Avoiding hurt feelings can damage your organization

It’s a common occurrence among organizations large and small: Someone on the team isn’t measuring up. They could be close to retirement and waning in motivation or lacking in current necessary skills. They could be facing a difficult personal challenge that makes it impossible to do the required work. They could be disillusioned with their job, their co-workers or the organization as a whole and as a result, are now a so-called ‘bad fit’ for their current position. 

In times like these, a compassionate supervisor may avoid addressing the performance issue head-on. After all, it’s already a sensitive situation. The team member in question is likely already feeling down: Wouldn’t it be downright cruel to have a performance talk at this juncture?

Hard, yes. But cruel? Perhaps not.

When the Hard Thing is the Right Thing

According to Webster’s, a cruel person is defined as one who is “disposed to inflict pain or suffering.” In its purest sense, then, a supervisor’s cruel action doesn’t take into account the employee’s feelings.

Conversely, honest performance critiques (or even letting an employee go), while emotionally painful, are sometimes necessary. What’s more, these interactions can, and should, be handled with the employee’s feelings and best interests taken into account.

In the long run, tough critiques can lead to better outcomes for both the employee and the organization. Thus, difficult feedback, when administered correctly, can actually help your employee and your organization grow. In this sense, a tough performance critique is the opposite of cruel: Like a stinging bit of antiseptic applied to a cut, tough talks are the therapy that can heal an organizational wound.

Saving One at the Expense of Many

Failing to address poor performance with one employee out of a sense of compassion can often have the reverse effect on your organization: By allowing one individual to continue to flounder, you may be indirectly frustrating the rest of your team.

All it takes is one person not pulling their weight to bring the entire working group down. If an individual performs poorly, it may be up to other team members to pick up the slack. If the individual can’t deliver their part of the work on time, the entire team may be unable to complete projects effectively, resulting in frustration for all. If the underperforming individual is a poor leader, an entire department can suffer from misdirection and burnout.

In these situations, toxicity develops quickly and can be hard to quash. Before you know it, you’ve unintentionally created a difficult environment for many by avoiding uncomfortable conversations with one. You’ve attempted to avoid cruelty and have unwittingly allowed an untenable environment to develop.

When to Take Action

A good leader must have the courage to make hard decisions – and this includes putting development plans into practice and imposing HR-sanctioned probationary periods for workers who need them.

For the benefit of all involved, including your underperforming employee, you must take actions like these as quickly as possible when they become necessary. If it’s early days, starting feedback asap and speaking honestly about the problems at hand can avoid shock and undue hurt feelings in the long run.

Just make sure you listen as well as talk: Put yourself in your employee’s shoes and remember that the individual may see things differently than you do. They may challenge your assessment of their performance. In the moment, they may be upset or even hurt. They are sure to be a bit fearful of their standing within the company, and this can cause more than a little stress.

In short, the conversations ahead will be difficult, but you must hold your ground. Listen to your employee’s reaction and be sure to take their points of view into account. But don’t be overly swayed by an employee’s defensiveness: Hold your ground diplomatically and don’t waffle. Remember that honest feedback is the necessary medicine here, and stick to your plan.

If you reach the employee early with your feedback, you will act with compassion because you will be, in good faith, offering the individual the opportunity to turn things around. Conversely, if you don’t address issues early and with honesty, you run the risk of letting your employee continue to underperform for months or even years, to the detriment of everyone.

When to Let Go

If you’ve met with your employee several times, have alerted them to their performance problems and have made good-faith attempts to help them correct the issues at hand, it may be time to say goodbye. If you’ve hired someone who has proven unwilling or unable to develop the skills necessary to continue in their role, it may be time to cut ties.

The result, while heartbreaking, will be short-lived compared to the cancerous growth of rancor that can occur if you allow the underperformer to continue on in their role. Often, if the issue is simply one of fit, you may even be able to help your employee find new employment elsewhere.

Honesty Is a Form of Compassion

In my experience, conflict avoidance, while not exactly cruel, does result more damage to employees, teams, and organizations than difficult feedback. It’s important to root out organizational problems as soon as possible in order to save your organization from major cultural issues down the road. If you remain open and honest with your team members and advocate fearlessly for their growth in good times and in bad, you’ll reap the reward of a flourishing organization. This is the best and most gratifying form of professional compassion you can practice.