The High Performer Everyone Else Is Avoiding
You supervise a 22-person front office. One agent, Tomas, has the best guest-satisfaction scores on the team and the fastest check-in times. He has been here four years. Over the last two months, three different agents have asked to be moved off shifts with him, and one told you he 'talks down to people.' You have not personally observed it. Last week a new hire, Elena, came to you in tears after a shift with Tomas and said he criticized her in front of a guest. Tomas's version: Elena made a billing error, he corrected it, and 'she is too sensitive and needs to learn faster.' Your GM values Tomas's scores and has said, informally, 'don't break what works.' Turnover on the front desk is already 40% annualized.
1. How do you handle this, given that you have not seen the behavior yourself and the GM is inclined to protect Tomas?
Read the worked answer
You have enough to act, but not enough to accuse. The move is to gather specific, observable facts and then address behavior, not personality.
What you actually have: three agents asking off his shifts, one direct report of public criticism, a new hire in tears. That is a pattern, not a rumor. What you do not have is a dated, specific incident you witnessed - so get one.
Steps:
- Talk to Elena privately and factually. When, where, what was said, who else heard it. Write it down. Do not promise confidentiality you cannot keep; promise you will not repeat her name unnecessarily.
- Ask the other agents the same way - specific incidents, not impressions.
- Check the record. Was there a guest present? Any billing error that day? The facts should be checkable.
- Then meet Tomas once, with specifics. Not 'people find you difficult' - instead: 'On Tuesday at 4:15 you corrected Elena's billing in front of a guest at the desk. That is the issue, not the correction.'
On the GM: do not frame this as 'Tomas is a problem.' Frame it as retention math: 40% turnover, three agents avoiding shifts, and a new hire who may quit. His scores are real, and the cost of losing two more trained agents exceeds the cost of one difficult conversation. Bring the GM the numbers, not the grievance.
2. Tomas responds that Elena is too sensitive and that he was protecting the hotel from her error. What do you say, and what do you commit to?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two claims. He is right about one and wrong about the other, and you should say so.
- Right: catching a billing error matters, and he should keep catching them.
- Wrong: correcting a colleague in front of a guest. That is not a performance standard; it is a choice about where and how to give feedback, and it is the part that is not negotiable.
Say it plainly: 'I am not asking you to accept her error. I am telling you the correction happens away from the guest, every time, and that is a requirement of the job, not a preference.' Avoid debating whether Elena is 'too sensitive' - that argument cannot be won and is not the point.
Commit to specifics, in writing:
- Feedback to peers goes off the floor. If a guest is present, the senior person handles the guest and addresses the colleague afterward.
- If he believes a colleague's error is a pattern, he brings it to you rather than handling it himself.
- You will hold the same standard for everyone, including Elena, and you will tell Elena her error was real.
- A follow-up in 30 days, and a stated consequence if the public correction recurs (progressive discipline, documented).
Also commit to Elena: tell her the billing error was real and will be coached, and that the way it was raised was not acceptable. Otherwise she learns that reporting gets her nothing and that the error was fine - both wrong.