On the surface, Micheal looked like a dream hire. As the VP of Technology at a fast scaling fintech firm, he moved fast, delivered faster, and held his team to exceptional standards. Colleagues praised his work ethic. The CEO trusted his judgment implicitly. Micheal didn’t just meet deadlines, he bulldozed through them, building systems that scaled and workflows that hummed with efficiency.

But there was something building slowly.

It wasn’t anything major at first. A bug in the product’s dashboard that should’ve been caught. A delay in a data migration project with no proactive heads up. A misconfigured server that took days to surface. These were minor errors, but they shared a troubling theme: no one knew about them until they became unavoidable.

Micheal’s instinct wasn’t to hide. It was to fix it. Quietly. Silently. After all, in his mind, owning mistakes was a weakness. Admitting fault would diminish his authority. The less leadership had to worry, the better. But that’s where the danger crept in: small mistakes left unspoken that compounded over time. And for a business growing fast, every day a mistake goes unaddressed is a day risk quietly metastasizes.

When Micheal chose not to surface small mistakes, he didn’t do it out of malice, he did it out of a sense of responsibility. But that sense of “I’ll fix it myself” gradually evolved into a pattern of withholding information. In a leadership role, withholding, even unintentionally, becomes dangerous not just for the team, but for the organization.

Delayed Visibility = Escalated Cost: What starts as a minor issue can quickly evolve into a major operational disruption when not surfaced early. Small bugs become cross functional fire drills simply because leadership wasn't informed in time.

Poor Data Leads to Poor Decisions: When issues are hidden, leaders make strategic decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information which impacts everything from resource allocation to investor communications.

Silence Breeds More Silence: When a senior leader withholds problems, it sets a cultural precedent. Teams may follow suit, eroding trust and psychological safety. Without a culture of transparency, systemic risks go unnoticed until they explode.

When a high performing employee begins withholding mistakes out of pride, leaders must act quickly, but thoughtfully. Here's a clear 5 step approach to address the issue while preserving trust and performance:

Before assuming the worst, pull the employee aside, and have a transparent conversation of what is going on. It could be work related stress or a personal issue. Showing empathy, not suspicion opens the door for honest dialogue and signals that you care about the person, not just the output.

Dig deeper into why mistakes weren’t communicated. Avoid blame, instead, ask, “What made you feel like you had to handle this on your own?” Often, pride is a shield for fear or pressure. Use coaching to uncover the root cause and align on shared expectations.

Clarify that real leadership isn’t about perfection, it’s about visibility. Frame early communication as a strategic behavior. Then model it yourself. Share your own mistakes in team settings and how transparency helped prevent larger issues. This redefines what “strong leadership” looks like. Opening up to that vulnerability will also build a stronger relationship.

Build simple routines that make it easy, and expected, for your team to surface issues early. Something as quick as a weekly 15 minute “Red Flag Roundup” can give everyone a low pressure space to share blockers or risks. Pair these check ins with transparent performance updates so everyone knows how their work stacks up against expectations. When transparency becomes part of the rhythm, it feels safe and normal.

Make it a point to praise people not only for delivering results, but for speaking up when something’s off, even if they had a hand in the mistake. When someone flags a problem early, thank them publicly. This shows the team that being upfront isn’t damaging, it’s leadership. Over time, this reshapes the culture from “look perfect” to “work smart and stay accountable.”

High standards are an asset, until they’re paired with ego that discourages openness. Even top performers can become blind spots when they value perfection over transparency.

The takeaway for leaders is clear: Don’t wait for avoidable crises to expose cultural weaknesses. Create an environment where speaking up is rewarded, not penalized. Redefine strength as accountability, not invincibility. Because in business, it’s rarely the initial mistake that causes the most damage; it's the silence that follows.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

2. Create Protected Channels for Early Feedback:  Feedback should flow freely, not just upward, but across and down:

3. Guarantee Role Backfills for Business-Critical Positions: Leaders will avoid letting go of underperformers if they fear losing the headcount. 

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. 

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. 

At first glance, innovation sounds exciting. Companies talk about transformation, agility, and leveraging artificial intelligence to unlock new potential. But behind the strategic roadmaps and glossy presentations lies a quieter truth, change is hard. Especially when employees feel that their expertise is being replaced, they protect what they know, but the true danger lies in inaction. Companies that ignore resistance can result in stagnation, slowing productivity and putting their competitive edge at risk.

Change management is not just about rolling out new tools or restructuring an entire team. It's about shifting mindsets. Delivering immediate gratification using new innovations helps teams see that their work can become easier and more impactful.  Change management can help create a bridge between fear of adoption, using empathy, clarity, and tangible results.

Let’s give an example: Imagine a team member spends two hours every week manually compiling reports. By introducing a simple AI tool to automate that task in seconds, it sends a clear message: “This change gives you time back.” The result isn’t abstract, it becomes concrete. This immediate gratification can help break through doubt and hesitation, emphasizing the psychology of quick wins. 

Teams can build momentum, rebuild trust, and signal that change can lead to something better. It turns an intimidating process into an achievable one, showing employees that their roles aren’t being erased, but used in better ways. 

Successful implementation requires more than simply providing teams with resources. It takes time for them to understand the technology and gradually integrate it into their daily workflows. The following steps will help ensure a smooth transition:

2. Offering Mentorship/ Coaching. Pairing employees with mentors gives a sounding board to allow their feelings to get heard. Employees could voice their concerns, get advice, and grow through uncertainty. It gives the employees an opportunity to learn, helping those positions in transition succeed. 

3. Learning From Feedback: it is imperative that managers meet regularly with their teams to gather updates and feedback. The task force should remain focused, continuously improving the transition strategy by integrating feedback from different parts of the organization. If there are significant obstacles, managers should be able to mitigate any issues and improve any steps to resolve said problems. 

What had initially felt like a tense and uncertain environment slowly began to transform. Employees started to view the change not as an imposed directive, but as a process they were actively shaping. 

The most important factor in a successful transition is listening to employees' opinions and concerns. Regular check-ins create consistent touchpoints to track progress and address issues as they arise. It is important during these meetings not to enforce any rules, but rather listen. Seeing what members found helpful, what they still struggled with, and where the tool could better fit into their workflow. The feedback loop became its own source of momentum. Over time, employees began suggesting additional use cases for the new technology that was implemented. What began as resistance turned into ownership.

Teams that resist change won’t just be “missing out”, they will be actively falling behind. In today’s fast-moving business environment, where agility and optimization are no longer differentiators but expectations, the cost of inertia compounds quickly. Efficiency, adaptability, and data-driven decision-making have become the baseline for staying competitive. Organizations that hesitate, risk being surpassed by faster-moving, more adaptable competitors.

The market doesn’t pause for internal buy-in. While some companies stall in debate or discomfort, others are relentlessly optimizing, automating, and leveraging tools like artificial intelligence to enhance productivity, cut costs, and uncover new insights. These forward-thinking organizations are widening the performance gap, not through reckless change, but through deliberate, incremental innovation that keeps them moving forward.

Artificial intelligence, in particular, is not just a passing trend, it offers a structural shift in how work gets done. It’s transforming roles, workflows, and decision-making across industries. Companies that view AI as a threat to be resisted, rather than a tool to be integrated, are more likely to face obsolescence. But that doesn’t mean handing over the reins entirely. The key is framing AI as an enabler, not a replacer, but a tool that empowers employees to offload repetitive tasks, make faster decisions, and focus on higher-impact work.

The good news with this type of change is that not everything has to shift overnight. Change happens through making small shifts, assessing the response to the shift, and celebrating the small wins. Acknowledge the team’s efforts through immediate gratification, like celebrating the results, and reinforcing the long-term value which become the building blocks of lasting transformation. Most importantly, through each step of this process, never underestimate the power of a clear, meaningful win.