Difficult Personality: Is it Grounds for Termination?

In theory, everything looked perfect.

Matylda, the CEO of a financial company, could finally breathe a sigh of relief. After several years of intensive company growth, she finally found a person who truly relieved her of her burdens. Agnieszka joined the company’s team and assumed the role of Chief Operating Officer.

Agnieszka impressed with her competencies from the very beginning. She quickly took the initiative, streamlined processes, monitored the budget, and brought order to procedures. Her ideas clearly impacted the company’s financial results. Even headquarters noticed this progress and, during the annual meeting of group leaders, recognized Matylda’s company for exceptional efficiency. Thanks to this, Matylda was able to pay bonuses to her team for the first time in years.

The perfect scenario? Almost. Because although the numbers added up, something in this picture began to grate.

Over time, disturbing signals reached Matylda – employees began to openly complain that “it is impossible to work with Agnieszka.” Although substantively beyond reproach, she was ruthless in relationships. She pointed out minor mistakes publicly, could start a row over a typo in a report, and treated being two minutes late as a personal insult. She was unable to work with the team or build any relationship with them. “I came here to work, not to look for friends,” she repeated when Matylda tried to integrate her with the team.

Over time, the situation became increasingly difficult. Complaints were pouring out of the HR Department, and long-term employees began to talk openly about leaving.

So Matylda tried to talk to Agnieszka. She appealed to her for empathy and greater understanding of people. She even proposed working with a coach. But Agnieszka saw no problem. She believed that the company “simply lacks discipline.”

Matylda realized she would not change Agnieszka’s character. She therefore faced a dilemma: keep a person who brings great results to the company, or protect the team from a toxic management style?

Are results enough to be a good leader?

Not necessarily. Substantive competencies are, of course, important – they form the basis for effective work, but that is only the beginning. Knowledge alone does not guarantee that a leader can inspire, motivate, and build a team that will want to cooperate with them.

Equally important are attitude and soft skills: empathy and the ability to listen, the ability to motivate and inspire, managing emotions and conflicts, and the ability to communicate clearly.

A leader does not have to know all the answers. Their main task is to create an environment in which specialists can fully utilize their competencies.

Crucial soft skills include managing emotions and the ability to communicate clearly.

The balance of gains and losses. When does a leader’s “difficult character” become a threat to the company?

It happens that leaders focused exclusively on results appear in management positions. Often it is they who achieve the best results – they easily meet goals, and their expertise translates into high effectiveness. However, good results are only one side of the coin. In combination with an unhealthy management style, they may – in the long run – cost the company more than they actually bring in.

What, then, might happen if Matylda – in the name of results – decides to keep Agnieszka in the company?

Decrease in employee motivation and engagement. Employees who feel undervalued, ignored, or humiliated lose motivation. As a result, their productivity, creativity, and readiness to take initiative decline. Although it may seem in our example that Agnieszka is the driving force of the company, she will achieve little alone without an engaged team. And a team has its limits. If it eventually refuses to cooperate, results will, like it or not, fall.

Conflicts and tensions in the team. The atmosphere introduced by Agnieszka may affect the entire team. Long-term pressure will lead to conflicts – not only between Agnieszka and the team but also among the employees themselves. Unresolved conflicts lead to a toxic atmosphere, divisions, and gossip. From there, it is a straight path to the disorganization of work throughout the organization.

Stagnation and burnout. A team needs constructive feedback to develop. Agnieszka, lacking clear communication skills, will not be able to provide it. As a result, employees will not have the conditions to develop competencies, which will stall their career paths and increase the risk of professional burnout. Ultimately, this will limit the potential of the entire company.

Employee turnover. A toxic atmosphere, team conflicts, lack of communication, pressure, or an unclear career path are among the most common reasons for leaving a job. And turnover costs – recruitment, onboarding new people, loss of knowledge and experience. In the long run, the efficiency and morale of the entire organization suffer.

Tarnished company image. A leader is the showcase of the entire organization – towards employees, clients, and partners. A lack of personal culture and communication skills harms not only the team but can also seriously damage the company’s reputation.

Legal risk. An HR Department flooded with complaints about Agnieszka is not just an organizational problem. It is easy to imagine a situation where Jacek, to whom Agnieszka publicly pointed out a typo for the third time this month using the words “a preschooler could do it better,” finally raises mobbing charges. And Zosia, who feels that due to her young age, Agnieszka particularly dislikes her, concludes that she is being discriminated against. The company will be liable for Agnieszka’s actions – as it is the employer’s duty to provide employees with a safe working environment.

But can you dismiss an employee for having a difficult character?

Above all, one must react. A lack of reaction will determine the employer’s liability if at some point another employee accuses Agnieszka of, for example, mobbing, discrimination, or harassment.

The starting point should always be a conversation. Honest feedback, ongoing clarification of unclear situations, and highlighting the problem in annual appraisals.

The second step is to offer support – communication and team management training, workshops developing interpersonal skills, working with a coach or mentor. It is worth giving a chance for change and facilitating that change.

Start with honest feedback and professional help, e.g., a coach or mentor.

If, however, nothing helps and the employee’s attitude negatively affects the team and realistically threatens the company, a separation must be considered.

Labor courts take the position that a lack of interpersonal skills, including teamwork, can be grounds for terminating an employee’s contract – especially when it affects team efficiency, organization results, or even the work atmosphere.

“An employee’s non-faulty lack of teamwork skills may constitute a justified reason for terminating an employment contract.” [Supreme Court Judgment of April 15, 1999, I PKN 14/99, OSNP 2000, No. 12, item 469].

This applies particularly to management staff, from whom more can be expected – both in terms of work quality and responsibility for relationships.

“The rationalization of employment in the case of management staff may involve the incidental replacement of one employee with another, if there is a basis to assume that it will improve the functionality, efficiency, or profitability of the employer’s operations, or even just the work atmosphere, which may indirectly translate into economic results.” [Supreme Court Judgment of May 8, 2024, II PSKP 67/23, OSNP 2025, No. 2, item 13.]

In practice, this means that even if an employee performs tasks on time and substantively correctly, but cannot cooperate with people, and their attitude generates stress or tension in others – they can be dismissed. Not because of their “character,” but because of violating the principles of social coexistence and hindering teamwork in the company.