First of all, a HUGE shoutout and thank you to Carrie Sloane for volunteering to take notes and for sharing them with me after GDC. Where possible, I've edited the notes to add context and create flow for reading. I also wanted to send a thank you to everyone else who attended and shared their personal struggles around a very difficult topic.
At the end of Day 1, the topic of how to deal with the "talented/brilliant jerk" was expressed. We didn't have much time, and I suspected this was a topic that deserved more attention. I announced that this would be the first topic of Day 2, and little did I know that it would be the sole topic for the full hour of the second roundtable session. It was time very well spent; here are the shared thoughts from that conversation:
Many attendees have experienced the "brilliant jerk." Sadly some studios possess structures or systems that are overly reliant on them. So, how do you deal with it, without sacrificing the team (cause if the jerk doesn't leave, the rest of the team might)? Also, how do you address the behaviors that are causing them to be perceived as a brilliant jerk? Is there a balancing act to be found between coaching and setting clear/firm expectations?
One attendee shared a quote (attribution unverified) that "you're never talented enough to be an asshole." The attendee shared that they've been at studios where the decision was made that the talent was needed, but then the studio "fell apart." Also, they've worked at a place where the jerk quickly reveals themselves and is immediately let go.
Another attendee shared some crucial considerations. First, how is this affecting my team? Does it only affect me as their manager, or is this impacting other team members ability to do their jobs? The attendee also shared that, if the jerk carries critical knowledge or perhaps embodies a single-point-of-failure in a critical system, then studios may look the other way if that person is needed to ship a product.
One person also shared an experience of encountering this scenario on two projects with small teams. Since they were in a leadership/management role, they went into the conversation assuming that the person wasn't aware of their behavior or their impact. They treated it as a normal 1-1, providing clear coaching on their behaviors, the negative impact it was having, and setting clear expectations that change was needed. This leader cited that the candor in that conversation was the critical component. One person was able to address their behaviors. The other was not. The one who continued to have a negative impact on the team had to go.
Another person shared that the challenge or risk in being too accommodating, which can exacerbate everything. Being more direct up front can help to avoid future issues. This attendee recommended that you write down a few clear bulletpoints before any conversation to clarify what behaviors you expect to change in the future. They advocated for being clinical in your expectations to avoid ambiguity or wiggle room.
Adding to the conversation, another attendee shared that, at their studio, the first step is similarly to sit down withe the individual and try to understand what is motivating their behavior. Sometimes an individual believes they're doing the right thing, and they need to be informed how a behavior doesn't align with the studio's values
Keeping in mind, there are two approaches. The "hard" approach needs immediate results/change. The softer approach may yield more long-term benefits. The softer approach employs more empathy and sincerity in pursuit of an open dialog. However, you must be mindful that you are what you tolerate. The attendee shared the analogy of a basketball coach - no one player is above any other person on the team. Also, the team will gravitate towards the leadership you demonstrate. They also cited One Minute Manager as a good resource.
Another attendee shared a different perspective. While they agreed with everything said, they pointed out that where they work (in Germany), you can rarely fire people outright. So, they have to pursue a more long term solution. For them, they focus on connecting with the person on an individual level through 1-1s or regular coaching. The attendee reminded us that the behavior may be motivated by something going on in their personal life.
But that then raised the next question. When do you stop being the "nice?" Being too understanding can be toxic to the team, or avoids the difficult path of setting clear expectations for the brilliant jerk who may struggle to be honest with themselves. If the person doesn't clearly see the need for change, then they may lack the motivation to improve. They need a tough/firm stance instead.
Another attendee shared the strong encouragement to speak with a different leader on the team. The brilliant jerk may not behave that way in front of a leader, and so the leader may be lacking awareness of the problem. This can create a situation where people are assuming leadership knows about it and is tolerating the behavior rather than being unaware and not acting. Studios need people who are "on the ground" and can provide them with critical feedback.
From there, the topic pivoted to more challenging scenarios when the "brilliant jerk" actually is in a leadership position. If their behaviors don't change early in their career, and they advance in their career, then those behaviors will move into positions of greater authority or responsibility. The leadership position can having a chilling effect on feedback. However, from a leadership position, the negative consequences can be much broader and more harmful to the organization. The studio failing to address the problem may result in groups of people leaving rather than the challenge of losing one leader on the team. Also, if your team can't pivot or adapt at the risk of one leader leaving, then that may point to a structural/systemic problem in your organization.
One attendee encouraged attendees to watch the documentaries on YouTube around the development of Psychonauts 2. They felt these videos demonstrated the impact of a brilliant jerk, and that viewers can watch it as a lesson into observing the long-term impact on a team. As the attendee described it, the videos show the cascading effect triggered people leaving the studio, teams being pitted against one another, and an organizational power struggle. Direct reports cited feelings like a panic attack prior to 1-1s and leadership eventually stepped in, but the damage had already been done. The attendee indicated that the video series points to some key questions - are you willing to risk the whole team to accommodate a single individual? How many years will it take to recover from a challenge like this if you don't act quickly?
One attendee shared that they are good friends with their lead, who is the brilliant jerk on their team. As a friend, this person was aware of what was going in their lead's personal life and work stresses, so they understood what was contributing to their behaviors. They didn't want to damage the relationship by speaking up, but also didn't feel that they could address the situation directly. They asked what advice others could offer in this scenario.
One respondent suggest that they find a neutral third party. Someone with leadership and managerial experience, but who isn't part of their managerial chain might be able to broach the topic of behaviors objectively and keep the source of the feedback anonymous. This person might be able to share feedback more abstractly and with less risk to the lead's reports.
Another respondent shared that they had experienced a similar scenario with someone coming to them to talk about a problem elsewhere in their org. As a manager, this person felt like they could "speak the language" and discuss how the observed behaviors were counterproductive to that leads goals. While this individual also encouraged checking in with upper management to confirm, they cited the phrase "we don't do this here" as a powerful phrase that helps to reinforce the organizational values and set clear expectations in a way that appears less personally judgmental.
Many other attendees agreed with these approaches. There was the general consensus that a report shouldn't have to approach their lead directly, and that there should be a skip-level manager or supervisor to whom they can speak. Likewise, there was agreement that while this behavior may be easier to hide at certain levels, that studio leadership (as noted above) needs to be made aware of problems to affect a productive change.
Someone else shared their experiences with referring a senior colleague and having them exhibit similar behaviors after being hired. They decided to approach the person they referred, and then framed the discussion around the knowledge of the team and the team's goals - rather than singular, individual behaviors. In this case, they had to be candid and firm and communicate that they "know your work is amazing, but this is not what we're going for here, and you're still new." This attendee also expressed their gratitude for the leadership they had and that project management flagged that this individual was on a contract. They also shared that the company is Korean, and that there can be a structural and behavioral expectation as part of the culture, which can make it challenging to give directive feedback to a peer or lead.
This was very insightful because we also need to be aware of cultural components and how ways of communicating can be interpreted and/or misinterpreted. Similarly, Russian culture was shared as an example of where dialog can be much more direct (and can be misinterpreted as more confronting, or antagonistic) where that directness is often a cultural component of trust validation.
As the discussion continued, an attendee referenced Kim Scott's Radical Candor as a valuable resource. They cited that it's helpful to delineate between being nice versus being kind. We talked about "ruinous empathy" and how the desire not to confront can actually create a longer-term problem. There was also the suggestion that there be two managers (or a manager, and a skip-level) where one gives the direct feedback, and the other offers to coaching afterwards but still reinforces the same feedback. For individuals that are struggling with feeling heard, telling managers that the "team is suffering" is often a strong catalyst for prompting action.
We agreed that there will likely be unique challenges where friendship and leadership intersect. When you are the manager/leader and problem is identified with a friend, you need to have established clear boundaries that within work, they're an employee first and the friendship is something that persists outside of work but doesn't take priority in the workplace.
In contrast, if you are a friend and peer to the person who has the problematic behavior, you may find yourself being approached by other peers with concerns. This is troubling if they are coming to you instead of organizational leaders. This can put you in an awkward position where you have to evaluate your own relationship with the person. Would you feel comfortable saying something like, "I think you need to hear this, but I don't know how to talk to you..." or referring people to management knowing that the behavior might go quiet or that the situation could worsen.
Setting aside the interpersonal dynamics, attendees agreed that documenting observations or behaviors was critical. It's important to capture the impact on the team, and make the documents as objective as reasonably possible. Rather than trying to assign intent or identify the solution, just be clear about what the behavior is, and why it's creating a negative impact, and what they should be doing instead next time. Focus on the dynamics and consequences of the brilliant jerk and those who are impacted by their behaviors.
One attendee pointed out that the best way to avoid this problem in the future would be to analyze and adjust your hiring processes to ensure this behavior isn't onboarded. If you work at a company that is repeatedly hiring people with this problem, you should be talking to hiring managers about adding new interviewers and different types of questions to find clues at the interview stage and avoid bad hires.
What kinds of questions should you ask? The general idea was that you should spend less time trying to figure out "do I like this person" and more time trying to figure out "how do they handle conflict?" "How do they respond to critical feedback?" or "how do they persuade and influence others?" Ultimately, one of the most vital components seems to be to have a clear interview structure that promotes consistency, independent feedback, and candor from all interviewers. "If you see something, say something."
On that note, another person shared that, as a senior artist, they found themselves on the front line of struggles between two conflicting personalities. This team had both a new lead and a new project manager, both of whom had been recently promoted and neither had received any leadership training. The attendee shared that, even if you've been doing this for a long time, you can't solve these problems yourself. Instead, you have to repeatedly share with senior managers or studio leadership that something is going wrong and encourage management to step in with more coaching and training. Moreover, when people are promoted, you have to give them the tools to operate at the next level. This person shared that they've begun to proactively read a lot more about communication in leadership so that they're better prepared in the future. They recommended The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team, Surrounded by Idiots, Radical Candor, as well as topics on neurodiversity.
We wrapped up the roundtable by reinforcing the idea that the individuals and the teams need to point out the problem they are observing with a brilliant jerk. It's best if they can present the information in an objective way and frame the discussion as the impact it's having on the team. If things aren't improving, they should continue to document and share ongoing observations. Oftentimes, individuals aren't aware of the steps that leadership and management are taking behind the scenes. Sometimes it's inactivity, but sometimes it isn't. Regardless, continue to share. If management takes action, there will still be work to do afterwards. There will be a need to rebuild trust and safety. People will need to feel confident in the organizational again, and that will not be quick or easy.
If however, it becomes clear that the organization isn't taking action and has no intention of acting, one attendee shared a different approach. As they described it, the best "revenge" may be to take from that brilliant jerk everything you can learn from them and then leave. Get what you can out of it, and then move onto a different organization that prioritizes team wellness. And as you move into leadership, ensure your team is free from brilliant jerks in the future.
