You mention his disciplinary record, but don’t reveal the causes for complaint. If you have been too lenient and let him get away with misconduct that was a sackable offence, don’t be surprised if the rest of the team is hacked off.

Look at the situation from the team’s point of view – here is this irritating toad who is allowed to break the rules and is still held up as an example to follow. He might be bringing in lots of business but I doubt he is helping morale.

The next time he breaks the rules I wouldn’t bother with another letter, I would sack him. It is only then that you will see the damage he has done. The rest of the team will jump for joy when they hear of his departure, and with renewed enthusiasm will probably make up for the sales you think have been put at risk.

Q: I’ve been offered a deal to sell up my business but it is subject to a three-year earnout and only 30pc cash upfront. I’m keen to sell and move on – even after three years – to other ideas but not at any price. Have you heard of similar deals – should I push for better terms?

A: If you are desperate to sell and this is the only offer you are likely to receive, go for it, but beware, this type of deal can end in tears.

At least you are assured of some cash upfront but while you wait for the rest you will have to work with the buyer. Do you respect each other enough to operate as a team?

With most transactions, having fought clause by clause to resolve a draft full of worrying warranties and indemnities, the sale and purchase agreement is signed and you never look at it again. This deal will be different.

The earnout formula is critical, and likely to be complicated – ensure you fully understand how the final price is calculated, and be aware of any conditions that control your conduct as chief executive of this joint venture. But first, check how the 30pc deposit is determined – are you going to collect as much cash as you expected?

This is a legal minefield which will require goodwill on both sides. For your own protection try to negotiate a minimum guaranteed price, and get a good lawyer.

Q: Do you think men or women make better personnel staff and does this question reek of outdated prejudices?

A: Years ago, when our personnel department included a welfare officer, we always recruited a woman. In those days sex discrimination was the norm; we could advertise for "counter girls" and had different wage rates for men and women. Today, personnel is called HR and the priority is not employee well-being, but employment legislation. No one admits to sex discrimination but your question demonstrates that the old prejudices have not entirely disappeared.

It takes a particular talent to manage people problems. The ideal candidate needs the patience to help colleagues deal with personal problems, while being tough enough to tell someone they have lost their job. He, or she, must adapt to individual circumstances while rigidly following employee laws.

A small pool of people, men and women, have what it takes. It might be more difficult for a man to fulfil the role for a predominately female workforce, while male-dominated companies will usually happily accept a woman as HR director.

Don’t be misled by the old-fashioned thinking, forget any past prejudice: just select the best person for the job.