George was negative and sounded like he was yelling when he spoke. The Partner had received feedback from colleagues that George was a drag on the office with his dark personality. George’s peers described him this way: “Bull in a china closet; In challenging conversations I feel he wants to lash out; Listen to client more...had to be shown filing before he stopped
embarrassing himself and rubbed treasury folks the wrong way.” The Partner knew that this personality flaw overshadowed all the positive traits George possessed. People just simply could not handle the sharp elbows and intensity and it caused them to avoid him whenever possible.
It was clear in my first meeting with George that he was a very pragmatic person who placed a high value on efficiency and outcomes. These, he believed, trumped everything else when it
came to serving the client. He had a low tolerance for people who were indirect and sought to avoid conflict, even when in his view, the best decision for the client and the firm was obvious
and straight forward. When that happened, George had an inability to hold back and a low interest in exploring the concerns his colleagues might have.
We learned through George’s personality and 360 assessments that he was very respected by
the people he worked with day to day. In fact, his peers and staff scored him very high. It was leadership who felt that George was the proverbial “bull in a china shop.” What George and I discovered was that those with whom he worked day to day appreciated his style and ability to give clear direction. Likewise, his clients valued the authentic, no nonsense approach to solving
their very complex technical problems. George was running into problems internally with Partners and certain legal advisors who viewed his approach as a risk.
George was not readily willing to change his approach because he felt he was right. And, in
many respects he was right; however, his tone was so off-putting that these leaders discounted him. It was important for George to come to an understanding that this was his problem to solve, not the Partners or the legal staff. They may have misunderstood his approach and had a bad impression, but only George could change the situation. It took him a few months and we had many lengthy conversations where he would seek to justify his approach.
George began to realize that even when his business approach was right for the client his tone
and need for hyper efficiency was repelling important colleagues, the people he needed to trust him and support him. He had a decision to make. Disregard the perceptions of these key leaders and not become a partner. Or, open his mind to understand that his black and white
approach was ineffective.
George began to listen more. He began to ask questions to gain insight into what his
colleagues concerns were. He decided to think before he spoke and weigh the personal political cost of snapping at the person on the other end of the conference call. Within nine months George had transformed others’ perception of him. A few months later he was invited into the partnership.