Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
You know your business needs to change, but you’re caught in the emotional and relational dynamics that are holding you back. Welcome to Noble Metal, the podcast that helps you forge a new kind of leadership. Host Phillip Weiss, a seasoned executive coach and organizational consultant, reveals how to become a more resilient, deliberate, and less-anxious leader.
Through powerful insights based on Bowen Theory and systems thinking, you’ll learn to navigate complex workplace relationships, manage challenging strategic issues, and lead your team to sustainable change. Get the clarity and tools you need to forge a new path for your business.
Ep14
===
Toxic Star Overview
---
[00:00:00]
Phillip: Hi, and welcome back to Noble Metal, where we look at leadership at work and in life through the lens of Bowen family systems theory. Today, we are gonna get into something that I think will hit pretty close to home, whether you're leading a team, sitting on a team, or somewhere in between. We are gonna talk about the toxic star, the high performer who's also making life even somewhat [00:01:00] miserable for people around them. And we're going to look at this through the lens, as we always do, of Bowen family systems theory, a framework developed, as a refresher, by psychiatrist Murray Bowen that gives us remarkable insight, really, into how human beings function in groups, at work, at home, everywhere.
So here's our roadmap for today. We're gonna start with a story that you're gonna recognize, I think. Then we'll define our terms because toxic, that word, gets thrown around, in my opinion, a little bit too loosely. Then we're gonna dig into Bowen concepts that might apply and finally talk about what, what do we do about it. We'll touch briefly on families, and we'll close with what I think is probably the deepest question of all, which is about the leader and not the star themselves. All right, with that, let's get going.
Meet Scott the Superstar
---
Phillip: So I want to introduce you to Scott. Scott is a regional sales director at a mid-sized financial services company. By [00:02:00] every standard, he's extraordinary. He-- His numbers run forty percent above the quota. He lands accounts others have been chasing for years. And typically, when the CEO needs someone to kind of fly out and rescue a collapsing deal, Scott's the guy. He's got a strong presence, kind of even a magnetic presence and a relentless drive that from a distance looks like total professional excellence And leadership loves him.
The board knows his name. His compensation package has been quietly restructured twice to keep him from entertaining outside calls. And of course, Scott knows all of this, and he, relishes it.
So here are some things that Scott does. He arrives late to team meetings and leaves early sometimes because truly the rules of punctuality, he's decided, are for people that still need to prove themselves. He dismisses other people's ideas in group settings, sometimes even with a little bit of contempt. And, [00:03:00] and it's, it's not an angry contempt, but it's a sort of arrogance that thinks no one else has anything to offer.
He sometimes takes credit for collaborative work without a second thought He will will often call junior employees by the wrong names. Again, not out of malice, but just out of indifference. Doesn't care. And when a new performance review system rolls out company-wide, Scott simply just, he doesn't do it. When his manager, Janet, raises the issue gently or issues with him, Scott just smiles, "You know, come on, Janet, you know these things really aren't for guys like me." And Janet laughs, but she hates inside that she's laughed.
Damage Behind the Numbers
---
Phillip: And here's what's happening in the meantime, invisible to the quarterly reports, but completely visible to everyone who works near Scott. Three talented teammates have quietly started job searching. One, a rising star in her own right, has already accepted an offer somewhere [00:04:00] else. In exit interviews, people are careful. they say, "Hey, I'm just ready for a change." But when they're given a chance to really be honest, they say something like, "You know, I couldn't stay in a place where this was allowed." Team morale is tanked. People have stopped volunteering ideas to some degree. Collaboration's become really more transactional in a way. there's There's a low-grade hum of resentment at Scott, for sure, but increasingly at Janet and at the organization for its silence. So Janet sees it. She's not stupid. She's, she's seen the eye rolls. She's watched the energy drain from rooms. She's heard the whispers.
She knows about people wanting to leave. She's even crafted in her mind the conversations she needs to have with Scott. But she hasn't had it yet because Scott, after all, is Scott.
Performance Protection Spiral
---
Phillip: So what Janet is caught in is not unusual. It's really common, [00:05:00] and it maybe even deserves a name. I call it the performance protection spiral, and here's how it works. Organizations place a very high premium on output. People are rewarded for that. Over time, the label high performer becomes an identity marker, and that marker carries with it, I would say, sort of these invisible privileges. Rules bend, feedback softens or really typically doesn't even happen. Confrontations get postponed again and again. And the high performer knows it. They notice. Each time a concern gets quietly dropped, each time a boundary's violated without consequence, they receive a clear message. You are exempt. Keep going.
The boss sees the negative behaviors. Most bosses, as we said, aren't blind. But by the time they've started to really see it, the person has become a perceived superstar. Now the boss [00:06:00] is afraid. Afraid Scott will disengage, afraid Scott might leave.
In my experience, most people trend toward being conflict adverse. Confronting somebody with, the potential for their unpredictable reactions supporters in high places, and a solid sense of entitlement is genuinely uncomfortable for the person who might have to confront. So the boss imagines the conversation going badly, and they back away from it before it even happens. And here's, kind of the pernicious loop, so to speak. Every week without a confrontation, every deal Scott closes, every really great quarter reaffirms the avoidance. Like, see, everything's fine. We've got this. Right up until the moment they don't have So here's the thing. Everybody sees the behaviors, and everybody wonders why nothing is being done. And in that gap between [00:07:00] everybody knowing and what leadership is actually going to do, trust, as we like to call it, quietly evaporates.
Defining Toxic Behavior
---
Phillip: So what do we mean by this term toxic?
I do think it's important to define our terms This has become one of those terms used so freely, in my opinion, it kind of has lost its meaning. It's a difficult conversation, just an ordinary difficult conversation becomes toxic. High standards can become toxic. Honest feedback becomes toxic.
I think we need to push back on some of that. Overusing the word pathologizes ordinary friction. It makes just regular conflict problematic, when in fact it's a normal part of organizational life. I think this terminology can also become a way of avoiding our own responsibility. We label the other person as, quote-unquote, [00:08:00] "toxic," rather than examining, first of all, as we've been learning, what's going on in the bigger system, and ultimately, it kind of becomes an excuse for not examining what's going on with me.
What's my part in this? That said, the fact that a word gets overused doesn't mean that the thing it's describing doesn't exist. So when we say toxic here, here's what I'm thinking of . We mean sustained patterns, not necessarily isolated incidents. So patterns like treating others' time, contributions, and really even their dignity with a sort of contempt. Violating the relational norms the organization at least is trying to uphold. Producing measurable harm to morale, retention, and the ability for people to collaborate effectively. And then finally, persistent behaviors despite awareness on the person's part and feedback that they've maybe been given. So that [00:09:00] last point I think is critical. Someone who behaves badly but genuinely responds to feedback by changing, that's not who we're talking about here. We're talking about somebody who, when confronted, denies it, minimizes it, gets angry at it, and uses basically their star status as a shield.
So every leader has, I believe, has the responsibility to assess when somebody's behaviors are doing genuine collateral damage, and I believe that leader has the responsibility to act.
Bowen Lens on Leaders
---
Phillip: So now I want to bring, in our framework that I think casts useful light on this the The framework of Bowen family systems theory. Recall that Murray Bowen spent decades observing human behavior and found that the same relational patterns operate pretty much everywhere where humans gather. There are three concepts in particular here that [00:10:00] I want to highlight. I think there are more that are applicable, but there are three that I really wanna highlight here.
The first, and I, and I'm thinking in particular of Janet as the leader. So first of all, she is experiencing full-on togetherness pressure. She is experiencing that pressure of the togetherness forces, and especially from the top. There is a collective belief from senior leadership that Scott's deliverables far outweigh the impact of his behaviors. Also, by the way, they may not be fully aware of his behaviors, but in some cases they are. So here, any action that could threaten Scott's success, probably for Janet, seems very risky. So she's, she's feeling that. Secondly is distancing. As we recall, distancing is one way that we manage anxious tension in any system, in any relationship system. And we create physical or emotional space rather than engage directly with [00:11:00] the discomfort. I would say Janet is-- for sure distancing from Scott. She's also distancing from the outcome of his behaviors, kind of turning that blind eye. She's not having the conversation. I mean, seriously, who wants to deal with the potential for Scott's arrogant reactivity? Now, this isn't on Janet's part, this isn't weakness. I think it's an extremely common human response to relational anxiety, but it has its consequences. Distancing typically never resolves the underlying issue. It just buys time while the issue, in a sense, compounds.
The third thing that I would note from Bowen theory here is what, what we need is we need a more defined Janet. And as I've noted over time here on these podcasts, this is the central concept of Bowen Theory, differentiation of self. And we'll come back to it in the end. But just as a refresher, this is the capacity for a [00:12:00] person, in this case a leader, to stay emotionally grounded, clear about their own values and position, even when the system around her, in this case, is generating enormous pressure to back off, to go along, whatever the case might be. But a, a more highly differentiated leader, I believe, can hold the tension between genuinely caring about Scott and the organization and being absolutely clear that his behavior is unacceptable. That ability to hold that tension, and I think that's an important concept. A poorly differentiated, leader gets swept up into the system's anxiety and distances and in a sense here is also paralyzed. Here's what I encourage you to hear. The toxic star problem, as we're calling it, at its core is a differentiation problem, not primarily in the star, although I would say that's true, but [00:13:00] primarily in this case, in the leader.
Turnover Data and Fear
---
Phillip: So let's take a Look at some data, and I want to bring in some outside thinking from a guy by the name of John Engels, a systems-based thinker and executive coach. John wr-wrote an article, a blog a while back on the toxic star. And in it, he points out that teams with a toxic star often experience thirty to forty percent higher turnover. I mean, think about that cost. Recruiting, all that's involved here, recruiting, onboarding, lost institutional knowledge, energy spent on the hiring process. It almost definitely dwarfs whatever revenue the toxic star might generate. The math just simply requires a longer time horizon than most leaders use. So Engel, Engels also names rationalization that organizations use to justify inaction. And I guarantee you, you probably heard some version of these. " The client loves them. They make us lots of [00:14:00] money. They're the only ones with this expertise." I've heard that a lot in my HR days. Real concerns, but they function as reasons, unfortunately, not to act.
And Engels asks directly, "Does fear of losing revenue persuade you to adopt a do not confront mindset?" I mean, that economic factor is huge and very powerful. And from a Bowen perspective, fear is an operating word here. Anxiety is driving the bus, and anxiety, when it drives, rarely takes you somewhere good.
How Leaders Intervene
---
Phillip: So let's, let's turn towards some possible solutions here. What might a more
differen a more differentiated leader... I still get tongue-tied, too. What might they do in this situation? First of all, get objective. Name the behaviors specifically. And Engels points this out. Not that, quote, "Scott is difficult," but rather more specifically, "Scott consistently [00:15:00] arrives late to meetings, dismisses colleagues' proposal in front of the whole team," et cetera. Bowen would call this, I would say, defining yourself clearly to the system and stating the facts. We can't lead well on vague impressions and accumulated frustration. And in true HR speak, we've got to be very specific about the behaviors that are in play. So secondly, create clear standards. I think Engles is, is exactly right here. Anchor the behavior to standards, not to personalities. Let me say that again. Anchor the behavior to standards and not specific personalities. Tie expectations to company values and team norms, not personal feelings about the person. A differentiated leader doesn't say, "I don't like who you are." In my opinion, I think they're going to say something more like, "Here's what this organization stands for. Here's where your behavior [00:16:00] diverges from that. Here's what needs to change."
Thirdly, quantify the impact. Tell the person how their behavior is affecting these things we've been talking about, like retention, morale, and performance. To say something like, "You're being difficult," is easy to dismiss. But to say something like, "Hey, three people have left this team in the last year, and exit interviews identified your leadership style as a contributing factor," that's very specific.
In the same vein, and fourth, give rigorous feedback. Engles writes something like, keep coming back to, "Hey, your results are strong, but the way you're operating is damaging the team. That's unsustainable." I love that because it's direct and to the point. It's honest. It's fair. In this case, it's fair to Scott because essentially, what the leader is doing is holding up a mirror saying, "Here is reality." It doesn't dismiss Scott's contributions because we're acknowledging [00:17:00] that he has results. But it also doesn't flatter him. It holds both truths, basically saying, "You're valuable and you're causing harm." Next, consider holding accountability and keep holding. We're going to dig more into this accountability topic because it is, it is a huge one. But for now, this idea of, of accountability being a sustained posture, returning to the issue, documenting behavior, measuring change, following through on consequences. Have the exit strategy ready before you need it. In other words, a stay strategy and a leave strategy before walking into the room and having those conversations. But it's about creating accountability and sustaining it. Hard to do. I get it. I get it. We're talking about really difficult stuff. we're talking about going against the anxiety grain. We're talking about living with this kind of discomfort and these kinds of difficult [00:18:00] conversations, but I would argue that that is what leaders do.
Aftermath and Hidden Talent
---
Phillip: Lastly, consider what comes after. Engels makes a point that leaders consistently underestimate that removing a toxic star often energizes people and it reveals talent that might have been even overshadowed. Lesser lights, so to speak, come alive. The quiet colleague who never spoke up finally maybe finds space to contribute. the system starts to reorganize, and I have seen this again and again. In particular, when people-- when a leader does finally take the needed action, whether it's a toxic star or just a, a challenging performance issue, when they do finally take the action and it's happened they begin to hear stories of, "Yes, that was the right thing to do, and here's why."
Jack Welch Story
---
Phillip: Before I shift gears over here to the family for a minute, I want to tell a, a story, something that I experienced way back in the day [00:19:00] before our amazing technology. I was in an HR position, leadership role, and we had secured a sort of a subscription to these live teleconferences over the phone. And at that time Jack Welch was a thing, and I know some people, they kind of love him or hate him or some combination of the two. But he was on the phone live, and somebody point-blank asked him the question, " Hey, I have a really high-performing sales leader who is exactly the story that I just told you regarding Scott." They basically described that. Welch did not hesitate. He basically said, "Get him out," for the very reasons, in some measure, that I articulated here today, and in particular, because of the long-term collateral damage that it does to the team and to the organization So let's, for a few minutes here, step into the family dimension, because Bowen always insisted that workplace, any workplaces and non-family places can't be fully understood [00:20:00] apart from the family systems that really shape the people who are in those.
Family Cutoff and Parenting
---
Phillip: So this family dimension, I will say, deserves its own full episode, and I'm planning on one, but let's just, let me just plant a few seeds for now. First of all, again, we're in the context of talking about toxic players and toxic behaviors. There's a huge trend out there right now within pop psychology. And that is cutting off from people in the family that we label as toxic. I have to say, in my studies of Bowen theory, I wonder if we're too quick to move toward this cutting off action, distancing and then ultimately cut off. That language of terminology, as I mentioned earlier, has made it easy to exit relationships in a way that relieves immediate anxiety while limiting real growth.
Now, I get it. There are sometimes we have got to step away and there are times when cut off is necessary and we have to be our own judges of when [00:21:00] that is. But I do think Bowen might suggest that our eagerness for that distance and cut off sometimes has more to do with our own anxiety than with a clear-eyed read of the relationship. We simply cannot stay in the kitchen with the discomfort and we lose perspective. So I just want to put that out there. I think I will be speaking more to this in a future episode. The other thing that I want to speak to on the, again, on this sort of performance management side of things, as I was thinking about it, to me, parenting is in a real sense the family version of performance management. Now, I'm not a parent but I do know something about how tough parenting is. And I suspect, though, that some of the same principles apply. These might be clear and consistent standards, holding love and accountability together, that tough balance, not letting anxiety push you toward permissiveness [00:22:00] or harshness. But defining yourself as a parent clearly so that the child knows what it is that you as the parent stand for. I will point you to two Bowen-informed books on parenting in the show notes, and I may return to this in, in a future episode. But for now, I think the patterns are, are the same. The anxiety is the same. The work on differentiation to be done is, is most likely the same.
Leader Differentiation Close
---
Phillip: So let's close where Bowen maybe, maybe would close himself, with the leader taking responsibility for her or himself first. Managing a toxic star is ultimately a differentiation challenge. And again, what might that look like here for Janet, very briefly? It looks like her sitting across from Scott genuinely caring about the guy, acknowledging his gifts, and still saying clearly and calmly that his behavior is unacceptable and needs to [00:23:00] change. It looks like tolerating Scott's reaction. He might deflect. He might get really angry. He might pour on charm. He might walk out of the room. It's tolerating that without backing down or lowering the temperature or lowering, you know, taking the bait to, to lower the reality of it. It looks like her holding her position when the CEO reminds her for the third time what Scott's pipeline looks like. It looks like her being willing to act even when it's uncomfortable, even when it costs her something, and it could. Even when pressure to look the other way is enormous. This is a tall order, and it's not achieved by listening to a podcast, though I appreciate your being here. This is the work of a lifetime, the slow cultivation of a self that can remain grounded under pressure. I think Bowen was honest here that no one fully completes this in our lives.
We are all always in some measure on a spectrum working it, [00:24:00] but at least we're working it, and that direction matters. That effort matters. The team, those people close to Scott who are watching, waiting, wondering if anybody notices isn't gonna do anything, they, that team deserves the leader stepping up to the plate. As John Ingalls puts it, performance isn't just about individual results. It's about how a talented person elevates the whole team. Toxic star might shine really bright in the short term, but over time, they cast a very long shadow. The strongest organizations are those willing to confront the trade-off and choose culture over chaos. That's the work, and it's hard at times, sometimes harder than managing a P&L, I would actually argue. And it starts not with a policy or a process, but with a leader who knows what they stand for, who's willing when the moment comes to stand there.
Final Takeaways and Outro
---
Phillip: So [00:25:00] that's our episode for today. Thank you for spending this time with me. If this resonated with you, share it with somebody navigating a situation like this right now. A lot of people are in varying degrees, not necessarily with the superstars, but just performance issues. And a lot of people feel alone in it. So pass it on. We, as I said, we're going to revisit the family cutoff conversation in a future episode. It's just too rich to leave alone. And I also want to go deeper into accountability as well. So until next time, keep doing the work. It matters more than you know.