The Way I see it: Failure in Firing
You're on the verge of letting someone go. The reasons feel solid: underperformance, a poor fit, a situation that's lingered too long. But confront this uncomfortable truth: their failure is often a symptom of yours.
A pattern of frequent firings isn't a solution to performance issues; it's a glaring indicator of a leadership deficit. This isn't about assigning blame, but about recognizing a costly cycle impacting team morale, company culture, productivity, and resources.
Let's dissect why constant terminations point to deeper organizational flaws, how they reverberate across your company, and what a more effective approach entails.
The Ownership Paradox in Leadership
The root of the firing problem lies in a leader's inconsistent approach to accountability. Many founders and CEOs proudly embrace ownership: declining revenue is "on me," product delays are their "responsibility," and customer dissatisfaction demands their intervention.
However, this ownership often evaporates when addressing team performance. Suddenly, the narrative shifts: "They weren't the right fit," "They couldn't keep up," or "They lacked what it takes."
This selective accountability isn't just inconsistent; it's financially detrimental.
Reed Hastings' experience at Netflix during the dot-com crash offers a powerful lesson. The forced layoff of a third of his staff led to a profound realization: "The people we laid off were not the right people for the future we were building," he reflected. "But whose fault was that? It was mine. I had hired them or allowed them to be hired. I had set the priorities. I had created the culture that led to these mismatches."
This insight spurred Netflix's renowned "keeper test" – prioritizing the right hires and fostering development over reactive firings.
The core paradox is this: upon hiring, you inherit ownership of an individual's performance, for better or worse. Firing them isn't rectifying their failure; it's acknowledging your own role in it.
The Three Precursors to Termination
Analyzing a termination often reveals a sequence of at least three preceding failures:
Every firing isn't an isolated event; it's the culmination of four potential shortcomings:
Failure #1: Flawed Profiling The role's definition of success lacked clarity. Essential skills, attributes, and values weren't precisely identified. Hiring decisions relied on vague job descriptions and subjective "gut feelings."
Failure #2: Deficient Onboarding Clear expectations weren't established from the outset. Necessary tools, resources, and context for success weren't provided. New hires were expected to navigate without adequate guidance.
Failure #3: Insufficient Feedback and Support Regular, candid performance conversations were absent. Difficult feedback was avoided until critical issues arose. Coaching, training, or mentorship to bridge performance gaps wasn't offered.
Failure #4: The Termination Itself Only after these preceding failures does termination appear inevitable, yet it was often preventable.
Ray Dalio's "dot collector" system at Bridgewater Associates exemplifies a proactive approach. By systematically understanding individuals' strengths, weaknesses, and values before hiring and transparently tracking performance, surprise terminations are minimized.
As Dalio states in Principles, "When someone fails in their job, it's usually because they don't have the right qualities for that job. Whose fault is that? The managers for not figuring that out up front."
This doesn't negate the necessity of occasional firings. However, a pattern of frequent terminations signals systemic issues in your hiring, development, and management practices.
The Unseen Ripple Effect of Firings
Terminating an employee's contract sends shockwaves far beyond that individual, often unnoticed by leadership.
A tech company I consulted for implemented quarterly "performance reviews" that consistently resulted in firings. The CEO believed this fostered a high-performance culture. In reality, it cultivated a culture of fear and self-preservation.
Confidential interviews revealed:
"I avoid suggesting risky ideas for fear of being next if they fail."
"More time is spent documenting contributions than actually contributing."
"I'm actively seeking other employment due to constant job insecurity."
This is not a high-performance culture; it's a culture paralyzed by fear.
Consider these wider repercussions:
Innovation Suffocated by Fear: When firings are frequent, team members prioritize avoiding mistakes over taking calculated risks and driving innovation.
Erosion of Trust: Each termination breeds uncertainty: "Could I be next?" Without addressing the root causes of firings, the answer becomes a resounding "Yes," undermining the psychological safety crucial for great work.
Knowledge Drain: Departing employees take with them invaluable relationships, context, and tacit knowledge that are difficult, if not impossible, to replace.
Damage to External Reputation: Former employees share their experiences, and in the age of platforms like Glassdoor and LinkedIn, these narratives shape how potential candidates view your company. The message isn't just "high standards"; it's also "lack of investment in growth" and "failure to own hiring mistakes."
