also be cautious. There are individuals who are in constant rebellion against any authority and the new loyalties may diminish over time.
Posted by: thomas epley | May 15, 2007 at 02:04 PM
As per usual, these comments are intended to question prevailing wisdom and therefore hopefully to incite deeper thought. (However, they may just as easily also reflect my own lack of knowledge on the subject matter...so please do not allow me to be a "distraction"). Having said that, I am wondering what degree of responsibility the firm possesses in terms of trying to gain the allegiance of "mercenaries". I like the term, and I am heartily convinced this is an accurate description, and that these people do exist (I was probably one myself from time to time). However, from my perspective, it seems that the firm has a role in 'wooing' talent to develop long-term loyalty. Business schools, for instance, seem to emphasize the modern 'career strategy' of constant jockeying for more and better positions. It is almost like a form of protracted dating before you make a final committment to marry. Having said that- and maybe I am entirely off base- but is it possible that the firm can do something proactive to develop loyalty in its star performers? I know that the owner of the Dalls Mavericks tries to give his players the royal treatment, even when they are travelling on the road. He is trying to cull their favor. Can you recruit a mercenary to a loyal employee? Can firms expect the same type of loyalty from today's up and coming managers, who were brought up in a society that emphasizes a 'fast-food', the present is everything/forget tomorrow mindset? I know from my own personal experience that firms can and possibly should do more to encourage committment than is currently being done. I wonder whether these wandering 'mercenary' types might be succeptible to some form of influence in this regards???
Posted by: Nicholas Vakkur | May 12, 2007 at 01:17 PM