The most common difficult-EM scenario in interviews: a productive engineer is also creating problems for the team. They ship the most features but make peers cry. They write the best code but eviscerate juniors in code review. The decision is genuinely hard — and the wrong call has long consequences.
The pattern
Common manifestations:
- Dismissive in code review (technical correctness without empathy)
- Cuts off less-senior engineers in design discussions
- Lone-wolf execution; refuses to collaborate
- Public criticism of others’ work
- Scoffing tone toward leadership decisions
These all coexist with strong technical output.
The cost
What hiring managers undercount:
- Junior engineers leave or stop contributing
- Code review becomes ego theater
- Other engineers route around them, creating coordination overhead
- Feature shipped by them becomes a black box no one else can touch
- Recruiting suffers — interviewees notice
The output of one high performer < the output of a 5-person team operating well.
The decision framework
Three categories:
- Coachable: behavior is unconscious; awareness + coaching can shift it
- Conditionally coachable: behavior is partly defensive; coaching + role adjustment may work
- Not coachable: behavior is identity; the person will not change without consequences
Identifying which category requires direct conversation.
The first conversation
Use SBI:
“In yesterday’s code review (situation), you wrote ‘this is wrong; rewrite’ on Maria’s PR (behavior). Maria has been distant from the team this week, and a peer mentioned this comment specifically (impact). What is your perspective?”
Listen. Sometimes the engineer is unaware. Sometimes they double down.
If they are unaware
Coaching can work:
- Specific examples of behavior, not generalizations
- The impact on individuals, named
- Concrete alternative phrasing
- Follow-up over months
Many engineers genuinely did not realize their tone was hostile. They adjust.
If they double down
“My job is technical correctness; I do not care about feelings.”
This is not coachable. The engineer is asserting an identity that the team cannot accommodate. Decision:
- Set explicit expectations
- Document specific behaviors that must change
- Timeline for change
- Consequences if no change (PIP, termination)
The “but they are essential” trap
Common excuse for inaction: “we cannot lose them; they own the auth system.” Reality:
- Knowledge transfer is possible
- The team’s long-term productivity matters more than any individual
- If they are truly the only person who knows X, that is also a problem
Strong EMs invest in distributing knowledge, not in tolerating toxicity.
The cost of inaction
Common pattern: EM avoids the conversation; junior engineers leave; replacements are scared of the high performer; team becomes dysfunctional. By the time the high performer is finally addressed, the team has churned 50%.
The cost of confronting is real. The cost of not confronting is larger.
What if calibration disagrees?
Sometimes you want to penalize the difficult behavior in performance review; calibration says output is too strong. Push back:
- Document specific incidents and impact
- Get peer testimony
- Frame in terms of team health and retention
- Make the cost visible
Calibration sometimes adjusts. Sometimes does not — at which point you have a values mismatch with leadership to navigate.
The interview question
“Tell me about a difficult high performer you managed.”
Strong answers:
- Specific situation
- Specific behaviors and their impact
- What you tried (coaching, expectations)
- The outcome (changed, left, terminated)
- What you learned
Frequently Asked Questions
What if their direct manager (you) is also somewhat in awe of them?
Self-awareness check. Get a peer EM’s read. Skip-level inputs. Don’t let your respect for output blind you to the cost.
What if they apologize and re-offend?
Pattern of cyclical contrition without change is not coachable. Treat as deliberate behavior; set firm consequences.
How do you protect junior engineers in the meantime?
Code review buddy system. Pair sensitive juniors with empathetic seniors during the coaching window. Unblock juniors who are getting stuck on hostile reviews.