Let's Not Confuse High Performers with Climbers

Many years ago, after watching Faye Dunaway perform in London’s West End, I joined a group of other well-wishers to wait by the stage door in the hope of an autograph. When the Oscar-winning actress emerged from the theater, we were all relieved to learn that despite her formidable reputation, she was extremely gracious, attentively scribbling a greeting on our programs.

Standing there, I was reminded of the scene in Joseph Mankiewitz’s 1950 classic “All About Eve”, in which the central character, Eve Harrington, played superlatively by Anne Baxter is a passionate theatergoer who comes every day to see the same show, and then waits at the stage door for Margot Channing, played by the unsurpassable Bette Davis. A friend of Margot's notices the persevering admirer, and invites her to the dressing room to meet her idol. At first, the star treats her fan with disdain, but this initial encounter marks the beginning of a relationship in which Eve gradually assumes responsibilities in Margot's entourage, until she becomes her personal assistant, arranges her schedule and deals directly with her friends and colleagues. Eventually, Margot becomes suspicious of her protégée's intentions, but her friends dismiss her concerns. However, as time goes by, it is clear to all that Eve is manipulative and maneuvering to supplant Margot, even taking over her boyfriend. Eventually, Eve becomes the theater star she wanted to be, admired by the public, but hated by her former friends who have unwittingly helped her toward success. I won't spoil things for readers who haven’t seen the movie by recounting the final scene.

Eve Harrington was an archetypal climber, focused on nothing else in life other than achieving her ambition and prepared to use other people in the process. We’ve all met them in the workplace at one time or another. Socially skilled, sometimes with a certain charisma, climbers use flattery to generate intimacy by sharing confidences, slip veiled criticisms about other colleagues, reveal intimacies with the aim of building trust, make clear differences between circles of friends and enemies, and can also use gossip to pass on information.

The concept of climbing has been traced by some to Niccolo Machiavelli’s "The Prince", still widely read today as a guide on how to attain and retain power. I would argue that the book has largely been misunderstood, because its purpose is not prescriptive, but descriptive: it explains how, through their knowledge of history and direct experience, princes can retain command while generating value for their society. Moreover, it also presupposes that the prince cannot remain in power without promoting the ideal of justice and preserving the interests of his subjects.

I have come across any number of characters over the years who could be described as Machiavellian: in politics, in business, in universities, and even in foundations and social institutions, which one might be forgiven for thinking only attracted the well-intentioned. There are climbers in all cultures, whether in cultures where individualism is encouraged, or in latitudes where teamwork and the interests of the collective prevail.

Companies are microcosms, regardless of their size or location, and all have their corporate values, which may be clear or still to be fully defined, and sometimes developed through codes or principles, reflecting how people should get along.  Generally, these values promote cooperation and healthy camaraderie, based on the assumption that success is the result of collective effort. However, that success is the sum of many individual behaviors, and one of the challenges for top management is how to reconcile excellent individual performance with the best collective climate. To a large extent, the quality of interpersonal relations in a company is determined by top management and the heads of each unit, who are primarily responsible for fostering and extending a climate of cooperation, although there may be fair competition between teams or departments. When this turns into a free-for-all, the atmosphere can become strained, result in poorer performance. Once the atmosphere becomes tense and politicking sets in, it is very difficult to reverse the situation and the most competent and committed people consider leaving.

As with other vices, there is a spectrum of ambition and manipulation. At the extreme end are the climbers, manipulators, narcissists and egotists. At the other are those who from time to time take advantage of some circumstance for their own benefit, perhaps by not acknowledging the contribution of others, or who fail to assist other colleagues so as to hinder their career path. That said, all of us are probably guilty at least on some occasion of not being as generous or honest with all our colleagues as we might be.

Although sometimes confused with the climber, the high performer, whose talent, ideas, experience or networking ability sets them apart from their colleagues, is a very different animal. Unlike climbers, high performers do not need to manipulate others, they simply work harder or better and perform much better than their peers. Another important difference between climbers and high performers is how their colleagues feel toward them: loathing and envy respectively.

High performers can provoke feelings of inferiority among their peers, while others might harbor resentment, as a result, high performers who combine their productivity with generosity, sociability and modesty are more likely to be liked. 

Studies show that there are risks to the culture of coexistence if clear pay differentials are established between high performers, average workers and low performers, especially with regard to salary increases. In a 2014 article in the Harvard Business Review, Karie Wyllyerd notes: "If some high-performing employees routinely receive 10% raises while average performers receive 2%, resentment could lead to overall productivity losses, failure to bond and even bullying."

On the other hand, experience shows that if high performers are not sufficiently compensated, there is a risk of losing them. The experts' recommendation is to use variable compensation mechanisms, especially bonus payments, to make the difference between high performers and the rest of the workforce.

Salary and remuneration are among the main causes of envy among a company's employees. Comparisons between professionals in the same department, or with the same professional category, are inevitable, even if they are not made public. Indeed it is rare for colleagues to share with another what they earn. And when they do, it is usually to ask for a raise on the basis that the individual or their team are undervalued. Pay equity between people in the same professional category is considered a duty of justice, even if the comparative performance is unequal. For this reason, management often looks for alternative ways to compensate and retain high performers.

In addition to compensation, there are other attributes or assets that often give rise to envy within organizations, as do job titles and job descriptions, especially when the title is generic and the rank is considered insufficient. For example, when there are promotions to management committees in companies, and the question arises as to whether to appoint the promoted person as vice president, or to retain managing director, or some other title separating the candidate from the chain of command, such as associate vice president, or even the less powerful deputy to the vice president. Personally, I have never been very concerned about honorifics, although I have always been fortunate in that my job titles have always corresponded to my actual responsibilities. But I confess that I find it shocking how much time is sometimes wasted discussing the specific designation of a position. My recommendation in these cases is that it is preferable to give people the title they feel they deserve.

Other envious assets include offices, the physical space occupied by the department being managed, or being part of committees or groups chaired by the CEO, as well as the relative autonomy to decide important issues without prior authorization. Again, I find the envy generated in some by the comparison of offices, or support staff, to be unconscionable. I find that large and sumptuous offices are a reflection of the narcissistic personality of their occupier. I have always appreciated the elegance of those who use their professional office more as a meeting place, and not so much as a projection of their personality or power.

Moving on from climbers, we reach the kleptomnesiacs, the colleagues or bosses who steal other people’s ideas. We’ve all attended meetings where we propose an idea or suggest doing something in a particular way, only to discover later on that it has been picked up by a colleague, who claims it as their own. Perhaps they are then praised by the boss, while your original idea has gone unnoticed. Years ago, during a state trip of the King of Spain to Russia, I had the opportunity to be part of the delegation, which held a meeting with the then Prime Minister, Dmitri Medvedev, now globally discredited. At that time, perhaps excessive credulity did not lead me to harbor hopes about the potential openness of the Russian regime and its integration into Europe. At the previous preparatory meeting between businessmen and the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, I intervened at the beginning to express my opinion that Medvedev could be a valuable actor in this transformation, as a professor of Civil Law and defender in his writings of the guarantees provided by legal security, in a nation where the rule of law is all too often flouted. I referred to some of his published articles, and suggested that this could be one of the lines of conversation with Medvedev. Twenty minutes later, after various interventions by the attendees, I was deeply surprised to hear from another delegate, the founding partner of a large law firm, the same comment I had made, but enlarged and, admittedly, more brilliantly enunciated. One of my colleagues who accompanied me said to me in a low voice: "that’s what you just said". Logically, as it is preferable in these cases, I congratulated him at the end of the meeting for his lucid reasoning.

Experience has taught me that taking credit for the merits of others can dissuade valuable people from working with us. Therefore, my fervent recommendation to any manager with people under his or her charge is to over-recognize the merits of his or her colleagues, and of course, not to pin medals on themselves that should belong to others. When someone raises opportunities and valuable proposals, brings clients, it is necessary to recognize and reward them. To the high performers, all the recognition, along with the motivation to the rest of the team. To the climbers, let them seek their ambitions outside our environment.

--------------------

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account here