When Should Your Star Employee Step In?

All organizations have them: the executive everyone turns to when a project is stalled, the engineer who solves frustrating technical problems, the fundraiser who reels in the big whale.

These are star performers, individuals who consistently outperform traditional expectations. Studies in fields ranging from finance and consulting to science and technology show that top performers generate several times the value of average employees. 

Not surprisingly, they command plenty of attention, including from generations of management researchers who have studied how these standout employees affect organizational performance.

The evidence shows that star performers can be both a blessing and a curse. They can boost productivity, attract resources, inspire colleagues and help organizations innovate. But they can also create bottlenecks and unintentionally discourage initiative among coworkers. Teams can become dependent on a star’s expertise and stop developing their own capabilities. Indeed, organizations have been shown to be more innovative when a star is out of commission, as other employees step up and explore new approaches. 

Whether a blessing or curse, star performers cannot be ignored. But they do present a management challenge: If organizations need stars, they also need everyone else to contribute effectively. How can they maximize the blessing of the star performer and minimize the curse? 

A question of timing

That challenge led one research team to study not only how much influence stars should have or where they sit on the org chart, but at what point they should be involved in projects. 

Christopher Cotton, an economics professor at Queen’s University, with colleagues Luca Corazzini (University of Milan) and Enrico Longo (University of Hamburg), focused on a common scenario in organizations: fundraising campaigns and collaborative projects. Suppose a group is working toward a collective goal. A highly capable individual — a crackerjack employee, major donor, lead investor or renowned expert — can make the difference between success and failure. Should that person be involved at the beginning of the process, signalling a direction for everyone to follow? Or should they step in after others have committed, acting as the reliable closer? 

The researchers describe these two roles as “leader” and “anchor.” A leader acts first. By making an early commitment, the star provides a focal point that helps others decide where to direct their efforts. An anchor acts last. Rather than setting direction, the anchor reassures others that the project is likely to succeed by filling gaps and preventing the effort from falling short.

To explore which approach works best, the researchers designed a lab experiment involving 360 participants divided into four-person teams. Each team consisted of one “star” participant with greater resources than the others. Teams had to coordinate their contributions toward projects that would only succeed if enough people supported the same initiative.

The setup created two distinct challenges. Team members had to agree on which project to support and contribute enough resources to make that project succeed.

In some groups, the majority was organized around a clear preferred option. In others, preferences were scattered among several alternatives, creating confusion about which project deserved support. In some cases, the star moved first or last while in others everyone acted simultaneously.

As they ran through the experiment, the study participants behaved in a consistent pattern. When team members were fragmented and lacked a clear direction, having the star act first dramatically improved outcomes. An early commitment provided a focal point that helped the group coordinate around a single project. Instead of scattering resources across multiple options, participants converged on one course of action.

The picture changed when teams were already aligned on project goals and needs. Star leaders offered little additional benefit since the team already knew where it wanted to go. The bigger challenge was confidence. Would the project actually succeed?

Here, the anchor role proved more effective. When the star participant moved last, success rates reached their highest level in the experiment. Knowing that a high-capacity contributor could step in to close any remaining gap encouraged others to participate. 

Do stars overwhelm teams?

These results provide useful guidance for managers of high-flying employees. When their teams are uncertain about priorities, facing multiple options or struggling to align around a strategy, an early and visible commitment from a respected star performer can be enormously valuable.

When their teams already share a clear objective, the greater value may come from deploying stars as anchors later in the process, when they can eliminate obstacles, secure resources and ensure execution.

That still leaves open the question of workplace fairness. Even if stars are deployed effectively as a lead or anchor, there is an understandable concern that star employees, given their higher status, will impose their will on others or just look out for their own interests.

The results from the experiment are reassuring. They found that when the majority of team members were organized around a common preference, the group usually chose the majority’s preferred project rather than the star's. The star’s influence was strongest when everyone else lacked a shared direction. The takeaway: alignment among ordinary team members appears to matter more than the preferences of exceptional individuals.

Similarly, in the experiments, participants consistently settled on relatively equitable arrangements. The star contributed more than other members but not excessively so. Teams appeared to adopt an informal norm that those with greater capacity should shoulder a larger share of the burden.