Tolerating poor performers is a common failure for far too many leaders.
Inexplicably, leaders and managers who know better cover for weak performers and offer a wide variety of rationalizations for doing so.
In many cases, they believe showing loyalty to a colleague supersedes short-term effectiveness. They err on the side of giving people a second chance to reward them for their relational commitment.
Other justifications pile up. The team member is going through a rough patch, possesses prized institutional knowledge, is well-liked and valued for other qualities, is knee-deep in a project that would be disrupted by their departure, or they have some technical expertise or client relationship the team depends on.
Not surprisingly, many leaders want to avoid conflict and dislike difficult conversations. They find that giving candid feedback and working through low performance can be emotionally draining, so problems get postponed.
Other leaders remember when the team member was strong and showed potential, and they are not ready to give up on that image. They keep waiting for a turnaround that usually never arrives.
Of course, replacing team members is expensive and risky. A weak performer who is predictable can feel safer than an unknown replacement, especially in specialized roles.
Underperforming team members may also have senior sponsorship or social influence, which can create internal backlash if they are forced out.
Worse yet, many leaders feel personally responsible for the weak performer because they didn’t take the time to train them, or they overloaded them with work they were ill-prepared to handle.
Leaders use these justifications and others to avoid critical feedback and to postpone the hard decision to terminate.
Unfortunately, the resistance to confronting poor performers usually destroys the leader’s credibility and makes holding others accountable exceedingly problematic.
Leaders look like they are playing favorites when they hold some team members’ feet to the fire while letting others spin out of control. This undermines the team, the culture, and overall performance.
A recent study of human resources executives found they trust less than 40 percent of leaders and managers to hold poor performers accountable. A separate study found the second most common reason boards fire a CEO is for tolerating poor performance —
not far behind weak long-term company performance.
When leaders refuse to address poor performance, bystanders and stakeholders lose confidence and trust in them.
The impact of covering for a poor performer also extends to high performers. Those on the team who excel feel resentment toward the low performers and the leader who enables them.
High performers often leave the team in disgust, believing excellence is undermined when leaders tolerate incompetence.
The question for leaders is not whether their team has a member who is underperforming but whether they confront, enable, or tolerate that weak performance.
Rationalizations for avoiding the need to address the poor performer are legion. But good leaders never excuse weak performance. They tackle it head-on.
