How do you know when to give up on an employee? Difficult geek employees exhibit three different behavioral styles that call for different responses to each: correction, consequences, or combat.

In addition to being a geek myself, I am an optimist. Generally, this serves me well. I am a champion of people, another quality I embrace. Unfortunately, being an optimistic champion isn’t always the best pedestal to stand on, especially when it comes to dealing with difficult people in the workplace. There is a place for giving up hope. There is a time to bench the champion.

How do you know when to give up on a problem employee?

“Most people are nice. We like that. But nice has a shadow side: avoidance. When it comes to dealing with difficult employees, it’s not enough to try. We must train for it.”

In his book Necessary Endings, Dr. Henry Cloud talks about the three reasons a gardener prunes branches. Some branches are healthy, but they aren’t the best. Other branches are sick, and they are not going to get well. Branches can also be dead, and they are taking up the space needed for healthy branches to thrive. Difficult employees generally fall into the latter two categories: they are sick or dead, either unable to improve or remaining as an impediment to growth.

Effective leaders have strong qualities that also possess a shadow side. Most leaders have a high pain tolerance, a dutiful sense of loyalty, and an ability to persevere and weather storms. The shadow side is an inability to end a thing at the right time, to shift loyalty for a greater good, and to admit something is hopeless. Too often, we equate ending with failure. We must be able to equate ending with wisdom.

We know the spectrum of difficulty in dealing with people. Dr. Cloud points out three behavioral styles. He names the first two Wise and Foolish. I name the third Harmful.

A wise employee adjusts to the truth. They will listen to your feedback, embrace the change needed and take ownership of their mistake or thinking. Wise employees demonstrate concern for how they affect others, and they look to solve the problem. In essence, they need and positively respond to communication. They don’t need to feel confronted, just corrected. Generally, they don’t need a leader’s correction to be padded. They are best approached directly with a focus on the problem, and the problem is best resolved by talking about it. When you have an employee like this, the goal is to resource whatever they need to make the adjustments they agree to make.

A foolish employee will try to adjust the truth. This is the person with whom you seem to have the same conversation but it doesn’t make a difference. Usually, this person will be defensive and seek to place the blame on situations or on others. Subtly, they will put the blame on you. The foolish employee creates conflict rather than pursue resolution. They will minimize issues and downplay the effect they are having on others. They stir things up. This is the person to whom you can trace the origin of rumor, discontent and undermining.

Foolish people will not respond to further conversation about the problem. Stop talking about the usual problem. Instead, start talking about the resistance. Objectify what has not been changed, and make clear how the opportunity to make changes have been neglected by this person. Whereas the wise person will change with correction, the foolish person will only change with consequence. For example, “Scott, you continue to miss the deadlines set in place so that other teams can get their work done on time. We have talked about this for several months, and nothing has changed. Therefore, I am re-assigning you.”

Because I champion people, I give foolish people opportunities to change before employing consequences. This is the place for write-ups, coaching, and correction plans. However, the ending has begun. As a leader, you are charting the end of what they currently work on if not the employment itself. They have the ability to turn the ending into a new beginning. But if they are truly foolish, they will persist in adjusting the truth instead of adjusting to the truth. That is when the conversation and corrective tools end, and the consequences are put in place. It may be the only course of action that saves them and helps them turn around.

The harmful employee is the individual who resists correction, responds poorly to consequences and refuses to consider the effect of their actions on others, the company or leaders. Some people intend to harm. This is the person who continually speaks against you despite your best efforts; the person who questions not just changes but the motives of those who are driving changes; the person who can put their best foot forward when needed, and put that same foot on the neck of the vulnerable.

Harmful people need to be protected against. Too much is at stake. Combat is called for. Termination is required, and it must be swift and firm with the authority of law behind you. I’ve seen great people leave an organization because a bully was tolerated beyond reason. Do you have a solid write-up policy in place? Are your supervisors and managers using it?

C-Suite executives must see that training for difficult staff is in place for anyone in the company who manages and supervises. Most people are nice. We like that. But nice has a shadow side: avoidance. When it comes to dealing with difficult geek employees, it’s not enough to try. We must train for it