You have someone who isn't doing the job, and you are stuck between coaching them and letting them go. One owner asked it like this: "Do you try to 'fix' an employee who needs constant hand-holding, or do you just cut bait?" The short answer: find out whether they didn't know what you wanted, didn't know how to do it, or don't want to; fix the first two within a set time; then decide on a date you both knew about. By the end you will have the steps from first doubt to decision, the one question that sorts out the cause, and the review date that keeps the ending from being a surprise.
These steps take a struggling employee from first doubt to a clear decision
The steps run in order, and each one ends with a test, so you know when to move to the next. In our view, the usual advice starts too late, at a formal plan or a firing. These steps start earlier, with what you said and what you wrote down.
Write the gap down before you talk to them
Do this. Write down what you expected, what actually happened, and the date it has to change by, in plain words about the work.
It worked when you can read the note aloud and it describes what happened, not what kind of person they are.
Why. Crucial Learning, the company behind the book Crucial Conversations, defines a crucial conversation as one where "stakes are high," "opinions vary" and "emotions run strong" 1. Crucial Learning teaches people to raise a disappointment by describing "the gap between what you expected and what actually took place" 1. Gallup calls clarity of expectations "foundational to building highly engaged teams" 2. In our view, a gap you can point to is one you can fix; a general feeling about someone gives them nothing to change.
Example. A note might read: expected, every customer quote sent the same day; what happened, quotes sat for days; change by the end of the month.
Check whether they ever knew what you wanted, and knew how to do it
Do this. Before you judge the person, find where you said the expectation out loud, where it is written down, and when you showed them how to do it; if any of these is missing, fix it first.
It worked when you can point to each of them, or you have fixed the missing one before you sit down together.
Why. In our view, many misses start with an expectation the owner didn't say out loud, so check your own part first. Andy Grove, who ran Intel, wrote in High Output Management: "When a person is not doing his job, there can only be two reasons for it. The person either can't do it or won't do it; he is either not capable or not motivated" 3. Grove warned against leaving a struggling employee to learn from his own mistakes, because then "the subordinate's tuition is paid by his customers" 3. One person who leads a team put it this way: "Expecting people to walk in and get it without any help or guidance is bad management too." Ask yourself too whether they are in the wrong role, going through a hard stretch, or being managed badly.
Example. Ben Horowitz sums up Grove's point in his foreword to the book: "All you can do to improve the output of an employee is motivate and train" 3. The last chapter of High Output Management is called "Why Training Is the Boss's Job" 3. In Horowitz's reading of Grove, whether a manager should be hands-on or hands-off depends on the employee: "If the employee is immature in the task, then hands-on training is essential" 3. In Britain, the workplace advice service Acas says employers should try to understand why someone is performing poorly, and whether it is about their ability or their behavior 4.
Ask one question: didn't know, didn't know how, or don't want to?
Do this. Within a few days of writing the note, sit down with them, own your part of the miss, describe what happened in plain terms, then ask, "Is this something you didn't know, didn't know how to do, or don't want to do?" and wait for the answer.
It worked when they pick one of the three or name a cause you hadn't seen, and you both agree on what the gap is.
Why. The Center for Creative Leadership's Situation-Behavior-Impact method asks you to name the situation, describe the behavior you saw and explain its impact 5. The Center for Creative Leadership tells managers to describe what someone actually did, such as "You interrupted me," instead of a judgment like "You were rude" 5. A 1996 review of feedback research by Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi pooled 607 effect sizes from 23,663 observations 6. Kluger and DeNisi's results suggest that feedback works less well the more it pulls attention away from the task and toward the person 6. We read that as the reason to keep the talk on the work: clear options make an honest answer easier and leave the person nothing to defend about who they are.
Example. Our rule of thumb is to go first: name what you didn't make clear before you ask about their part. Then ask how they would fix the result, and stay quiet. In our view, a rough new idea is a better sign than a polished excuse.
Agree one fix, one review date and where they stand
Do this. End the talk with a written plan: who does what by when, the support or training you will give, the review date, and where they stand today: on track, at risk or off track. Send it to them the same day.
It worked when they have the note in writing that day and can tell you the fix, the date and where they stand.
Why. Crucial Learning says such a talk should end with an agreed plan: "Who does What by When and how you'll Follow up" 1. Acas says that for a problem with ability, an employer can help the person improve with coaching, mentoring or training 4. Acas says a performance improvement plan should set out specific objectives, a reasonable timeline and any support or training the person needs 4. Acas advises employers to keep a record of any conversations they have with employees about performance 4. In our view, ability can often be taught and willingness is a different conversation, so give the teaching a fixed end date either way. One self-described leader put it this way: "Skill is trainable. Effort can be managed, though it's not worth more than one or two conversations about it."
Example. An owner of a small food business described what worked for them: "Make the rules and the system clear, stick by them, and have them acknowledge the progression of things so it's not a surprise and they have an opportunity to change their behavior."
Review the fix every week until the date, not once
Do this. Put the expectation on a short weekly check-in until the review date, and open each one by asking how they think they are doing against it.
It worked when they bring their own read on the gap before you give yours, and it matches what you see.
Why. In our view, one good conversation fades; the expectation has to show up in a regular review or it slips away. Gallup found that employees who have at least one meaningful conversation a week with their manager are nearly four times as likely to be engaged at work 7. The Center for Creative Leadership reports that employees rate managers as more effective when they give feedback more often 5. Our rule of thumb is that accountability works best when people can measure themselves against the expectation, so your main job in the check-in is to ask.
Example. Netflix encourages everyone to talk with their managers about what is going well and what is not on a regular basis, and says "This helps avoid surprises" 8.
On the review date, decide: keep, move or let go
Do this. On the review date, ask yourself whether, knowing what you know today, you would hire them again; keep them if the gap has closed, move them only if the miss came from a new role they weren't set up for, and let them go if the question left is whether they want the job.
It worked when you made the call on the date you set, and they were not surprised by it.
Why. Netflix asks its leaders to apply what it calls the "keeper test" by asking, "if X wanted to leave, would I fight to keep them?" 8. Netflix gives its leaders a second version of the test: "knowing everything I know today, would I hire X again?" 8. Netflix says that when the answer is no, "it's fairer to everyone to part ways quickly" 8. In our view, once you have fixed what they didn't know and what they couldn't do, the question left is whether they want the job. We read keeping someone in a job with no future as protecting your feelings now at a cost to them later. Before you let someone go, decide who takes over each of their tasks and clients, and pick the moment that disrupts the team least.
Example. One employer who moved an employee into a new role after she fell ill wrote: "it would have worked out better for everyone if I never transitioned her the role in the first place and let her go when she couldn't do the job she was originally hired for." We read that as a warning against moving someone into an open role just to avoid the decision: fill that role the way you would if they weren't there.
We think it works because it fixes your part first
Gallup reports that managers account for at least 70% of the variance in team engagement 9. We read that as the reason to start with your own part: in a small business, you are the manager. Gallup found that in the first half of 2026, 49% of US employees strongly agreed that they know what is expected of them at work 2. Gallup notes that the 2026 figure is still well below the 61% peak it measured in 2015 2.
In our view, Grove's can't-or-won't test starts one step late for a small business: before can't or won't comes didn't know, and that is the cause you can fix first. In our view, the usual advice to fire fast or to coach without end both skip the written expectation and the date. Kluger and DeNisi found that feedback improved performance on average, but that "over 1/3" of the feedback efforts they studied made performance worse 6. We read that as a case for feedback about the work, given early, not a case for staying quiet. Gallup describes quiet firing as managers who "fail to adequately provide coaching, support and career development to an employee" 7. Gallup's Ben Wigert wrote in 2022 that "Quiet firing is never a good way to avoid a hard conversation" 7.
The owner stays quiet, gets frustrated, and lets go of someone who didn't hear what was wrong.
The owner writes the gap down, asks one question, and decides on a date both people knew about.
On the people side of running a business, this is the move from hiring when desperate and keeping people too long, to good people whose work you still check and retrain. The next level up gives every seat a written outcome.
Staying quiet can turn a fixable problem into a firing; a written test can make it a decision
Radical Candor tells Kim Scott's story of an employee, Bob, whose poor work she did not raise with him for ten months, until she had to fire him 10. When Scott finally fired Bob, he asked: "Why didn't anyone tell me what I was doing wrong?" 10. In that account, if she had told Bob what she thought early on, he could have fixed the problem and kept his job, or moved on to a job that fit him better 10. We read Bob's question as the one your own employee would ask if you skipped the first conversation.
Kim Scott's Radical Candor means caring personally and challenging directly at the same time 11. Scott calls it Ruinous Empathy when "You care, but you stay quiet or sugar-coat it" 11. In our view, staying quiet to be kind is the version of this an owner can slip into without noticing.
Netflix says its managers judge people "on their whole record, rather than focusing on the mistakes or bets that didn't pay off" 8. Netflix also says it expects its leaders "to be strong developers of talent" 8. We read the pairing as the point: the keeper test sits next to a duty to develop people, not instead of it.
A study of sales workers at 214 firms found evidence that companies promote their best salespeople, even when other traits better predict who will manage well 12. In that study, a doubling of a new manager's sales before promotion was associated with a 7.5% decline in the sales of the people they then managed 13. One person put it this way: "Promoting someone changes the expectations of the role, not just the title." In our view, a promotion changes what someone is measured on; if that change isn't said out loud, a strong performer can look like a weak one while doing what used to make them good. If the person you're worried about was recently promoted, write the gap note for the new job before you judge them.
Google's Project Oxygen analyzed over 10,000 data points about its managers and lists "Be a good coach" first among 10 behaviors of its highly effective managers 14. Google found that teams with highly effective managers were more likely to get better results, be happier and have lower turnover 14. We read that as support for putting coaching first, with the review date to keep it from running on with no end.
Coaching can turn into delay, so the review date is the part you don't skip
Some employers see it the other way. One, who runs a small trades business, put it this way: "Quick to fire, slow to hire." One owner put it this way: "You will talk blue in the face, write up, coach, hand hold, cater to their needs….in the end it ends the same." One experienced manager warned: "managers who have a coaching-first mindset frequently wait too long to terminate because they always have reasons they could have coached better." We read these as a fair warning, not a reason to skip the steps. The steps end on a date, and that date is what keeps coaching from becoming a way to put off the decision.
I don't have the time or the budget to babysit.one owner
If the worry is time, the steps are built to be short: a note, a talk, a short weekly check-in and a date. In our view, that costs less than checking and retraining with no end in sight. Some push back on letting a struggling employee go. One person put it this way: "So we promote a good employee, they struggle, then we just… fire them? You don't give them some time and mentor them?" In our view, the humane version is owner-sized: develop people before you replace them, and judge them by results, not by how busy they look.
One owner with about five employees described the moment this way: "I feel bad bc I have never talked to her about any of it. But when I do have feedback she doesn't take it very well normally so I didn't think it would help and decided just to fire her." Another owner said: "Hard conversations are the part of this job nobody warns you about." The same owner added: "The guilt isn't telling you the decision was wrong. It's telling you the process could have been kinder." In one thread, several people made the same point: "Nobody who is being fired for performance reasons should have it come as a surprise." One employer with a team of 14 described the day it ended: "They acted surprised - but we reminded them of every meeting we had leading up to it." We read the difference as the trail of meetings: the employer of 14 could point to every one before the last.
Acas says an employer can only dismiss someone after a fair procedure, and that dismissal should be a last resort 4. In the United States, at-will employment is the default, so either side can end the job "at any time and for almost any reason," with exceptions that vary by state 15. Cornell's Legal Information Institute notes that an employee handbook promising specific termination steps can create an implied contract, so the job is no longer at will 15. This is not legal advice. If you employ people outside Britain or the United States, or your handbook promises steps, check the rules that apply before you let anyone go.
Within seven days, one vague worry can become a written note and a date
Pick the one person you keep thinking about letting go. Within seven days, write the gap, have the talk, agree one fix and send it to them in writing the same day. On the review date, decide.
the first-week note
You now have a fair way through, whichever way it ends
You started stuck between babysitting someone and letting them go. You now have the steps from first doubt to decision: write the gap, check your part, ask, agree, review and decide. You have the one question that sorts out the cause: didn't know, didn't know how, or don't want to. And you have the review date, which keeps the ending, whichever it is, from being a surprise.
Read before: why owners fire too late, and why you're paying people and still micromanaging them. Read next: how to set expectations so clearly that checking becomes unnecessary, and how to let someone go fairly.
Where do you stand on people decisions? The Scorecard shows your level and the next move: take the Scorecard.
Sources
- The Crucial Learning Term Glossary · Crucial Learning, undated
- Employee Engagement Remains Flat as AI Adoption Accelerates · Gallup (Jim Harter), 2026-07-21
- Andy (foreword to High Output Management, 2015 edition) · a16z (Ben Horowitz), 2015-11-13
- Problems with an employee's performance · Acas, updated 2026-06-23
- Use Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) To Understand Intent · Center for Creative Leadership, 2025-08-19
- The effects of feedback interventions on performance · Psychological Bulletin (Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi), 1996
- Quiet Firing: What It Is and How to Stop Doing It · Gallup (Ben Wigert), 2022-11-18
- Netflix Culture · Netflix, undated
- Global Indicator: Employee Engagement · Gallup, undated (data as of August 2026)
- Criticism & Ruinous Empathy · Radical Candor (Andrea Sallstrom), 2016-07-31
- Our Approach: Kim Scott's Feedback Framework · Radical Candor, undated
- Promotions and the Peter Principle · NBER Working Paper 24343 (Alan Benson, Danielle Li and Kelly Shue), 2018-02
- The Peter Principle Isn't Just Real, It's Costly · NBER Digest, 2018-04-30
- Following the data: The research behind great managers · Google re:Work (Sarah Calderon and Debbie Newhouse), 2025-08
- employment-at-will doctrine · Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, undated
