Assessing employees performance or their value for the company is a big challenge, still I get constantly surprised with clumsy attempts to gauge it.

Last week I’ve read an article on inc.com titled “Is Your Superstar Employee Really Helping Your Business?“ Whilst I agree with the idea that management / owners should do what is reasonable for the business, including firing employees when it’s necessary, I was just shocked by reasoning why sometimes there’s a “need to remove top performers” (yes, the author really says “top performers”!) Even though I entirely disagree with the position of the author, I absolutely recommend to read mentioned article to understand the way of thinking of professional business advisers’ and other MBA-minded guys.

Here’s what I was able to extract some reasons why “top performers” aka MBD (“maverick big dogs”) sometimes should be fired.

First point is that it isn’t obvious for MBDs that “it’s time to institute more systems and processes because your growing business has become more complex” or that “the path (to grow business) seems simple. Install the required systems and processes, get through this brief period of whitewater”. This “systems and processes” MBA-like mantra starts in two consecutive sentences of the beginning of the article and going on later.

Next argument I’d like to point out is that “Big dogs are good…in the early days of a business. But when the business grows and becomes more complex, some big dogs switch from being a great asset to being a painful liability.” Being among other things a programmer, I just can’t help but say that when things you create are getting complex it is a clear indication that you’re not doing it right. Organizational complexity, as well as the complexity of the code, is the greatest liability and certainly not the reason to get rid of MBDs, who don’t fit into complex systems or can’t stand creating unnecessary complexity.

And there author goes about processes and systems again: “For maverick big dogs, the imposition of systems and processes does two things, both of which for them, is incredibly painful: it greatly dilutes their previously hard-earned freedom and autonomy; and it threatens their special relationship with the leadership group.” I personally believe that freedom and autonomy is great for employees and eventually – beneficial for the company. The question here is why would manager want to limit this freedom and autonomy? I guess, the answer is pretty simple: it’s the only way for such a manager to make sure that employees work. That manager has no skills to assess the work by the results, so he can only control the process and micromanage. “Special relationship” of some employees with leadership group certainly isn’t a good thing – employee should have some special treatment just because of the historical reasons (unless it was specified in his contract), but in the context of this whole article it looks more like a threat for the manager, that those early employees will keep the possibility to share their forthright and possibly “politically incorrect” opinions with the “leadership group”.

“Now with new systems and processes in place, the maverick big dog is expected to complete the same forms, attend the same meetings, submit the same reports as everyone else. And guess what? They hate it.” And they are right – meetings are toxic and expensive. Whilst for managers meetings are often the only way to show their authority, participation in work and being in control, for doers they hardly ever have a value.

Finally author concludes that MBDs should be fired not just because they don’t see a value in a “new order”, but that they are openly share their opinion (which he phrases as that they “cavil, whine, whinge, complain, undermine”). While other workers might be afraid of losing their job, MBDs probably better know their value, their capability of doing stuff, of creating and delivering results and are not afraid of starting everything over in a new place, so they can afford risks of saying what they really think even though it can be different from the new “processes and systems” management point of view.

I have to agree that the situation when “top performer” “superstar” is holding company back is very possible, but this claim would have more ground, if management or advisers were able to assess his value for the company more objectively. Instead of traditional “systems and processes” with “submitting reports” this can be achieved with elements of a free market inside of a company: if advantages of such a superstar (his knowledge, skills, efforts and ability to deliver results, etc.) outweigh his inability to fit the “system”, submit the reports or attend meetings, he will be in demand; if opposite – he will be avoided to work with, will have less “orders” on that internal market, and this will be a fair and clear indication that he isn’t a good fit for the company at the current moment in time.