I'll put it in plain English once again:
You will have to fire some of them, if it's as bad as you are making it sound.
I have done IT and management consulting for small mom and pop shops to the largest retailers, defense manufacturers, aerospace and energy companies on this planet for over a decade now; I'm not touting myself as an expert (because I'm NOT), but as someone who has been in the trenches and seen more than their fair share of screwed-up companies (be it due to the management, the workers or BOTH). Beforehand, I have been in the customer's shoes and lived through 2 mergers that brought in conflicting management styles. Let's just say I've seen what works and what does not for the most part and that I have a "discriminating" eye for flushing out weakness in any system that has to perform and that my paycheck depends on being able to do this fairly well...
You can get as Zen as you like, read Tom Peters or the latest Jack Welch infomercial, ply though the latest psychology management publication, take Phil Jackson's coaching approach and bend it to employee management, etc., etc., but when it is all said and done, it boils down to this:
If certain employees are negatively impacting the welfare of the business, to the detriment of your customers AND other employees, then it's your DUTY to get rid of the troublemakers post-haste, unless you want inaction, doubt and continued problems to reflect on the way you manage, which then also makes YOU a part of the problem.
You'd be crazy for not documenting the Hell out of the situation, so that goes without saying. You'd also be crazy to not talk to corporate counsel or HR (if the company has one or the other) about your options and legal risks associated with your upcoming decision. Still, plan on giving the ringleaders the axe sooner rather than later because that is typically what has to happen before you get people's attention. It's sad, but far too true...
Every freaking self-proclaimed business guru out there uses the absolutely worn-out Boat Analogy in some form or fashion, but there's a reason they do: the analogies WORK.
Example:
If you have your rowers steering the boat into an iceberg and the guy calling cadence refuses to listen to a course change, how long should it take before the captain has the "mutineers" walking the plank and replacing them with someone that "listens"?
How about the Kindergarten analogy?
Example:
New teacher comes into a troubled class and is nice to a bunch of brats to "gain their respect". The brats proceed to walk all over her and the good kids start to as well.
New teacher comes into class and fairly and evenly lays down the Law, which has the brats getting carpel-tunnel from writing on the chalkboard every minute of the school-day and the good kids thinking twice about causing problems and therefore doing what they are supposed to do.
I'm not advocating that you be a hard-ass from day one, but fairly honest and transparent to the troublemakers about what will be tolerated, what will not, what garners accolades and what gets you on the proverbial s**t-list.
Make it unequivocally clear that being on the s**t-list is not a good thing if they want to stay employed but regarless of short-term results, pretty much plan on having to get rid of the ringleaders. I've yet to see a fundamental turnaround from real troublemakers...
If you've got problems with employees when the CEO or President of the company comes into town for a visit, that should be a "tap on the shoulder" about where you are probably going to have to take this...
