There’s a particular kind of leadership conversation that almost always happens behind closed doors.
It’s the one about the high performer who is wreaking havoc on the culture.
They deliver results. They have skills the organization values. They might hold critical client relationships, deep institutional knowledge, or insights pulled straight from a competitor. On paper, they look indispensable.
When I work with organizations, I’m working within all layers of an organization and coaching numerous managers across the business or working with a large group of high-potential talent. It never takes long before I get a hint of who the toxic A-players are. Not because people are dramatic, or because there’s gossip. But because the same name starts surfacing in different contexts, from different corners of the organization, in surprisingly consistent ways.
A toxic A-player isn’t defined by a single behaviour. They come in many shapes and colours. What they share is a pattern. They’re often slightly competitive instead of collaborative. Territorial with information. Selectively respectful. They make it known who they believe is competent and who isn’t. They deliver results, but they leave a wake behind them.
The reason leaders hesitate to act is that either everyone is biting their lip or the issues are known but letting them go feels risky.
What rarely gets discussed is that keeping them is also a decision and also comes with a cost.
Imagine this person participates in three team meetings a day. In those meetings, they don’t have to be overtly abusive to do damage. A dismissive comment. A subtle eye roll. Relentless push back. A quick shutdown of yet again another idea. Most people learn that it’s not worth challenging so they’ll simply pull back.
If even a handful of people in those meetings stop contributing fully for ten minutes afterward, the organization has just lost thinking time. Not busy work. Not execution. Thinking. Judgment. Creativity. Multiply that across days and weeks and suddenly you’re looking at hundreds of hours a year of collective brainpower just disappearing. No one records it. No one complains. But it’s gone.
Now layer in the cross-functional friction that often follows these personalities. The subtle battles with another department. The undermining. The refusal to collaborate unless they’re in control. What should be problem-solving becomes positional. People spend time navigating politics instead of solving the actual work in front of them. Projects drag. Energy drains. Trust erodes.
Again, this doesn’t look dramatic from the outside. It just looks inefficient. But inefficiency is expensive.
Then there’s the impact on their direct team.
This is where the damage compounds. Unreasonable expectations. Blame for missed targets. Pressure without support. Over time, people stop offering ideas. They stop taking smart risks. They do exactly what’s asked and nothing more. Engagement drops, not because they don’t care, but because caring has become costly.
Even a small dip in discretionary effort across a team effectively erases the equivalent of a full role. And eventually, people leave.
In my experience, I can cautiously under-estimate that companies almost always lose at least two solid employees because of one toxic A-player. Sometimes without mentioning the issue. Sometimes after months of internal debate. Often to competitors who are happy to welcome talent that finally feels safe to breathe again.
By the time leaders fully acknowledge what’s happening, the damage has already been done.
Here’s where leadership alignment systems matter more than most people realize.
When organizations invest in layered, ongoing leadership development — not one-off training, but systems that include leadership education, one-on-one coaching, real C-suite commitment, and annual renewal — the culture becomes visible. Patterns surface. Behaviours that once hid in the shadows get named and addressed.
In strong annual programs that deliver a leadership alignment system, aspiring leaders want to be part of the internal movement towards great leadership and culture. Selection feels meaningful. Investment feels earned. And great leaders know they’re being held to a standard. Not once but continuously.
These environments make it much harder for toxic A-players to chip away at the engagement of your people. They become visible and taking action becomes inevitable.