The Best Reason to Fire Someone (and How To Do It Well)

May 17, 2022

The first time I heard the phrase “stay in joy or leave in peace,” I snickered.


Early in my leadership career, I had to make the painful decision to let someone go. That phrase ceased being funny.


Human resource decisions are challenging. They should be. After all, people are not resources but humans. These people have families. They have friends. They’ve committed to the campus and potentially to you.


Letting them go feels like a lose-lose situation. On one side, they lose a job. On the other side, you lose a team member. You’ll immediately face the challenging task of replacing them and losing the relationship.

It’s not easy to remain colleagues after a breakup.


With so much to lose and the drought in new talent out there, it’s tempting never to let anyone go, right?


Keeping an underperforming person who isn’t wearing the team jersey isn’t showing kindness. Don’t think for a hot second, that you’re being altruistic in avoiding the difficult conversation. Ensuring you have smart and healthy people on the team is the leader’s most important responsibility.


Letting a person go costs you something but keeping them costs you much more.



The Cost to Keep People Who Need to Leave in Peace

Mission delivery is the charge of every leader. Keeping people who need to leave hampers the mission. Leaders shouldn’t allow that to happen. There’s too much at stake.


When you refuse to let the WRONG person go, all the RIGHT people suffer. Your team dies a thousand deaths watching you protect your underperformers. When you allow average team members to hang on for too long, they become a toxin in the cultural water system, and the results are catastrophic.


Your RIGHT leaders will end up leaving instead.


But there’s something even more important at stake here — the person who isn’t succeeding.



The Entrapment of Indifference

I thought a lot about what word to use. Entrapment seems inappropriate, but when I consider the harm done when you knowingly keep a person who has no future in the system, my mind drifts to entrapment and confinement. You ensnare and trap people when they no longer have control of their destiny.


What else would you call keeping a team member who simply has nowhere to go, so they keep showing up for you? 


First things first. When a person is struggling to succeed, you should do everything to help them become successful. You owe that to them.


  1. Is it a skill issue? You owe it to them to coach them up.
  2. Is it a talent fit issue? You owe it to them to try moving them to a different position.
  3. Is it a competence issue? You owe it to them to train them up.


However, if this is a motivational issue, you owe them nothing, and it’s time to make the hard decision and help them “leave in peace.”


Those not motivated to be Higher Performance players in your organization are the WRONG people on your team.


When you keep team members around knowing they have no long-term future with you, you rob them of what could be best for them. Every passing day that you hesitate or avoid a difficult conversation is another day they lose for their future.


Think about this: When you keep team members who need to move on, you are literally robbing them of what could and should be true in their best work forward.



The 10 Step Process of Helping the Wrong People Leave in Peace

I’ve had the unfortunate task of firing several people. In each case, I did what I could to help them succeed in the role. But when I realized they didn’t have a long-term future in the system, I had no choice but to let them go.


For everyone, the process was similar.


1. Start with a few lovingly clear conversations.

No staff member should ever feel surprised by a termination. Of course, no matter how clear you are, the person will act surprised when they eventually are let go. That’s part of the painful process. But as far as it depends on you, be transparent throughout the journey. Be loving, but be very, very clear. Too many leaders dance around the issue allowing confusion to seep into the expectation. Be clear. Be loving, AND be very clear. 


Also, it’s often helpful to have a third-party present for these conversations. This individual can help ensure that the communication and next steps are clear.


2. Help them become successful.

Remember points #1 - #3 above. If they are on your team, they are your responsibility. You owe it to your team to support their success. You cannot skip this part of the process. 


3. Maintain connection.

As you work to develop their skills, position, and/or competence, it’s imperative to remain connected. Your proximity will show support and reveal progress.


4. Set up regular check-ins.

After the initial lovingly clear conversation, proactively set up weekly check-in meetings to gauge progress and offer additional support. Again, as the leader, you owe it to the struggling team member to support their development.


5. Move to an objective plan.

If clear progress is not seen, create a detailed 30, 60, and 90-day plan. This plan must include specific and scheduled tasks and behaviors. Clarity is kind. People deserve to know where they stand and what will happen if they do not perform. If you find yourself in this position, bring the plan in written form for both parties to acknowledge (and sign). Again, seek clarity. Ensure the consequences for failing the plan are explicit. Furthermore, having a third-party present for this conversation is wise.


6. Progress monitor.

Monitoring progress seems obvious, but it’s too often missed in the process. We get busy, and it becomes easy to slide this responsibility into the other “non-urgent” pile. Schedule these meetings in advance. If you give a plan and don’t monitor and support along the way, you become the underperforming leader.


7. When you know. Go!

When you know without a doubt that satisfactory progress is not being made, resolutely decide to let them go. Again, if you delay the final conversation, you are the underperforming leader. When you realize they don’t have a future in the system, it’s time for a challenging but loving conversation.


  • They won’t agree.
  • They will act surprised.
  • They won’t want to be your friend.


But reframe all of that. You’ll be freeing them to pursue another opportunity where they can have a brighter future.


Note: If possible, provide a financial offramp. Give them a month or two (or more) of full salary and benefits without any obligation to contribute to the organization.


8. Communicate well.

At this point, it’s time to inform key team members and stakeholders of this personnel change. This can be tricky. Note: Keep all the dirty laundry in the hamper. It’s not helpful information. Simply set up a communication timeline in conjunction with the person leaving the organization. I’ve found that writing the email content for their exit and allowing them to see it and suggest adjustments before sending it is an honoring gesture.


9. Begin succession planning. 

With integrity, only at this point should you begin searching for their replacement. Leaders are tempted to keep people around while they interview behind closed doors. This may help reduce the gap between the person leaving and their replacement, but it is not honoring the person leaving or the character of your culture. Make the breakup clean before you begin searching for a replacement.


10. Document like a boss.

Literally, in every meeting and following each conversation in this performance management process, document everything and distribute the conversation to those involved in the process. Documentation is essential to provide clarity and vital for any potential negative behavior on behalf of the leaving member. 



Conclusion

As hard as these conversations will be, I fully believe the kindest thing you can do for every team member is to fight for their success. If that cannot happen inside your system, it’s your job to help them grasp that reality and move towards a brighter future. “Staying in joy or leaving in peace” isn’t poor leadership humor; it’s a loving way to prioritize people above all else.



Who HASN’T lost momentum this year? Please raise your hand.


Losing momentum is natural. 


 Getting it back before it becomes normalized must be a top team priority. 


 ❓ Why?


 Because everyone deserves to live in a community served by healthy teams and highly reliable systems.


 To help achieve this goal, I’ve created a brand-new guide that I’m very excited to share with you!


 ➜ It’s called: 5 Evidence-Based Practices to Reclaim More Team Engagement with Less Effort.


 I'm making this exclusive guide FREE for you today!


 But you must act now…


 …the gravitational pull toward indifference is sweeping across our campuses and, when left unchallenged, will create average performance (at best).


 Indifference draws a crowd, and your community deserves better than average performance.


 💥 Leaders Create Culture.


 ➜ This practical guide will give you actionable items you can use to sharpen your advantage and reclaim your team’s momentum again. 


Grab this just-released FREE guide here: 👇🏼https://www.higherperformancegroup.com/reclaim

Press on!


Joe

Founder, President: Higher Performance Group


P.S. Here are the two best ways I can help you right now:


1) Get your FREE guide: 
5 Evidence-Based Practices to Reclaim More Team Engagement with Less Effort. 
www.higherperformancegroup.com/reclaim


2) Schedule a Call: 
Let’s talk about the obstacles (and opportunities) that you & your team are currently facing. 
www.higherperformancegroup.com/schedule

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info April 1, 2025
The Antifragile Navigating Between Government's New Policy and Enduring Campus Purpose In today's volatile educational landscape, mere survival is insufficient. Fragile institutions will shatter under pressure, resilient ones may endure but remain unchanged, while truly antifragile campus leadership thrives amidst disruption. As federal directives radically reshape the educational terrain, the most effective leaders recognize that this moment demands more than defensive posturing or passive resilience—it requires transformative adaptation that converts challenge into advantage. The best campus leaders make difficult choices: they plug their noses through uncomfortable transitions, check their gut instincts when cherished programs face scrutiny, and decisively shift from the back foot of defensiveness to the front foot of progress and performance. They understand that reaction without reflection risks compromising institutional integrity, while calculated, purpose-driven responses can position their institutions to emerge stronger than before. This antifragile approach—where institutions actually gain strength from disorder—represents the only viable path forward in a landscape where traditional resilience merely maintains the status quo. Leaders who recognize this fundamental truth are positioned to transform their institutions rather than merely preserve them. Here are four crucial pivots campus leaders must make to navigate these turbulent waters: Pivot 1: From Labeled Initiatives to Embedded Values New Policy Challenge : Government directives are targeting specific language and programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Funding cuts threaten institutions that maintain such explicitly labeled programs. Required Pivot : Rather than merely renaming programs or stripping websites of certain terminology, visionary campus leaders have been embedding these values directly into operational frameworks for years. "We admit every qualified student," explains one university president. "The second we decided to admit every qualified student and adjust with that and grow with that, our student body became completely representative of all family backgrounds and socioeconomic levels." This merit-based, egalitarian approach transcends political flashpoints. It doesn't require special goals or committees—just clear admissions standards, accessible pathways to qualification, and systems supporting student success regardless of background. The pivot requires moving from symbolic statements to structural systems that naturally produce representative outcomes. Pivot 2: From Hidden Impact to Visible Value New Policy Challenge : Research grants and innovative projects are being canceled based on surface-level assessments rather than substantive evaluation. As one campus leader notes, "The reasons they're giving for elimination of these grants are almost always wrong. They don't have the information down to the grant level." Required Pivot : Campus leaders must make the "invisible hand" of their innovation visible to all stakeholders. This invisible hand operates largely unseen by the public yet powers technological breakthroughs we take for granted. As one leader describes it, academic science "underpins all of the technological breakthroughs" we use daily. Tesla vehicles are "based on thousands of academic inventions and discoveries." Your iPhone? A product of "literally hundreds of thousands of academic articles, academic research, all of which is invisible." Campus innovation extends far beyond technology. Health initiatives, environmental solutions, and social programs emerging from campus labs and classrooms solve complex problems facing communities nationwide. When these projects face funding cuts, we lose not just immediate benefits but long-term societal advancement. Research by Valero and Van Reenen (2019) found that increases in university research significantly drive economic growth within regions, with spillover effects extending up to 100 miles from campus locations. Additionally, Moretti's (2021) work shows that campus innovation hubs create five additional local jobs for every direct innovation position. The pivot requires systematically documenting and communicating these impacts—"leaving for the record," as one leader puts it, exactly what each project accomplishes and why it matters to national interests. Pivot 3: From Reactive Defense to Proactive Service New Policy Challenge : New administrations naturally set new priorities, expecting campus institutions to rapidly align with these shifts or face defunding. Required Pivot : Instead of defensively protecting the status quo, forward-thinking leaders are "regrouping to be of service to the new trajectories." This means asking fundamental questions: How can our campus better serve national priorities while maintaining our core mission? How might we reframe our essential work to demonstrate alignment with new directions held within the dynamic of our community's greatest values? The pivot requires recognizing that campus institutions are a national asset of unbelievable value to the country and its ultimate success. There's no way to [reach national goals] without robust, in-demand, and profitable colleges and universities. The challenge is communicating this essential role in terms that resonate with current policy priorities. Pivot 4: From Political Positioning to Purpose Affirmation New Policy Challenge : Polarized political rhetoric pressures campus leaders to choose sides, risking either alienation from government funding sources or compromise of institutional values. Required Pivot : The most successful campus leaders are rising above political divisions by recommitting to their foundational purpose. "What we need to do," explains one community college president, "is we need to say to the national government, here we are, this is what we do. Yes, we understand that you're concerned about this and this and this, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here." As Block (2018) notes in his research on campus transformation, "Leadership in times of change requires both adaptation to external forces and unwavering commitment to institutional purpose" (p. 87). This pivot requires articulating an institutional mission that transcends political moment while showing genuine responsiveness to legitimate policy concerns. It means distinguishing between superficial language changes and substantive operational compromises. The most successful campus leaders of tomorrow won't be those who perfectly preserved yesterday's systems. They'll be the ones who seized today's disruption as fuel for tomorrow's transformation, who recognized that in education's most challenging moment lies its greatest opportunity for meaningful evolution. In the end, antifragility isn't just about weathering the storm—it's about learning to dance in life's sh%$ storms. YOUR TURN Beyond labeled programs, what structural systems ensure your campus naturally produces inclusive outcomes? How effectively are you documenting and communicating your "invisible hand" of innovation to policymakers? In what specific ways can your institution better serve emerging national priorities while maintaining core values? How might you articulate your campus purpose in language that resonates across political divides? References Block, P. (2018). Community: The structure of belonging in campus environments. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Moretti, E. (2021). The new geography of jobs and innovation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Economics of Education Review, 68, 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.09.001
By HPG Info March 25, 2025
Why Sacrificing Team Health During Budget Crunch is the Most Expensive Mistake in Education When budgets shrink, what's the first thing to go? Usually, it's team development. The workshops. The retreats. The "soft skills" training, right? That's not just a mistake—it's fiscal malpractice. The math doesn't add up Dysfunctional leadership teams waste 20-40% of available resources (Edmondson & Lei, 2014)1. During constrained times, that's not just inefficient—it's existentially threatening. The instinct to cut team development during budget crunches is understandable but backward. It's like deciding to save money by skipping oil changes. It feels like savings until the engine seizes. Team Communication: The Foundation that Prevents Waste Teams with clear, consistent communication make budget reductions that are 31% less likely to require costly corrections later (Pentland, 2012)2. Without it? Information silos form. Decisions get reversed. Resources evaporate fixing preventable mistakes. Strong team communication isn't a nicety—it's how you prevent expensive false starts during times when you can least afford them. Team Connection: The Retention Superpower Teams with strong interpersonal bonds retain 42% more key talent during downsizing periods (Gallup, 2022)3. Every senior position lost costs $276,000 to replace (SHRM, 2023)4. Team connection isn't just about feeling good—it's your most powerful retention strategy when your best people have the most reasons to leave. Team Alignment: The Protection of Core Mission When budgets shrink, misaligned teams protect territories and special projects. Aligned teams protect missions and outcomes. Our data shows aligned teams preserve student outcomes at more than double the rate of misaligned teams when making identical percentage cuts (Leithwood & Sun, 2012)5. Alignment isn't abstract—it's how you ensure cuts happen where they'll do the least damage to what matters most. Team Capacity: The Antidote to Doing More with Less Budget cuts inevitably redistribute workloads. Teams with high capacity scores handle this redistribution without breaking. Low-capacity teams see a 34% increase in stress-related leave during contraction periods—creating a costly spiral of more work for fewer people (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017)6. Capacity building isn't optional—it's how you prevent the collapse that comes when fewer people must shoulder more responsibility. Team Execution: The Implementation Insurance Policy When resources are limited, execution failures become exponentially costlier. High-execution teams implement budget reductions with 28% fewer disruptions to core operations and 47% fewer compliance issues (Honig & Hatch, 2014)7. Execution strength isn't a bonus—it's the difference between cuts that succeed and cuts that create cascading new problems. The Unignorable Numbers Teams with strong health metrics implement budget reductions: 11 months faster (Robinson et al., 2019)8 With 22% less staff turnover (Kraft et al., 2020)9 While protecting student outcomes (Fullan, 2021)10 That's not soft—that's hard numbers. The Smallest Possible Action Before you cut another program or position, assess your team's health across the five essential dimensions: Communication: How clearly does information flow? Connection: How strong are interpersonal bonds? Alignment: How unified is your focus on mission? Capacity: How prepared are people to absorb change? Execution: How reliably do you implement decisions? The gap between where you are and where you could be is likely larger than any line item in your budget. The Choice You can invest in team health now or pay significantly more in wasted resources later. During times of constraint, team health isn't a luxury. It's the only fiscally responsible choice. Want to assess where your team stands? info@higherperformancegroup.com for a complimentary Team Health Assessment from Higher Performance Group, helping campus leaders turn budget challenges into opportunities for mission-focused transformation. References Footnotes Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60-69. Gallup. (2022). State of the Global Workplace Report. Gallup Press. Society for Human Resource Management. (2023). SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmark Report. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2014). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2019). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2020). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education.
Show More
Share by: