Even at the time of hiring her, it was suspected that “Samina” could prove to be an employee who would challenge her managers. However, law graduates willing to work in a small practice were few and far between at the time of her appointment. The HR manager pointed out both the concerning results of the profiling exercise and the inconclusive reference checks. She advised the practice against hiring Samina. But the managers chose to go ahead regardless; they needed another pair of hands and had no other candidate.
Within days, the supervisor complained that Samina “didn’t fit in”. When pressed, this amounted to a tendency to be “secretive” and to avoid asking for assistance when she was unsure. This reluctance to ask for help had a monetary penalty: the firm had to write off half a day of Samina’s research time as being so far from the matter in hand as to be useless and therefore unchargeable to the client. When the issue was discussed with Samina, she was unrepentant and angry.
The profiling results were pulled out for review.
Samina’s profile showed extreme passive imbalance. Under most circumstances, she would be fearful of putting forward her own wants and needs, fearful of expressing herself forthrightly, lacking in confidence in the value of her own opinions and excessively self-critical. Under stress, she would experience “flip” behaviour: a tendency to dominate, to be blunt, dogmatic and defensive. These interpersonal imbalances were the cause of difficult behaviour that persisted over the next several months.
This story does not have a happy ending. Eventually, Samina had to be managed out. Her managers, her colleagues and Samina herself suffered in the process. Understandably, her productivity during this time was very poor. Given the profiling results, this scenario was predictable and avoidable.