Should I Fire a Senior Leader?

Do not let a difficult conversation become indefinite delay. But asking whether to fire someone is not evidence that dismissal is right. Put the performance, working conditions and available options on the same page before deciding what to do.

Check the work and the conditions

Name the expected result and the actual gap. Use dated work records rather than “not senior enough” or “the team has lost confidence” as a conclusion. Give the leader a fair opportunity to explain what happened through the appropriate company process.

Check the role, decision rights, resources, workload and instructions alongside the individual’s contribution. An owner-controlled approval can delay work; the leader can also miss an agreed commitment. Finding one does not rule out the other. The related framework is building leadership authority without losing control.

For routine performance concerns, establish what expectations, feedback and support were provided and what changed afterwards. Urgent safety, misconduct, legal or security concerns need prompt attention from the appropriate authorized and qualified people; do not postpone that response to complete this worksheet.

What can support an exit decision

These are areas to examine, not four automatic dismissal rules. Employment requirements, agreements and decision authority depend on the actual situation.

Build an evidence-to-options record

Keep source records and distinguish facts from interpretations. Do not score these rows to produce a firing recommendation.

Expected result

Agreed responsibility, authority, resources, standard and review conditions.

Observed gap

Dated work, source record, consequence and what remains disputed.

Working conditions

Missing access, capacity, instructions, dependencies or changed demand.

Response so far

The leader’s account, feedback, support and observed change.

Realistic alternatives

Repair conditions, develop capability, redesign or reassign work, or consider exit. Record what makes each feasible or unsuitable.

Next decision

Authorized decision-maker, appropriate HR or employment advice, missing evidence, review date and interim coverage.

Two missed starts, two different questions

In this fictional example, an operations leader is responsible for getting two customer projects started. The first waits for an owner-controlled purchase approval. For the second, the required information and access are available, but the leader has not produced the agreed schedule. These are teaching examples, not client results.

First project: establish when the request arrived, whether it was complete, who could approve it and why it waited. Repairing that approval path may be necessary. It does not establish that every other performance concern is explained.

Second project: confirm the scheduling commitment and hear the leader’s account. Examine workload, dependencies and prior feedback before concluding why it was missed. An available system is not proof that all conditions were workable.

Next comparable work: record the agreed changes, who will supply them and what completed work will show. Check whether approvals arrive and schedules are produced. If one gap improves while the other persists, keep the findings separate. Neither incident alone establishes a dismissal; the authorized decision-maker still needs the relevant evidence and proper process.

Compare delay with premature removal

Waiting without a purpose can leave missed commitments, avoidable rework and extra team load unresolved. Record those costs from actual work. Do not assume that every colleague has reached the same conclusion or that the leader caused every loss.

Removal also changes the business. Identify who covers decisions, customer commitments, access and specialist knowledge. Estimate recruitment and onboarding needs using the company’s circumstances, and mark uncertain estimates. The comparison should include feasible improvement or role changes, not only “keep everything” versus “fire now.”

A review date needs a purpose: what evidence will change the decision, and what happens to the work while you get it?

Make the next step explicit

Set the next decision date according to the actual work cycle, urgency and applicable process. Specify the missing evidence, support or alternative being tested. If the date moves, record why. There is no universal two-week structure check or sixty-day maximum delay.

A critical deliverable creates a continuity problem to solve, not an automatic instruction to retain a leader regardless of risk. Work with the appropriate people on coverage, access, dependencies and communications. Handle urgent concerns through the qualified process rather than waiting for a convenient project milestone.

If exit is under consideration, confirm who may decide and what employment, contractual and governance requirements apply. Documentation, terms, timing, communication and continuity need the actual company process and qualified advice. Operating responsibilities, employment, equity and board positions may involve separate decisions; do not assume one change settles them all.

For jurisdiction-specific context, Acas guidance for Great Britain on capability and conduct discusses support, evidence and fair procedure. It is not a worldwide employment rule. This guide helps organize the business question; Stan does not provide legal advice.

A related discussion of delayed action appears in the CEO who waited too long to fire. Use it to examine the cost question, not as proof of the right outcome in your situation.