A core tenet of Forrest Li's leadership is that leaders must personally own and execute the most difficult decisions, like freezing salaries. He argues that pleasant and popular tasks should be delegated, while the leader's ultimate responsibility is to show up in difficult times and make the unpopular-but-necessary calls.

For leaders who are natural empaths, a key growth area is learning to separate deep personal care for team members from the objective needs of the business. This includes recognizing that letting someone go can be the most loving and correct decision for the individual, the team, and the company.

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.

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.

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.

If a decision has universal agreement, a leader isn't adding value because the group would have reached that conclusion anyway. True leadership is demonstrated when you make a difficult, unpopular choice that others would not, guiding the organization through necessary but painful steps.

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.

High-performing CEOs don't hesitate on talent decisions. One mentor's advice was to act immediately the first time you consider firing someone, as indecision only prolongs the inevitable and harms value creation. This counteracts the common tendency for CEOs to be overly loyal or fear disruption.