How do you handle a situation where a high performer is also a source of team friction?
Why This Is Asked
Interviewers want to see that you don't tolerate bad behavior because someone is productive. They're assessing whether you can have difficult conversations with high performers, set clear expectations for behavior, and take action (including consequences) when needed—without being afraid to lose a star contributor.
Key Points to Cover
- Addressing the behavior directly, not ignoring it because of their output
- Being clear that high performance doesn't excuse poor collaboration or respect
- Working with the individual on specific behavioral changes
- Knowing when to escalate or take stronger action if behavior doesn't improve
STAR Method Answer Template
Describe the context - what was happening, what team/company, what was at stake
What was your specific responsibility or challenge?
What specific steps did you take? Be detailed about YOUR actions
What was the outcome? Use metrics where possible. What did you learn?
đź’ˇ Tips
- This is a common and tough scenario—interviewers want to see you've dealt with it
- Emphasize that you focus on behavior, not personality, and give specific examples of what needs to change
- Show that you're willing to make the hard call (e.g., PIP, reassignment) if the person doesn't improve—protecting the team matters more than one individual's output
✍️ Example Response
STAR formatSituation: I had a senior engineer who was one of our best individual contributors—they shipped fast, solved hard problems. But they were also abrasive: they interrupted people in meetings, dismissed others' ideas, and had a reputation for being difficult. Two engineers had asked to move off projects with them. I'd received feedback that the team was afraid to disagree with them.
Task: I needed to address the behavior without losing a high performer—and be willing to lose them if they didn't change.
Action: I had a direct conversation. I said: "Your technical contribution is exceptional. But your behavior is hurting the team. People don't want to work with you. I need that to change." I gave specific examples: the interrupting, the dismissive tone. I set clear expectations: "I need you to listen in meetings, invite others' input, and assume good intent. I'll check in with you in 30 days." I didn't soft-pedal it. I also had 1:1s with the affected team members to acknowledge the impact. When the engineer initially defended themselves ("I'm just direct"), I held the line: "Direct is fine. Dismissive is not." After 30 days, there was improvement but not enough. I extended the timeline and was more explicit about consequences. They ultimately improved significantly.
Result: The engineer stayed and became a better collaborator. The team's feedback about them shifted. I learned that high performers don't get a pass—addressing behavior directly, with consequences, is the only path. Protecting the team always comes first.
🏢 Companies Known to Ask This
| Company | Variation / Focus |
|---|---|
| Amazon | Hire & Develop the Best, Insist on Highest Standards — "How do you handle a high performer who causes friction?" |
| Googleyness, collaboration | |
| Meta | Impact at scale, hard calls |
| Microsoft | Growth mindset, collaboration |
| Netflix | High performance, candor, culture fit |
| Lyft | Mission-driven, inclusion, technical depth with empathy |