Navigating Hierarchy Challenges: How Should a Zonal Head Handle a High-Performing but Overstepping Sr. ASM?

I would like to seek your suggestions on a typical situation:

Marketing Team Hierarchy

There is a Marketing team structured in a hierarchy from top to bottom as follows:

Director - National Manager - Zonal Heads - Sr. ASMs - ASMs - Executives

In this scenario, we are dealing with an issue in the North Zone.

Performance and Behavior of the Sr. ASM (North)

The Zonal Head (North) is excelling and is the top performer among all zones. The Sr. ASM (North) is a key performer in the team. For instance, if the turnover is 100, he achieves 40 while the rest of the team achieves 60. His behavior is described as too ambitious, arrogant, and impatient, but self-motivated. He does not rely much on the Zonal Head except for strategizing and occasional meetings if necessary. Despite his performance, he is not well-liked by others.

Incident Involving the Sr. ASM

He arranges a meeting with a prospect without involving the National Head or Zonal Head and directly approaches the Director. The Director agrees and attends the meeting, but when questions arise, the National Head shows ignorance and defers to the Zonal Head, who reacts similarly.

The National Head questions the Sr. ASM on why he didn't involve his senior in the hierarchy. The response received is that he wanted to close the deal without involving too many people.

Handling the Situation

How should the Zonal Head, who is liked by many and perceived as dynamic, handle this situation? Is the Sr. ASM not considering him as a senior, trying to undermine him, or aiming to show superiority?

How can the Zonal Head address this issue to prevent recurrence, considering the Sr. ASM's performance?

Thank you for your time.

Ego and Communication Challenges in Organizational Hierarchies

This case highlights a strict ego and communication problem across various levels. Looking at the scenario, the Director has obliged the Sr. ASM to accompany him to close the deal without even checking the communication flow across the levels. This shows a lack of transparency and hierarchy in the organization. The senior team should decide what should matter: business or process.

If this is a startup, business is important, so they should not create too much hierarchy and should follow a horizontal structure. If the company is a stabilized company, they should focus more on a process-oriented approach and look for long-term yields. It all depends on the vision and the clarity of thought among senior team members.

I suggest that the senior members lay down guidelines, meeting etiquettes, and business etiquettes to achieve the best results. Otherwise, with the current structure, there is always a chance of losing key customers due to lapses in the system.

Regards,
Kumar

This is a typical attitude of quite a few top performers.

Director's Involvement and Its Consequences
First and foremost, I think your Director made a mistake by going directly without involving any of the seniors or at least keeping them in the loop. Unknowingly, he seems to have emboldened this guy into taking things for granted. Since the Director was the cause for it (or at least the 'cause' for the trigger), it's him who has to sort it out. I suggest that he speak to this guy personally or over the phone to resolve the issue.

Understanding the Sr. ASM's Response
Next, regarding the reply of this guy, '...I wanted to close the deal without involving too many people,' did anyone ask him why? 'Involving' too many people is one thing, and 'informing' too many people is quite another. Do you see the difference? It's clear that he wanted to take all the credit with the head boss, bypassing the middle hierarchy. Even if he didn't want to 'involve' his seniors, the minimum he is expected to do is to 'inform' his local bosses.

Exploring Underlying Issues
This also leads to another possibility in the scenario—were there any earlier situations that are making him behave this way now? Maybe the boss took credit for what this guy did? I suggest checking this aspect discreetly.

Role of the Zonal Head and HR
I doubt if any talk to him by the Zonal Head or others would help except the Director. In fact, there is a risk of things going from bad to worse, as the Zonal Head is one of the persons affected by this guy's behavior, and the chances are high that his prejudices may come out badly, and the consequence could be a slowdown in this guy's performance, which is not in anyone's interest—his or the company's. I would also suggest that the HR Head/person be present in the meeting when the Director meets this guy, more to focus on the long-term and psychological aspects of his behavior. Usually, such headstrong guys tend to listen only to those who are important/powerful or 'beyond-sight.' Someone needs to tell him softly that this attitude is likely to hit him more than the company, and in the long run, he would be able to achieve much more if he takes the others along with him.

Potential Training Opportunities
Also, if practical/possible, I think he could be an ideal candidate for some managerial course focusing on the psychological aspects of S&M.

All the best.

Regards,
TS

I am fully in line with the views expressed by Mr. Kumar and Mr. TS. Systems and processes should be in place if an organization has to function in a professional way. An organization cannot ride on the brilliance of a few individuals for a long time.

From the details provided, the National Manager and Zonal Head have been sidelined for the meeting. Is this a regular feature or the first of its kind?

The Director, after attending the meeting (which is wrong in the first place with two of his next senior members being absent), has no moral right to ask his National Manager or Zonal Manager, knowing fully well that both were not present at the meeting. Anyway, since he is the super boss, he can get away with this for a short period.

However, both the National Manager and Zonal Head have to sort out the matter at the Director level in a firm way, lest they would run the risk of getting sidelined again. This will be the first step to redress the situation.

They can ill afford to fail, and if they are not successful in convincing the Director, it is doomsday for both. Once they win the confidence of the Director, they can tackle the Senior Manager and force him to mend his ways. Discipline is first, and performance comes later.

If the situation does not change, and the Director encourages the Senior Manager, he may himself be in for a nasty surprise and one day find himself on the receiving end. Having created a Frankenstein, you cannot take your safety for granted.

If you fall back on Indian myth, "Basmasura," who gained a boon by which he can turn any individual to ashes, decided to try it out on Lord Shiva Himself after vanquishing many (Lord Shiva grants Basmasura a boon by which Basmasura, if he keeps his hands above the head of any individual, that person would be turned to ashes).

Regards,
V. Raghunathan
Navi Mumbai

I find the replies above to be textbook responses that have little connection with reality.

To me, reality looks like this:

Such an unprofessional environment in Indian organizations is a norm rather than an exception. This rut starts at the top and percolates down. In the process, some good managers, despite their good work, do not get the recognition, authority, and position they deserve. This is not the fault of an individual but the prevailing organizational climate, which breeds a culture of direct communication with the top. I don't blame this ASM, as he is a growth-oriented person, wants to rise in life, and has the necessary job capability and skills.

In such organizations with hierarchies, HR teams exist for the sake of a name; they seldom work independently on their conscience. The top fellow doesn't have a professional attitude, so he doesn't work through the hierarchy of his team (as the top person lacks confidence and conviction in himself and his fellow senior team members). In such cases, even mediocre successes of bottom-line employees like the said ASMs are directly or indirectly appreciated by the top, overlooking hierarchies. This breeds consequential arrogance in people like this ASM, who have proved their mettle through their good performance.

Key Question: How Should ZM Take It?

In my view, ZM must take stock of the ground reality if it exists as described above. He should focus on issues rather than the person (meaning I would have high regard for a performer with arrogance than a polite, decent non-performer). My experience suggests that such arrogance is mostly not a result of an individual's attitude but rather a result of the organizational climate which the boss (ZM) will have to learn to accept and innovate new ways to make his subordinates accept him as their boss (one level above them).

Thank you.

The first line of your message is a moot point. All three postings have considered practical aspects as well. Perhaps I can agree to disagree with your observation expressed in the first line.

Case Analysis

Coming to the case, you have expressed that the Zonal Manager should:

1.0 Take stock of the situation to ascertain if it really exists.
2.0 Focus on the issue.

Some more questions arise. The situation, as presented, describes an event that has already occurred. Focusing on the issue is certainly a progressive way of looking forward on how the National Manager and Zonal Manager should proceed.

The issue is that both the National Manager and Zonal Manager have been kept in the dark. When questioned by the National Manager, the ASM had the audacity to say that he didn't want to involve too many people. How can someone declare the higher-ups in the hierarchy as "too many people"?

The issue is still 'live' for the National Manager as well. If the Director continues to give his support to the ASM, will the issue get settled?

Your views are solicited.

Regards,
V. Raghunathan, Navi Mumbai

If I have understood you correctly, this is the main point where more clarity is required. I will again refer you to the points suggested by me regarding the stance of ZM. I further presume that ZM/NSM are competent and mature individuals, with no aspect of personality conflict involved on their part.

If a situation like I have mentioned exists, then both ZM and NSM (if they are sound professionals and believe in a real professional work culture and environment) should consider moving out of this organization and joining a more professional one. This is easier said than done. Alternatively, they should bear with this unprofessional situation (since shifting jobs today and finding a good alternative is not easy) and start working on this arrogant ASM, rather than giving lessons on management good practices to the top brass. While working with this ASM, they should focus on...

Further, I appreciate and respect your right to agree to disagree. I have tried to paint a picture that I have seen prevailing often. However, these are complex situations, and more experienced and enlightened managers can even suggest better ways. However, that would require putting yourself in the shoes where it pinches.

Best Regards