Firing decisions should be a function of both incompetence and business constraint. Not all underperformers are equal priorities. Some are like a "trash can on fire in the driveway"—a problem, but not the company's main bottleneck. Focus firing efforts on roles that are the direct constraint to growth.

Related Insights

After 18+ months in the AI era, software companies that haven't re-accelerated growth have a team execution problem, not a market timing one. The capital and opportunities are too vast to miss. This failure to ship a relevant product and capture new revenue warrants drastic measures, including replacing a significant portion of the team.

Challenge the 'hire slow' mantra. Hiring is an intuitive guess, so act quickly. Once a person is in the organization, their performance is a known fact, not a guess. This clarity allows for faster decisions—both in removing underperformers and, crucially, in accelerating the promotion of superstars ahead of standard review cycles.

Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.

Terminating an employee shouldn't be viewed solely as a negative outcome. Often, a lack of success is due to a mismatch in chemistry, timing, or culture. Parting ways can be a necessary catalyst that enables the individual to find a different environment where their skills allow them to thrive, benefiting both parties in the long run.

Focusing on "bad to great" is more effective than "good to great" when scaling. Bad behaviors and destructive norms are so corrosive that they make it impossible for excellence to take root. A leader's first job in a turnaround or scaling effort is to eliminate the bad—like dirty bathrooms or incompetent employees—before trying to implement the good.

To clarify difficult talent decisions, ask yourself: "Would I enthusiastically rehire this person for this same role today?" This binary question, used at Stripe, bypasses emotional ambiguity and provides a clear signal. A "no" doesn't mean immediate termination, but it mandates that some corrective action must be taken.

Firing someone feels adversarial until you reframe it as a win-win. The employee wants to be successful and valued; if your team isn't the right place for that, helping them move on is a service to their career, not a disservice. This mindset changes the entire dynamic.

When confronting a talented but abrasive CTO, don't just critique bad behavior. Frame the conversation around their effectiveness. Horowitz suggests saying, "You're a fantastic Director of Engineering, but not an effective CTO," because a true CTO must marshal resources across the entire company, not just manage their own team well.

Don't be paralyzed by the fear of making a bad hire. View hiring as an educated guess. The real knowledge comes after they've started working. Firing isn't a failure, but the confirmation of a mismatched hypothesis. This reframes hiring from a high-stakes decision to an iterative process of finding the right fit.

When making tough personnel decisions, leaders should frame the choice not as a personal or purely business matter, but as a responsibility to the rest of the organization. Tolerating poor performance at the top jeopardizes the careers and stability of every other employee, making swift action an act of collective protection.