Skip to main content
Steady at the Top
← All articles

How to decide when it is time to let an executive go

Decide whether it is time to let an executive go by reviewing the agreed outcomes, the support actually provided, and the evidence for a credible improvement path. Distinguish an unclear assignment from a capability or conduct concern. Bring qualified employment counsel into the process before taking an exit decision or communicating terms.

Procedural justice is perceived fairness in the process used to reach a decision. Jason Colquitt’s 2001 organizational-justice research distinguishes procedural justice from fairness of outcomes and from interpersonal and informational treatment. That distinction helps structure a leadership review without determining whether a particular employment decision is lawful.

A decision to continue coaching and a decision to delay judgment are different. Continued coaching needs a defined change, support, and review condition. Delay leaves the same question open without a credible account of what will become different.

Restate the role the company needs now

Identify the outcomes and decisions attached to the executive’s current mandate. Compare them with what the company communicated. Preserve a difference between the role you now need and the role the person was previously asked to perform.

OPM’s job-analysis guidance connects tasks with required competencies. Use that established approach to clarify the work before assessing whether the executive can perform it.

The executive exit and restructuring playbook provides the wider operating sequence. This article addresses the judgment about whether further correction has a credible path, while leaving legal determinations to counsel.

A changed business phase may justify a different role requirement. It does not make the previous requirement disappear from the record. State what changed and when, then seek appropriate advice about the process that applies.

Separate the result from the executive’s contribution

Choose a consequential missed outcome and trace the decisions leading to it. Identify which choices the executive owned, which dependencies sat elsewhere, and what information was available at the time.

Do not infer the entire performance conclusion from a single business result. An unfavorable outcome may follow a poor decision, an unavailable dependency, or a wider condition. Examine the evidence for each explanation before deciding the response.

At the same time, avoid using interdependence as a reason no individual obligation can be assessed. Ask what the executive was expected to do when the dependency became unavailable. A timely escalation or a revised recommendation may have been part of the role.

Use the performance-expectation reset guide when the existing standard remains ambiguous. Do not rewrite a vague instruction into a precise obligation and then pretend the executive received that instruction earlier.

Use the outcome-and-support review

The outcome-and-support review is an advisory method proposed here. It is not a validated personnel test or a legal termination checklist. Have qualified employment counsel and the appropriate people function advise on its use in the actual circumstances.

  1. State the current requirement. Identify the outcome, relevant decisions, and expected behavior. Record what was communicated and what remains disputed.
  2. Trace the observed work. Use relevant records and specific episodes. Separate the executive’s choices from dependencies and factors outside their authority.
  3. Check company support. Establish which resources, information, and decision rights were actually available. Compare them with what the company promised.
  4. Examine the response to feedback. Ask what changed after the concern was raised. Distinguish a stated intention from an observable change in work.
  5. Test the correction path. Specify the improvement required, support needed, and evidence that would show progress. Ask whether the company can responsibly sustain that path.
  6. Assess the cost of waiting. Identify the operating exposure while the review continues. Consider appropriate temporary coverage without making unsupported assumptions about the person.
  7. Use the advised decision process. Bring the evidence and unresolved facts to the authorized owner and counsel. Record the next action accurately and keep employment terms within professional review.

Use a short record with separate fields for requirement, observation, support, and interpretation. A narrative that blends them can make an incomplete fact look like a settled conclusion.

Determine whether the proposed support is real

A plan that depends on unavailable authority or capacity does not yet describe an executable improvement path. Confirm the inputs and the person responsible for providing them. Mark an unapproved resource as unapproved.

Rousseau’s 1989 account of psychological contracts concerns individuals’ beliefs about reciprocal obligations. Use that concept as a reason to compare interpretations of what the company and executive understood, rather than assuming the same words created the same expectation.

The research concept does not determine contractual rights. Ask counsel to review the actual documents and communications. Keep a record of the operating expectation distinct from your conclusion about its legal effect.

If the company has not supplied promised support, address that fact in the review. Doing so does not predetermine whether the person should remain. It prevents the decision from relying on an inaccurate account of the assignment.

Make coaching a testable proposal

Ask the person proposing more coaching to state the expected change and why the proposed support could produce it. What would the next operating cycle show? Who would observe the change? Which result would weaken the case for continuing?

Avoid a proposal that consists only of more conversations. A conversation may be part of support, but the review needs an observable obligation connected to the role. Explain the relevant standard through the appropriate process.

Use a proposed internal planning question:

“What will this plan let us observe that we cannot observe now, and what company commitment makes the improvement possible?”

A convincing answer may support a bounded correction plan. An answer that repeats the same hope without a changed condition does not establish that the next period will supply new evidence.

A composite scene: the decision follows every weekend

Consider a hypothetical composite. You postpone a family visit because you expect another conversation about an executive’s missed commitments. You have held several conversations already, but each ends with a general promise that the situation will improve.

The outcome-and-support review identifies two gaps. The performance requirement was never stated in an inspectable form, and the resource decision needed to meet it remained with you. The executive also failed to raise a known exception through the route that was available.

The review preserves all three facts. You clarify the requirement and the company-side resource decision with the appropriate advisers. The executive’s escalation behavior remains a separate concern with its own evidence.

In this constructed example, the review could support further correction or an advised exit process. It does not dictate the outcome. It gives the authorized decision maker a more accurate account than either blanket blame or indefinite reassurance.

The next decision should state what happens now and what evidence would justify revisiting it. Your private disruption is a reason to organize the judgment, not evidence that the executive has or has not met the role’s requirements.

Keep relationship history outside the performance standard

A friendship or a long working relationship may make the conversation consequential for you. It does not answer the current role question. Use the same relevant evidence standard you would require for another executive in the same circumstances.

The firing-a-friend conversation guide addresses that relationship context. Keep the operating review and the personal meaning distinguishable, while preserving dignity in both.

Do not turn gratitude into an unlimited extension of responsibility. Also avoid turning a difficult relationship into evidence of poor performance. Identify the behavior or outcome relevant to the role and verify its basis.

Industrial/organizational psychology, the psychology of work and organizations, supplies useful research on fairness and work expectations. It cannot determine every employment fact from a brief description. Use qualified advisers and current records for the actual decision.

Bring unresolved facts to counsel

Before taking action, identify material discrepancies in records and accounts. Ask qualified employment counsel how the relevant process should handle them. Do not gather unnecessary private information or infer a medical explanation from behavior.

Seek advice on applicable obligations, confidentiality, documentation, and any proposed terms. This article provides general leadership guidance and no jurisdiction-specific legal conclusion. A structured worksheet is not proof that an exit is lawful.

If conduct or safety concerns require an immediate established response, use the appropriate company process and professional advice. Do not allow an advisory coaching review to substitute for that route.

Keep communications accurate about what has and has not been decided. A conversation labeled exploratory should not conceal a completed decision, and a tentative discussion should not be reported as an approved exit.

Before closing the review, ask which fact would change the proposed action. If the answer identifies information that can be obtained appropriately, assign that check. If the answer requires an impossible guarantee about future performance, examine whether the standard itself is usable. A consequential decision needs an honest and reviewable evidence threshold, rather than a condition that keeps every option open indefinitely.

End the review with an owned decision

The difficult-decision avoidance guide addresses the broader pattern of leaving consequential choices unowned. For this review, state the next authorized action and the reason the evidence supports it.

If further correction is chosen, specify the changed condition and review evidence through the advised process. If an exit process is chosen, assign transition and communication work with counsel’s involvement. Do not treat the internal decision as the whole implementation plan.

Preserve the basis and remaining uncertainty in the appropriate confidential record. Avoid revising the history later to make the decision look inevitable.

The useful timing judgment asks whether a credible correction path exists and whether the company can support it responsibly. Answer that question with verified work evidence, then act through the authorized and professionally advised process.

Sources

Steady at the Top