WCM realized its intensely caring culture risked becoming too soft, potentially enabling underperformance. They consciously implemented a practice of 'truth-telling'—having direct, difficult conversations about performance—as a necessary counterbalance to maintain high standards and ensure accountability.

Leaders struggling with firing decisions should reframe the act as a protective measure for the entire organization. By failing to remove an underperformer or poor cultural fit, a leader is letting one person jeopardize the careers and work environment of everyone else on the team.

The actual standards of your organization are not set by posters or mission statements, but by the negative behaviors you permit. If you allow chronic tardiness or underperformance to continue without consequence, you are signaling that this is an acceptable standard for the entire team.

A senior hire was instrumental in getting Snowflake's CRO promoted. Eighteen months later, that same person was found to be 'cancerous to the organization.' The CRO had to fire them and go on an 'apology tour,' a painful but necessary act of leadership to protect the company culture.

Your culture isn't what's on the walls; it's defined by the worst behavior you allow. Firing a high-performing but toxic employee sends a more powerful message about your values than any mission statement. Upholding standards for everyone, especially top talent, is non-negotiable for a strong culture.

The company operationalizes "kindness" as a performance driver. It's considered kind to give employees direct feedback and help them grow valuable skills. If an employee is not contributing to the company's financial success, it's viewed as "unkind" to the overall mission of spreading kindness.

When confronting a high-performing but abrasive employee, don't just criticize. Frame the conversation around their career. Offer a choice: remain a great individual contributor, or learn the interpersonal skills needed for a broader leadership role, with your help.

A company's culture isn't its mission statement; it's the worst behavior it's willing to accept. High-integrity employees will leave a toxic environment, while transactional, self-serving employees who tolerate anything for a paycheck will stay. This selection process causes a continuous erosion of culture.

Allowing a high-performing but toxic employee to thrive sends a clear message: results matter more than people. A leader's true impact and the company's real culture are defined not by stated principles, but by the worst behavior they are willing to accept.