Letting someone go is never easy
But doing nothing is worse for everyone than being principled and honest
Letting someone go is never easy.
In my coaching work, the most complex and emotionally charged decisions come to me, and underperformance is one of those types of decisions. I’ve been witness to many situations where the right decision feels impossible.
I see leaders wrestle with questions like:
Do I let this person go and sit with the deep discomfort of that decision?
Or do I keep them on, knowing they’re not the right fit for the role - and carry that discomfort instead?
Or do I avoid the situation altogether, hoping it somehow resolves itself?
For many leaders, there’s a real tension between doing what’s best for the business and grappling with what that decision means for the individual. This tension feels more heightened today, with a tough job market, AI creating more uncertainty, and investors' expectations being higher than ever.
When you look to the wider industry for inspiration, you might think of Elon Musk entering Twitter with a sink - firing people he hadn’t met and dismissing work he didn’t fully understand.
It’s hardly inspiring, especially for leaders who care about doing the right thing. I know many people who find the trope “If you wouldn’t hire them today, fire them” cold and lacking in personal responsibility.
At the same time, the idea of being overly accommodating can feel generous but the reality is challenging if you’re struggling to coach someone to where they need to be.
Today’s post is about navigating the nuanced space between two extremes - being ruthless and being overly accommodating.
It’s important whether you’re currently navigating one of these tricky decisions, or not. I’m a strong believer that deciding your principle to letting people go as early as possible allows you to have the most human approach possible to this topic.
I’ll share:
My principle and definition of underperformance
Why this is part of being a brilliant leader
Why letting someone go will always be hard
Defining underperformance
One of the biggest challenges in answering ‘Is this person underperforming?’ is relying on a loose definition of underperformance. And relying on a feeling or a judgement or a sense, rather than being quite explicit about what is and isn’t underperformance.
Underperformance is not about someone having a bad month or navigating a learning curve. It’s about sustained patterns that show they’re unable - or unwilling - to close the gap between what’s needed for the role, and how they’re performing.
Underperformance doesn’t mean someone is failing at everything. People are complex - someone might excel in one area but be uncollaborative and difficult to work with in another.
Here’s how I define it:
Dismissing feedback as unimportant: When someone minimises or rationalises issues instead of addressing them head-on.
Not acting on feedback: When feedback is offered and accepted but then not acted on. There isn’t a willingness to learn or grow in important aspects of their role.
Unable to act independently: Someone might be willing to act on feedback, but without guidance and direction they can’t act on it. Coaching doesn’t work.
A gap that’s too wide to close: Sometimes, despite effort and support, the gap between someone’s current abilities and the demands of the role is just too great.
My principle on letting people go is: If someone is underperforming by this definition and it’s a persistent pattern backed by 360 feedback, it’s time to let them go*.
You might read this and think - that’s not groundbreaking. But what you might not have thought about before, is why and if this feels like the “right thing to do”.
It’s not about being ruthless or putting the business above all else. It’s about taking a firm stance which means you act with clarity and integrity - in the good times and in the tough moments too.
*Of course - following the legal process of your country and with advice and support from an HR professional. Get advice if you’re not sure!
Why this principle holds you to a higher standard as a leader
When you hold this principle - letting people go swiftly when they’re underperforming - you’re deeply committed to doing everything you can to help them succeed first. Most of us want to avoid the time-consuming and uncomfortable reality of letting someone go.
So you don’t delay difficult feedback, you make time to be clear about expectations, and you’re thoughtful about who you bring onto your team. In short, you become a better leader.
It’s surprisingly easy to put off tough conversations about expectations or feedback when you have a lot on your plate. But this principle acts as a forcing function, one that keeps you focused on helping someone succeed.
I know - because I’ve seen it with my clients - how stuck you can feel when someone has been underperforming for a while. Do you suddenly get strict with expectations? Do you go from giving them a “good performance rating” one quarter to having a performance conversation the next? Changing the dynamic of that relationship after too much time has passed feels almost impossible.
There’s a throughline of honesty in holding this principle. It’s honesty about what’s expected and honesty when there’s a mismatch between expectations and reality. Can you have the “good” kind of honesty without holding firm for the tough times?
Is letting someone go ever a “generous decision”?
I’ve read blog posts that suggest you can turn letting someone go into a positive experience, one where they’re grateful for the decision.
I don’t buy that. You can - and should - make the decision with as much kindness and generosity (financially and through your network) as possible. But that doesn’t change the fact that being let go is hard for the individual.
From personal experience, I know one situation where I let someone go and it did end up shaping their career in a positive way. I spoke to the person many years later and they shared that the feedback and the experience did help them grow and make some changes. They’re doing incredible things in their career now.
But it would be farfetched for me to claim that this was because of a decision I made. And to suddenly feel good about what was a painful decision for them at the time.
It’s not always positive for the person that’s let go. Growth and change aren’t guaranteed. Especially in today’s tough job market, finding a new role can take time - and that time can chip away at confidence.
That’s why I don’t buy the idea that letting someone go is inherently a “generous act.” You can’t always predict how someone will land on the other side of that decision.
What’s human is everything that happens up until the point you fire someone - did you do the right thing even when it was hard? Did you have an honest conversation with them about the feedback even when you knew it might not be accepted? Did you try to get them support?
And just as important - being human means recognising where your responsibility ends and theirs begins. It’s okay to own your part in someone’s underperformance. But it’s also okay to let go when they haven’t done their part to close the gap.
Because there’s something deeply inhuman about doing nothing. About avoiding the hard conversations. When you let underperformance slide, you create a space where both you and the individual are left dissatisfied, confused, and uncertain. And that’s not kindness. That’s avoidance.
This is hard stuff
This is hard stuff. It’s emotionally exhausting and confronting for a very good reason - it’s a decision that impacts people on a very personal level.
And I want to share this principle with you, whilst not pretending it makes navigating a situation like this “easy”. If you have a sense of personal responsibility and emotional connection with the people on your team - it will always feel tough.
But it’s the most human principle I’ve found - a forcing function that helps everyone on your team succeed. And it carries a throughline of honesty - committing to honesty when times are tough, not just when celebrating wins.
Have you defined your own principles for navigating these difficult decisions? And are you holding yourself to that standard - especially when it’s hardest?
If you’re a founder or executive looking for deeper coaching on strategy, leadership, or personal growth, I’d love to chat. Just reply to this email, and we can explore whether it’s a good fit.
As always, thanks for being here!
Flora
