Over more than 30 years running 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 primary reasons why.
Conflict Avoidance
Most of us instinctively shy away from unpleasant tasks, and few responsibilities are more difficult than letting someone go.
Regardless of how compassionately the message is delivered, termination is deeply personal. You’re not simply critiquing someone’s work. You’re telling them that, despite previous efforts and opportunities to improve, the role is no longer the right fit. The conversation often brings tears, anger, disappointment, or some combination of all three. Even when someone responds professionally, the emotional impact is usually obvious.
Not surprisingly, many leaders—including CEOs—delay making these decisions.
Few people are willing to admit that fear of confrontation is driving 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 isn’t a strategy. When asked what specifically gives them confidence that a meaningful turnaround is imminent, they often have no clear answer.
The second explanation is that they believe the employee will eventually leave on their own. When asked when that might happen, they usually don’t know.
In many cases, the real issue isn’t uncertainty. It’s discomfort with confronting the problem directly.
That said, termination 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’s clear that performance is unlikely to reach the required standard, delaying action rarely benefits anyone 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 the role than no one. If I let them go before finding a replacement, our results will suffer.”
Earlier in my career, I was somewhat sympathetic to that argument. Today, I view it differently because it often understates the damage poor performance can cause.
When an underperforming employee leaves, two things frequently happen.
First, the team finds creative ways to fill the gap while a replacement is identified. For a short period, some employees may need to take on additional responsibilities, but strong teams are often remarkably adaptable.
Second, high performers are often quietly relieved when persistent underperformance is addressed. That may sound harsh, but top performers generally have high standards and want those standards maintained. They can become frustrated when leaders tolerate poor performance for too long.
The temporary challenge of filling a vacancy is often less costly than the ongoing impact of keeping the wrong person in the role.
Rationalizing Bad Behavior
Leaders also tend to delay action when the issue is behavior rather than performance.
In the typical scenario, an employee produces strong results but is extremely difficult to work with. They may be arrogant, manipulative, untrustworthy, relentlessly negative, or prone to creating conflict. Because their individual performance appears strong, managers often rationalize the behavior or convince themselves it’s worth tolerating.
In my experience, that’s rarely the right decision.
The problem is that these individuals often create 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 overwhelmingly negative. They become a corrosive force that weakens culture and team effectiveness. In many cases, addressing 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 how justified the decision may be.
Over the course of my career, I’ve had to let go of hundreds of employees due to poor performance or toxic behavior, and it never becomes easy. But if you want to build a high-performing organization, there are times when it’s necessary.
Great leaders don’t avoid difficult decisions. They make them thoughtfully, compassionately, and without unnecessary delay.
Image by pch.vector on Magnific
