Should an employee that is a cocky, arrogant lone-wolf, who doesn't really fit in with company culture...

Should an employee that is a cocky, arrogant lone-wolf, who doesn't really fit in with company culture, but consistently brings in clients, knows his shit, closes deals, and makes money, be promoted to managing director?

If the culture in your company is not about closing deals and making money, there is something wrong in it.

The only reason he should be fire is if his behaviour is so toxic it doesn't set a good example for the coworkers.

Being arrogant and cocky is tolerable.

Depends on his competition for the job and how much of an arrogent lone wolf he is.

Does everyone literally hate his guts? Most likely a bad decision unless his value is a good amount above his drawbacks.

>Do the benefits outweigh the cons?
Great advise user. I'll go ahead and draft a Wikipedia page on this, "the user Criteria." Revolutionary.

No. It'll take him away from the work that he's good at and place him in a position where he'll be hampered by a lack of respect from other employees.

>knows his way around the job
>firing him just because he doesn't click well with the offce cult

Aren't the priorities backwards? You'd rather be at school if you want some hugbox.

Thanks for the replies. Its actually for a non-fictitious case analysis for school, just wanted to get some outside thoughts. The guy was basically hired as the point man for the newly created Capital Markets sector of Morgan Stanley.

I would agree that he should be promoted, but with stringent readjustment to his demeanor in order to better suit the position as a leader. He is a far greater asset to the company than a detriment.

He should be 'reined in' so to speak.

You realize that you can't just "readjust" people, right?

Yes, but apparently a lot of the employees have issues with his behavior, quick judgement, and not being a team player.

I really don't think I'd do jack shit regarding any of it but I fill like it should some how be addressed.

*That is, be addressed in order to somehow mitigate the employees' concerns when working with him.

>not being a team player

You could promote him but the performance of the employees might decrease due to their morale getting torn by the news alone.

But as a lone wolf, having to play with a team who spites you just drags you down. No need to deal with some cooked up office drama from people who can't work with you.

Also, do you prefer results or a better working environment? It's a bad decision to promote him since it's highly possible that his officemates would do something fishy to put a bad mark on his record.

> cooked up office drama

Literally lol. Suppose I run a trading desk and some betas get butthurt because the hotshot is an arrogant douche. I'd tell the poors to fucking get money or find a new job. Drama is for bitch work.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put him at a director's level of autonomy but not in a position of authority over people who already dislike him?

This is a good solution

From experience, work with people who spite you and they drop the team performance ON PURPOSE

Then you fire them and hire employees who actually make money and put the fucking firm first. You're the worst little HR rep I've ever seen, it's pretty obvious you got picked on in high school.

This is what I would want to say ideally, but I have to be analytical and consider the various forces at play here lol

This is something to take into consideration. One of the colleagues most critical of him has noted that he has improved over the year. I think I need to high light more examples of this, but is an improvement grounds for promotion?

You have a good point but I don't know to what extent he would have autonomy as he is supposed to 'articulate departmental visions' and 'lead by example.'

Perhaps someone with his character may actually be ideal for this?

I'm off to bed but I'll be back in this thread tomorrow if its still here.

>Then you fire them and hire employees who actually make money and put the fucking firm first.

I basically want to spin it that he is too much of a top performer not to be moved ahead in the company, he could walk if he doesn't make the promotion.

>promote him to director of a new sales team with no one on it
>promote one of the betas to direct the existing sales team
>give him a separate office and dedicated support staff
>tell him he's expected to bring in as much business as the rest of the other team combined
>he redoubles his efforts so he can stay on top
>everyone else improves as well to try to catch up

You don't have to be in a direct leadership role to lead by example.

>making one of the big fishes get away

It's up to you.

Question.. if he's great in that sales position, why move him?

when psychopaths outmanouvre other psychopaths

few things are beautiful :')

few things other than being called out by own of your own

>From experience, work with people who spite you and they drop the team performance ON PURPOSE

Oh I've seen that happen but I've also seen more people do it through sheer incompetence.

>Then you fire them and hire employees who actually make money and put the fucking firm first.

It would be nice if the world worked this way but top performers are heavily discriminated against.

You don't need to be a psychopath to see that this is a way for everyone to come out ahead.

This

If some autistic psycho wants to kill it by himself making sales, that's fine

But there's absolutely no point of him destroying a team he manages in the process, just because someone is an associate, VP, SVP, MD etc. doesn't mean they HAVE to own they're own team that they'll ultimately waste and destroy anyways which will lose the company money

are you that lone wolf, senpai

>Company culture

Well memed.

>should a guy who doesn't work well with others be put in charge of others
>should a guy who makes a lot of money for the company as part of his job, be given a different job doing something he isn't good at

What do you think?

This

And this

>business school

He shouldn't be promoted. A good salesperson doesn't always make a good leader. Give him a title change, a pay rise and keep him in his current role.

He could take an offer somewhere else if he isn't promoted, since he is well known in the industry and several other companies probably want him.

Increase his commission. Give him anything he wants. Just dont make him anyones boss. 1 amazing salesman is not worth 4 demoralized and shitty salesmen.

You would lose more on the time it would take to replace the first dude who quit than you would gain from his magic sales skills.

He needs to at least be able to socialise within his company. People who get good numbers always become kings in the sort of company that has them. He needs to at least be likable.

But seriously, bring in the best numbers, and they'll suck your dick.

Why would you promote someone who doesn't share the company's values? If he's a good worker but rejects the company's culture, making him manager would nullify the only good thing about him (his ability to work) while accentuating the bad things (his attitude). If you're afraid of losing him then maybe consider giving him a raise or something.