Have you heard of Shapeways? Or Quirky? Both companies are fascinating in the manufacturing world. Both companies are the epitome of innovation. I highly recommend the six-minute video that's a part of the Economist article. Well worth the watch. 

I don't dabble in the stock market, but with hearing what Shapeways and Quirky are doing...perhaps it's time to change my mind.

But the bigger question still hasn't been answered. Why didn't a big power house (maybe post power, but big none the less) like Kodak create the Instagram concept?

Read here to find out why.

Increasingly, however, forward-thinking managers are moving away from this old school concept of “need to know” information-sharing and moving towards a more open, collaborative model, even coining a term for this approach: transparent leadership.

Particularly in this age of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and You Tube, very little is able to be kept secret these days. Access to information is easier and information – particularly embarrassing or potentially damaging information – can now be spread globally literally within minutes. Smart leaders are realizing the benefits of opening up the channels of communication, coaching and collaboration at all levels within organizations. Transparent leadership helps managers at all levels to make better decisions, improve employee morale, reduce turnover and – get this, increase profits.

In the April 3 issue of CLO Magazine Halley Bock, the CEO of Fierce. Inc. writes an article entitled The Case for Transparent Leadership. In this article she quotes a 2011 Corporate Executive Board survey, which concluded that “organizations that successfully broke down barriers and eliminated the fear of retaliation for honest feedback substantially outperformed their peers, delivering 7.9 percent total shareholder return compared with 2.1 percent at other companies.”

That’s enough to get my attention! Read the complete article here.

My publisher overruled me, convinced that this person’s industry experience and impressive rolodex of contacts with ad agencies would be a boon to our revenues. Against my better judgment, I offered the rep a job. In relatively short order this salesperson began to open up doors where we had previously had little or no success. For sure, his lengthy list of contacts, as my publisher had predicted, netted us several key new advertising clients in large part as a result of this salesperson’s previous history with the decision makers. Within a few months, this rep became our #2 selling salesperson. So far so good, right? Not exactly.

It turns out that all my worst fears were realized and then some. He acted like the Big Man On Campus with the rest of the sales team and attempted to steal accounts from several other salespeople. He would have private conversations with customers he knew whose accounts belonged to other salespeople on my team, telling them they should contact me and tell me they would take their business elsewhere unless I would re-assign the account to this rep. By the end of his first year, he had alienated not only the rest of the sales team, but every other department in our newspaper. People did not trust him and he often spread false rumors about other members of the sales team, for his personal gain.

I found that roughly 75% of my conflict management time involved issues in which this salesperson was one of the litigants. I concluded that this person was a cancer on the sales team and needed to go. But my publisher refused to let me fire him because his sales numbers were so strong. It took me another 18 months to finally convince the publisher that this person’s negative impact on team morale, chemistry, cooperation and success outweighed the positives in terms of his personal sales numbers.

So the question is: How long do you put up with an employee who is having success in some ways but is undermining your efforts as a manager in other ways, and damaging the success of the team?

Libby Wagner, an industry thought leader and an expert in leadership, strategy, management, and executive team development, wrote about this very topic recently in an article called Does One Bad Apple Spoil the Bunch? Dealing with a Difficult Team Member. In her article she writes that there comes a point at which no matter how great a star the employee may be in terms of their ability or great ideas or sales numbers, it may be time to get rid of the bad apple in the interest of preserving the success and productivity of the overall team. Wagner points to three highly likely negative consequences from keeping this person too long:

Decrease in morale and loss of good workers. Your best employees may eventually conclude that it’s not worth putting up with the negative impact and look elsewhere for better working conditions.

Loss of credibility in leadership. If other team members perceive that this person is being held to a different set of standards from the rest of the team, it will erode their trust in and respect for you as their manager.

Lower overall performance. Which is more important? Having one super star employee who by some metrics performs well but undermines the belief and commitment of the rest of the team? Or remove the cancerous element and watch the overall performance of the rest of the team rise?

Of course, I am not proposing that you simply terminate the difficult employee without first attempting to turn the situation around. Discuss with the employee their negative impact they are having on the team. It is possible they may not be fully aware of their impact. Discuss consequences for failing to change their behavior and if necessary, indicate a deadline by which you need to see substantial improvement.

In the end, if this bad apple’s negative behavior does not improve, the risk of harm to the overall success of the team and the organization of keeping them on the team will eventually far outweigh any short-term benefits they may be providing.