Keeping an employee in a role where they are failing is a profound disservice. You cannot coach someone into a fundamentally bad fit. The employee isn't growing; they're going backward. A manager's responsibility is to provide direct feedback and, if necessary, 'invite them to build their career elsewhere.'
Related Insights
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.
While a single performance-based layoff can target underperformance, repeated rounds signal a systemic failure in leadership. It suggests managers are unable to hire, coach, or provide feedback effectively, making it a management problem rather than an individual employee issue.
A leader's failure to deliver difficult feedback, even with good intentions, doesn't protect employees. It fosters entitlement in the underperformer and resentment in the leader, leading to a toxic dynamic and an inevitable, messy separation. True kindness is direct, constructive feedback.
Framing coaching as a punitive measure for poor performance destroys the intrinsic motivation necessary for change. It should be positioned as a developmental tool for high-potential growth and expanding impact, not as a punishment for underperformance.
A manager's highest duty is to an employee's fulfillment, not just their performance. When a top performer is not personally aligned with their role, a leader should actively help them find a better fit—even if it means using their own social capital to place them at another organization.
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.
To prevent defensiveness when giving critical feedback, managers should explicitly state their positive intent. Saying "I'm giving this because I care about you and your career" shifts the focus from a personal attack to a supportive act of leadership aimed at helping them grow.
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.
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.