The Cost of Avoiding People Decisions

A client recently came to us asking for help moving an employee out of the organization. The employee, they told us, was not performing at the required level, and it had become a problem for the team. We asked a straightforward question: what did the employee say when you shared that feedback? The answer was “I haven’t shared it yet. I was waiting for their review.” Then we asked when their review was due, and he replied, “It is a few months off.”

That leader was not indifferent. They were not a poor manager by any measure. They were doing what a surprising number of leaders do when faced with a difficult people decision: they were waiting for a more convenient moment that, in reality, would never feel convenient enough. In the meantime, the employee had no idea there was a problem, the team was absorbing the impact of the underperformance, and the leader was carrying the stress of a situation they had the power to address but had chosen not to.

We worked with the leader to have the conversation earlier, and we worked with them on how to do it well. Not as a confrontation, but as a clear, structured discussion that outlined the specific performance gaps, the actions needed to close the gaps, and the goals the employee would be held to going forward. Within a few weeks, something shifted. The employee was motivated and doing well. They had actionable feedback they could run with, and it inspired them. That employee ended up becoming a strong performer. The feedback, tied to clear actions and aligned to real goals, was exactly what they had needed all along. The conversation the leader had been dreading for months turned out to be the most valuable one they had.

This pattern is a consistent pattern we see in our coaching work, particularly with newer leaders. The reluctance to have a direct performance conversation, to deliver honest feedback, or to make a difficult call about a person’s role is rarely about a lack of caring. It almost always traces back to one of two things. The first is a high need to be liked. Many leaders, especially those early in their leadership journey, are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that a direct conversation might damage their relationship with an employee or cause that person to view them negatively. So they delay. They soften. They wait for the right moment. And in doing so, they deprive the employee of the one thing that could actually help them – feedback on their performance.

The second root cause is a lack of tools. A large number of leaders are promoted because they are technically excellent at their jobs. They know the work, they deliver results, and they are respected by their peers. What they have rarely been given is formal training in how to lead people, and specifically how to deliver feedback in a way that is honest, constructive, and tied to outcomes. Without that foundation, even a well-intentioned leader will default to avoidance because they genuinely do not know how to have the conversation effectively.

Both of these are solvable problems, but only if the leader is willing to recognize them. The cost of not solving them is high, and it compounds over time. When performance issues go unaddressed, the team notices. High performers, who are already holding themselves to a high standard, watch the leader accommodate underperformance and draw their own conclusions about whether effort and results are truly valued. Trust erodes. Morale follows. And the leader who wanted to protect a relationship by avoiding a hard conversation, often ends up damaging every other relationship on the team by avoiding the difficult conversation.

There is also the cost to the employee being avoided. When a leader waits until an annual review, or worse, until a termination conversation, to tell someone their performance has not been meeting expectations, they are not being kind. They are being unfair. Every person deserves the chance to know where they stand and what is expected of them. Withholding that information does not protect the employee. It denies them the opportunity to grow.

So what does a direct, honest performance conversation actually look like in practice? A few principles make a consistent difference.

Be specific about the gap. Vague feedback like “your performance needs to improve” gives an employee nothing to act on. Name the specific behavior or outcome that is not meeting expectations and connect it clearly to the goals of the role.

Focus on the work, not the person. Frame the conversation around tasks, outcomes, and expectations rather than personality or attitude. This keeps the discussion professional and gives the employee something concrete to change.

Ask questions. Rather than delivering a verdict, invite the employee into the conversation. Asking “what do you think is getting in the way?” or “what do you need to be successful in this area?” often brings to light information the leader did not have and signals that the goal is improvement, not punishment.

Set clear expectations and a follow-up date. End the conversation with a review of the expectations and a mutual understanding of what success looks like and when you will reconvene to review progress. Scheduling the follow-up before leaving the meeting signals that you are serious and invested in the employee’s success.

Document the discussion. After the meeting, send an email with a brief summary of what was discussed and agreed upon. This protects both the leader and the employee and ensures there is no ambiguity about what was said. For a deeper look at managing difficult performance conversations, see our earlier piece on strategies for when feedback conversations go south. [ Strategies for When Your Performance Feedback Conversation Goes South – Peter Barron Stark Companies]

The leaders who navigate this well share a common mindset. They have come to understand that a direct, honest conversation is not a threat to a relationship. It is an investment in one. When feedback is delivered with clarity, specificity, and genuine care for the person’s success, it almost always strengthens the dynamic rather than damaging it. The employee feels seen, not attacked. They understand what is expected, not just that something is wrong. And they have a path forward, which is what most struggling employees are quietly hoping for anyway.

Avoiding people decisions never makes it easier. It only raises the cost of having it later. The conversation you are putting off today is the one your team, and the employee, need you to have right now.

Dusty Tockstein is a senior consultant at Peter Barron Stark Companies. Dusty works with clients to improve their corporate culture through a variety of tools, including Employee Engagement Surveys, 360 Leadership Development Assessments, Leadership Coaching, and Organizational Assessments.