In more than 30 years leading companies in Silicon Valley, I’ve seen countless situations where leaders waited too long to address poor performance. In my experience, leaders are far more likely to act too slowly than too quickly. There are three main reasons for this.
We earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no extra cost to you.
We earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no extra cost to you.
Conflict avoidance
Most of us instinctively avoid unpleasant tasks, and few responsibilities are harder than letting someone go.
No matter how compassionate the message is delivered, termination is deeply personal. You don’t just criticize someone’s work. You tell them that, despite previous efforts and opportunities for improvement, the role is no longer suitable for them. The conversation often brings tears, anger, disappointment, or a combination of all three. Even when someone responds professionally, the emotional impact is usually evident.
It’s no surprise that many leaders, including CEOs, delay making these decisions.
Few people are willing to admit that fear of confrontation is to blame for the delay. Instead, they often justify their hesitation with one of two common explanations. The first is that they hope the employee’s performance will improve. Unfortunately, hope is not a strategy. When asked what specifically gives them confidence that a significant turnaround is imminent, they often don’t have a clear answer.
The second explanation is that they think the employee will eventually leave on their own. When asked when this might happen, they usually don’t know.
In many cases, the real problem is not uncertainty. It is uncomfortable to face the problem directly.
That said, firing should never be the first step. Leaders have a responsibility to provide clear expectations, regular feedback, coaching and a reasonable opportunity for improvement. But once it is clear that performance is unlikely to reach the required level, delaying action rarely benefits those involved.
The “Someone is better than no one” fallacy
Another common justification has little to do with conflict avoidance.
Leaders sometimes say, “The employee is underperforming, but I’d rather have someone in that position than no one. If I let him go before finding a replacement, our bottom line will suffer.”
Earlier in my career, I tended to favor this argument. Today I see it differently because it often underestimates the damage that poor performance can cause.
When an underperforming employee leaves the company, two things frequently happen.
First, the team finds creative ways to fill the void while a replacement is identified. For a short period of time, some employees may be required to take on additional responsibilities, but strong teams are often remarkably adaptable.
Second, top-performing companies are often quietly relieved when persistent underperformance is corrected. This may sound harsh, but high performers generally have high standards and want those standards to be maintained. They can become frustrated when leaders tolerate poor performance for too long.
The temporary challenge of filling a vacant position is often less costly than the ongoing impact of keeping the wrong person in that position.
Rationalize bad behavior
Leaders also tend to delay action when the problem is behavior rather than performance.
In the typical scenario, an employee produces solid results but is extremely difficult to work with. They may be arrogant, manipulative, untrustworthy, relentlessly negative, or prone to conflict. Because their individual performance appears strong, managers often rationalize this behavior or convince themselves that it is worth tolerating.
In my experience, this is rarely the right decision.
The problem is that these individuals often cause damage far beyond their own role. They undermine collaboration, reduce trust and negatively affect the performance of those around them.
Even when their personal results are positive, their overall impact on the organization can be extremely negative. They become a corrosive force that weakens team culture and effectiveness. In many cases, resolving the issue quickly is the best decision for both the team and the business.
The difficult responsibility of leadership
Firing people is one of the hardest parts of leadership, regardless of the rationale for the decision.
Over the course of my career, I’ve had to fire hundreds of employees due to poor performance or toxic behavior, and it never gets easy. But if you want to build a successful organization, there are times when it is necessary.
Great leaders don’t avoid difficult decisions. They do them thoughtfully, with compassion and without unnecessary delay.
Image by pch.vector on Magnific
