The High-Potential Who Is Burning Out the Team
A front office supervisor, 'Dana,' has the best upsell numbers on your team ($14,200 last quarter, 22% above the next agent) and the highest guest mention rate. She is also the subject of three informal complaints in six weeks: two agents say she 'talks down' to them, and one says she reassigns their tasks without telling them. Turnover on the front desk is 48% annualized, and exit interviews cite 'favoritism' and 'stress.' Dana has asked twice for a promotion to assistant manager. Your GM praises her results and says 'don't fix what isn't broken.' You have a performance-review conversation scheduled next week.
1. How do you handle the review conversation, and what standards do you hold Dana to?
Read the worked answer
Separate results from behavior and address both explicitly.
Before the meeting: document the three complaints, gather specifics (dates, what was said, impact), and check whether task reassignment violated any written procedure. Do not rely on hearsay; confirm facts.
In the meeting:
- Open by recognizing the measurable results (upsell, guest mentions) so she knows the feedback is not a takedown.
- State the behavioral standard plainly: supervisors do not reassign work without informing the agent, and they communicate respectfully regardless of performance.
- Give the specific examples and ask for her perspective; listen for whether she was never trained on delegation or is genuinely dismissive.
- Connect behavior to the promotion question: assistant manager requires team trust, and the turnover and complaint data are evidence she is not there yet.
- Agree on a 60-day development plan with observable milestones (zero substantiated complaints, documented delegation practice, peer feedback).
Do not let the GM's 'don't fix it' override the standard. High output does not excuse a hostile climate, and turnover has real cost.
2. The GM tells you to leave Dana alone. How do you respond, and what is your escalation path?
Read the worked answer
Respond with business impact, not emotion. Frame it as risk: 48% turnover means roughly half the desk replaced annually, each replacement costing recruiting, onboarding, and lost productivity. Complaints and exit interviews citing favoritism create a documentation trail that becomes a legal and retention exposure if unaddressed. Dana's promotion, if granted without behavior change, would multiply the problem across the department.
Proposed response to GM: 'Her numbers are real and I want to keep them. I am not asking to discipline her; I am asking to coach her with a documented plan so she is promotable and the desk stabilizes. If we do nothing, the complaints keep accumulating and we own them.'
Escalation path if the GM still refuses: document your recommendation and the GM's response in writing, continue informal coaching within your authority, and raise it through the next appropriate channel (HR or the GM's supervisor) only if the conduct creates a safety, legal, or serious retention risk. Keep the focus on standards and documentation, not on winning an argument.