Recap: Jaden Waterman was hired a year ago to oversee email marketing. He’s doing a better job than his predecessor, however, he has an attitude. Waterman’s boss, Lenore Cranston, has spoken to him, but to no avail. What should she do?
February Winner
Anna Marie Dunn, Owner, AMD Research & Marketing LLC
If Cranston hasn’t already established a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) with Waterman, now is the time to do so. Additionally, human resources or another manager should investigate to learn if Waterman’s poor attitude is perceived company-wide or externally. This information will help to set the tone of a needed meeting and expectations.
If the issue is perceived company-wide (and with external clients) then an immediate meeting with expectations and reiteration of company behavioral policies is needed (always get HR involved here). No matter how much Waterman has helped to increase the bottom line, he’s hurting the business’s image and relationships, and alienating other employees—never acceptable. A PIP outlining detailed, timeline-driven improvement expectations, with definitive consequences if there is no improvement, is in order. Cranston also needs to tell Waterman what to expect if there is an improvement.
If the issue seems to be directed only toward Cranston, there may be a deeper issue. This is not something that can be solved in one meeting, or one-on-one, so to avoid legal issues it’s wise to use a third person as a mediator (HR or a senior manager). Once again the PIP should clearly define expectations and consequences. It’s also a good idea to listen to both sides of the story. When it comes to criticism, Cranston may not be the best at articulating the company’s needs or operating procedures. Also, an HR/manager should learn if Waterman was properly trained.
In the meantime, Cranston should look around. There is an excellent possibility that Big Adventure Travel has up-and-coming talent that could handle Waterman’s job.
Other Responses
Jensen Huddleston, online response
Marketing is collaborative and to have an attitude that is the antithesis of this is counterproductive. The results would have to be incredible for me to keep this person on my team. Also, the person would need to be irreplaceable and in this instance they are simply replaceable. Cranston should move forward without him and find someone who fits the personality of her team and her company with the skill-set she needs for the position, and she’ll be getting better results than ever before in no time.
Parissa Behnia, Idea Chef, 678Partners
It is certainly a sticky thing to have a good performer with some personality differences that are causing rifts. It’s clear that Waterman is results-oriented; he responds to things that are tangible in nature. Cause and effect are likely terms he understands and appreciates. “Attitude” is kind of nebulous, so he can’t appreciate that he may have one or that it impacts others negatively and that could cause bad reactions.
I’d approach him first from a position of his strengths and point out that his positive improvements have brought about positive business results. People like to feel appreciated.
Stroking his ego further, I’d ask him about some of the procedures he doesn’t like to follow to get a better understanding of his resistance. Given his ability to make email marketing improvements, he may have the same creativity in seeing the procedures in a different light. Keeping it tangible will give insight into how he thinks.
Asking some Socratic, open-ended questions about how he views the procedures he doesn’t like may shed some light into: a) rigidity in Cranston’s processes that may be needless and holding the company back; b) Waterman not understanding the reasons for some procedures fully due to a misunderstanding, lack of or incomplete training; c) Waterman learning something tangible and new; d) all of the above.
Then Waterman should suggest a framework as to how to constructively and tangibly move forward based on what was learned or discussed. She should remind Cranston that cause and effect applies to tangible things and behaviors. But she has to keep the commentary to “when you do x, it may appear to others as y” to remove as much emotion as possible. Waterman should also remember this herself.
Peter Mendelson, CMO, Raiseworks
Jaden Waterman is gone. Period. This type of asocial* behavior should never be tolerated at any organization.
*Asocial =
- Not social
- Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable
- Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial
- Inconsiderate of others; self-centered
James Zawicki, Marketing Communications Manager, Sartomer Americas
A heart-to-heart discussion is needed here. Cranston should call a meeting with Waterman and share her thoughts—the good, the bad, and the ugly. She should start out with an apology for snapping at Waterman, but she also needs to share her concern about his attitude, defensiveness, and resistance to standard operating procedures. Waterman should be given a probationary period in which to demonstrate immediate improvement or face termination.
Cranston should wrap up the conversation noting that she’s seen improvements in campaign creative, subject lines, data analysis, and responding to trends in data—but that Waterman also needs to improve his attitude.
Kim Mathie Foresto, online response
There are great people out there who are both talented (get results) and who have a great attitude. I believe you need both to get the best results and it appears Waterman’s results are not making an incredible difference. Cranston should get someone great.
