Neat.
I find it interesting that you think the burden is on the rest of the class to “manage and work with a difficult co-worker/employee”. We aren’t talking about the cool kids kicking some nerd out of their lunch table. In the real world, if you are willfully incompetant at your job or are difficult to work with, people will oastracize you. In some cases, they may terminate your employement. No one wants to be professionally associated with someone who creates headaches or is a risk to the company. You think people are going to let someone fuck with their money?
Touche’
But usually you don’t get to fire your peers. You do, indeed, have some influence, but if your boss says ‘form teams of six’ and you refuse to work with someone, generally that’s your ass getting canned, not theirs, no? At least, I’m reading the situation being one of co-managers.
True, however, as a manager, if 5 of my team come up to me and tell me that number six is being disruptive and causing problems, I’m going to take a good hard look at number six.
Ah, but we shouldn’t prepare people only for worlds with competent managers, should we? My completely uninformed opinion is that generally, you’re better off if you’ve been prepared to deal with a crappy situation. Not that the school should just throw crappy situation after crappy situation at you as a preparation method, but it does seem like a prime opportunity to demonstrate how to deal with a creepy coworker.
To put a different spin on things…
MBA students are notoriously competitive, and the one group taking in the disruptive student (whether willingly or not) will be at a significant disadvantage versus the other groups. Given that performance in most programs can have a significant impact on future employment prospects, it is perfectly rational for each student to not want the disrupter in their group. The students are simply trying to avoid being placed at a competitive disadvantage - a display of solid business acumen. As harsh as it may sound, I would be more concerned were a group to willingly accept him.
That depends on who has the biggest balls - the students or the school. There’s the old “strength in numbers” thing. If all the students stick together it doesn’t put the school in a very tenable position.
Take a look at my post above - we did it. the school threatened to fail everyone in the class. We called them on it and got away with it.
One valuable thing that I did actually learn was that there really is strength in numbers, and you don’t have to cave to the rules - if you have enough supporters you can define your own rules. Kind of a microcosm of Ghandi’s philosophy when the system collapsed under all the arrests for civil disobedience.
In real life there are often programs to give a crappy manager or worker the opportunity to clean up his act, with explicit feedback. After that, the way to deal with him is to get rid of him. He is not only causing disruption, he is taking up a slot which could be occupied by someone who is actually contributing.
Firing people is really tough, and preparing for it in school is a useful management skill.
Actually that raises an interesting question. Some people are intelligent but have extreme difficulty with social skills – typically this would be an autistic spectrum disorder.
I totally agree that “Paul” is terrible with people, shouldn’t be a manger, and doesn’t belong in the program. But what if he claims he has a disability and wants accommodation? That would be a really interesting situation…
But why isn’t ostracism a way of dealing with the creepy coworker, if the job still gets done?
Why do people on this board side with the one idiot who can’t get along with everyone else?
Speaking as both an MBA and a corporate manager, 90% of my job is getting along with people and making sure they get along with each other. Yes, every team has “Forming Storming Norming Performing” issues, but by the time you are in business school, you should be intelligent and socially aware enough to not be the class jerk.
You’re looking at a group of people of which a large subset probably do not get along with everyone else. Of course they are going to stand up for their own kind 
Seriously, picture any of the well known posters who have responded that it’s the group/school’s problem, not the student’s. Can you picture them performing well (in their board persona) in a small group of executive managers?
Yeah, if Hitler had been admitted into art school…
To be fair, I’m not siding with Paul, I’m questioning the school’s handling of him. Fuck Paul. If the best thing for the students is to jettison him immediately, then I’m all for it (and the point of business-school performance being a consideration is a good one - I’m not really used to that sort of highly competitive school environment, which biases my view), but if it’s not teaching them a valuable skill which it could (i.e., how to deal with annoying people you can’t get rid of and/or how to communicate this kind of situation to a manager) then that’s a shame.
Still waiting for the OP to expand on his bad behavior.
Which makes my thought that perhaps Paul was a plant in the program not as ridiculous as msmith537 would like to believe.
I’m not so much siding with him as I am questioning the school’s role in this. Others have said that an MBA is corporate training. No - it’s still an academic process, which implies a level of support on the part of the instructor(s). This isn’t “The Apprentice”.
Yes, there are instances in the corporate world where kicking Paul out of a group is the best thing to do (actually, most instances probably would). But that’s a pretty easy solution in an environment that’s supposed to throw everything possible at you in a controlled environment. It’d be a better learning process for the group to deal with Paul, because there are plenty of other instances in the corporate world where you can’t get rid of Paul. Hell - make him the team leader, and it’d more accurately simulate the real world!
I think you’re probably right.
People (like me) go to business school to become leaders in companies or start their own companies. We are people looking to be successful in life. The people on this board who complain about working extra hours, being bothered on their lunch break or even a lot of the social stuff like being bullied or figuring out how to talk to girls are as a general rule not the sort of people who go to business school. That is not to say we are all a bunch of hyper-competitive RedBull drinking assholes or even that we love work all the time (clearly I don’t), but we have certain goals and objectives and are therefore less likely to live passive lives of allowing things to just happen to us.
luv2draw - Understand that you don’t learn anything by just being thrown into a shitty, uncontrolled situation. What lessons are the students suppose to learn from having a plant in the class no one wants to work with? If it’s a marketing strategy or a corporate finance class, the students are there to learn marketing strategy or a corporate finance, not be distracted by a single jerk. It’s hard enough putting together a functional team of people who actually want to work with each other. There are other management classes where they teach you about teamwork or how to deal with difficult employees through various frameworks and scenarios.
I imagine that having a Paul in every class of this sort would work just as long as it took for word to get out. Then, all of a sudden, no business would send its employees to take any course at that school.
But if there were several Pauls enrolled, they could all be assigned to a team together. Hell, they might even learn something that way.