by
Ritika Vijay
Sun 1 June 2025
Daniel, an executive at a respected mid-sized tech firm, had weathered many challenges, but nothing like the slow burnout caused by one role. Stacy was hired to fill a critical operations position that had become a revolving door. The role focused on cross-functional communication and client delivery, yet no one had succeeded in it for years.
Daniel wasn’t hands-on in the hiring, but he knew the vacancy was a strain. When Stacy came on board, there was hope. She started strong, organized and responsive. She got 80% of her work accomplished successfully, which was great compared to the previous people in this role, but never improved beyond the eighty percent mark. Over time, that slipped. Tasks dragged, follow-ups were missed, and client issues grew.
By month sixteen, her performance was down to sixty percent successfully completed. The team was quietly covering for her, morale was dropping, and productivity suffered. It wasn’t until complaints bubbled up that Daniel fully realized the problem.
Daniel scheduled a one-on-one with Stacy to address the concerns directly. The conversation was professional but firm, but he explained the gaps in her follow-through, the ripple effect it was having on the team, and the need for a reset in expectations. For a couple weeks after that meeting, her performance noticeably improved. Deadlines were met. Communication became more consistent. The team began to breathe a bit easier.
But soon enough, the old patterns returned. Delays crept back in. Priorities slipped through the cracks. And worse, the temporary improvement made it even harder for Daniel to escalate the issue again without sounding reactionary. Now, he faced a difficult choice: fire Stacy and restart the long hiring process or keep her and accept the growing cost to the team. Neither option felt like a solution.
A Common Leadership Breakdown
Across industries and organizational sizes, leaders face a frustrating and familiar scenario:
They hire someone who seems “good enough” for a critical role. But over time, that efficiency significantly deteriorates. Performance declines. Deadlines slip. Accountability fades.
At this point, managers are left with three options:
- Hope for lasting change after short-lived improvement
- Fire the employee and restart the long, resource-draining hiring process.
- Absorb the work themselves, taking on the additional burden of that role while still managing their own responsibilities.
Each option comes with consequences. Many managers hold out hope that an initial performance boost after a tough conversation will lead to lasting progress. But when that progress fades, as it did with Stacy, they’re right back at the crossroads, only now with more frustration and less clarity on what to do next. Firing risks leaving the role unfilled for months, especially when leadership is hesitant to rehire. Taking on the extra work yourself can signal that a backfill isn’t needed, leaving you permanently overloaded.
This isn’t just a personnel issue, it’s a structural and systemic problem. And it’s costing companies in time, productivity, and long-term engagement.
Why Underperformance Lingers
Across industries and organizations, leaders face a frustrating cycle: a “good enough” hire under delivers, managers step in to fill the gap, and organizational systems quietly reinforce the status quo. The following structural problems are what allow this cycle to persist:
- The “Good Enough” Trap and Role Drift
Hiring someone who seems mostly capable often feels like a win especially after a long search. But without clear benchmarks, coaching, and accountability, that 80% performance tends to slide downward. When the manager fills in the remaining 20% quietly, it masks the problem and leads others to believe the role is being handled, permanently overloading the leader and normalizing subpar output.
Many managers avoid addressing underperformance because they fear it will trigger months of HR procedures or worse, that the role won’t be refilled at all. Instead of initiating formal improvement plans or escalating concerns, they tolerate the problem just to avoid vacancy, creating a dangerous incentive to retain poor performers.
- Organizational Complacency and Cultural Erosion
Feedback often travels too slowly or not at all; learning is uncomfortable and rarely leads to action. Over time, top performers disengage, while others reduce their efforts to match the lowest tolerated standard. The longer this goes unchecked, the more deeply mediocrity becomes embedded in the culture.
A Leader’s Framework for Rebuilding Accountability
When underperformance lingers and roles erode from within, the instinct is often to focus on the individual: coach harder, manage tighter, or let go. But as Daniel’s experience shows, what often fails isn’t just the person, it's the system around them.
To prevent the next “Stacy,” organizations need to rethink how they define success, intervene early, and build safeguards that don’t rely on heroic management. Here’s a five-part framework leaders can use to protect team performance and rebuild accountability from the ground up:
- Set Clear Performance Standards From Day One: Too many roles begin with vague goals and unspoken assumptions. Instead, tie every new hire to a 30-60-90 day plan that defines:
- What success looks like through specific milestones
- What tools, support, and cross-functional inputs are required
- What “not working out” will look like early on - establishing consequences
2. Create Protected Channels for Early Feedback: Feedback should flow freely, not just upward, but across and down:
- Establish quarterly anonymous pulse surveys focused on team workflow health
- Skip-level check-ins that offer a voice outside the chain of command
- Offering feedback normalization training for managers, and if needed flagged employees early on
3. Guarantee Role Backfills for Business-Critical Positions: Leaders will avoid letting go of underperformers if they fear losing the headcount.
- Pre-approved backfill plans for critical roles like operations, delivery, or revenue impact
- A living talent pipeline of internal candidates, contractors, or short-term stopgaps
- Leadership commitment that removing someone doesn’t mean removing the role
4. Recognize Impact Without Penalizing Initiative: Too often, high performers or managers who quietly carry failing roles get punished with bearing the burden of that role.
- Publicly recognizing load-bearing behavior (but treating it as unsustainable)
- Separating temporary role absorption from long-term ownership
- Rewarding transparency, not silent sacrifice
Underperformance is rarely just about one person. It’s a slow, systemic leak that if ignored can rot a team from the inside out. But with the right frameworks, leaders can catch the signs earlier, act with clarity, and prevent culture decay before it takes hold. Daniel’s story isn’t rare. Most companies fall into this trap, and being able to resurrect this dilemma is the rate.
