Perils of outperformance

ne would think that any organization would very much welcome outstanding performers. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Outstanding performers may be welcome during the period of crisis which an organization is suffering from, but once the difficulty has been overcome, it would seem that the welcome mat is pulled out from under his feet.

Why would this be the case and under what circumstance would such an outperformer become an outcast once the storm has passed? Typically the outperformer would be an outsider recruited into the organization that is in some kind of trouble or difficulty. Obviously, if the outperformer has been with the organization to begin with, chances are the crisis would not have happened in the first place. Therefore the outperformer does not have the organic base of support and is normally viewed with indifference or even muted hostility from insiders that were unable to resolve the crisis.

Prior to the arrival of the outperformer, the ones managing and running the organization could not resolve the issues plaguing the business and had to resort to seeking outside help in solving the problem. However, once the problem has been overcome, these same people would go into a state of denial and take the position that they were the ones who fixed the problem. The only hitch is of course the presence of the outperformer who did all the hard work, as a painful reminder of who really saved the day.

Therefore, the only solution to this dilemma is to sweep the outperformer under the rug and remove him out of the picture, to maintain the delusion of the old timers that they were the heroes that saved the institution. The question is, would this be the most pragmatic course of action? The answer depends on whose point of view you are taking. Naturally, from an independent institutional viewpoint, keeping the outperformer would be in the best interest of the company. However, in reality, to the people running and controlling the organization, this would not be in their best interest. After all, in their thinking they are the organization.

The outperformer is removed from the organization because it is felt that since the situation has normalized, his services are no longer necessary and to keep him any longer puts everyone else at risk in looking bad in comparative performance. To avoid any potential conflict, the outperformer is given enough money to go away quietly. End of story, hopefully.

Unfortunately, this story does not always have a happy ending. Sometimes, the institution falls back into crisis and is unable to recover. In other situations, where other creditors or investors are involved who know the story and the action taken to oust the outperformer, they end up withdraw-ing their support or funding. Admittedly, there are also many situations where the organization is able to carry on after the outperformer leaves.

Perhaps a better way to avoid such animosity and angst is for the organization to be upfront in the limited term and nature of the appointment of the outperformer to resolving the crisis at hand and exiting gracefully after the terms of engagement have been completed. Nevertheless, the key is finding the outperformer that can get the job done.

(Comments may be sent to georgechuaph@yahoo.com)