Peets refutes the idea that performance-managing poor performers creates a culture of fear. He argues the opposite: A-players are demoralized when they see underperforming colleagues being tolerated. The lack of accountability for B-players is what ultimately drives your best talent to leave.
Related Insights
To differentiate talent, serial founder Brad Jacobs imagines a key employee resigning. If his reaction is relief, they're a C-player. If it's manageable inconvenience, a B-player. But if the thought induces "pure terror and absolute panic," they are an irreplaceable A-player you must retain.
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.
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.
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.
When you establish clear boundaries and accountability, employees must make a choice. They either rise to meet the new standards or they leave. This process naturally filters out underperformers and those who prefer low-accountability environments, ultimately strengthening your team.
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.
![Ric Elias - The Art of Living Well - [Invest Like The Best, CLASSICS] thumbnail](https://megaphone.imgix.net/podcasts/c8d024f8-df4f-11f0-840d-5ff663ee0c32/image/078ac81caab6c002687a18b68c841394.jpg?ixlib=rails-4.3.1&max-w=3000&max-h=3000&fit=crop&auto=format,compress)
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.'
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.
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.
