The adequate performer you should have fired a year ago

You've got someone on your team who isn't technically failing. They hit their targets, show up to meetings, complete their tasks. But if you're being honest, they're not really there.

They don't bring energy to strategy sessions. They don't raise ideas or question assumptions. When you ask for volunteers on a tough project, they look at their laptop. They're doing exactly what's required and nothing more, collecting a pay cheque while they look for something better.

Every week you don't address this, the cost compounds. There isn't poor performance you can point to on a spreadsheet. The adequate performer who's slowly poisoning your team culture without giving you grounds to fire them, and they can go under the radar for years.

The problem isn't the work they produce

If someone's missing targets or delivering shoddy work, you have a path forward. You document it, set clear expectations, put them on a performance plan. The system handles that.

But what do you do when someone's just... fine? They complete tasks on time. They don't create problems. They just never solve any either. They sit in planning meetings without contributing. They ask no questions about whether there's a better way to do things.

The gap is in what they're not doing, and that's harder to document than a missed deadline.

Your best people notice first. They see someone coasting and they start doing the mental arithmetic. "I'm staying late to fix this launch and they left at 5pm without asking if we needed help. We're getting the same bonus. Why am I bothering?"

That's when your culture starts breaking down. Not because one person is mediocre, but because you're signalling that mediocrity is fine.

Why you're still working around them

You've noticed. You notice every time they contribute nothing in a planning session. You notice when you assign the critical work to someone else because you know they won't give it the attention it needs. You notice when your high performers quietly absorb the slack without complaint.

You haven't acted because you feel guilty. They're not a bad person. They might have a mortgage, kids in school. You're not a monster, and the idea of that conversation makes you deeply uncomfortable.

Or you're too busy to deal with it. Performance management takes time you don't have right now. Documentation, HR meetings, the whole process. It's easier to just redistribute their work and move on.

Maybe you're worried about the optics. They're hitting their KPIs, so how do you justify moving them out? What if they claim unfair dismissal? What if it looks like you're playing favourites?

Or you think they might improve. Maybe something's happening at home. Maybe they're going through a rough patch and they'll bounce back. Give it another quarter.

I get all of those reasons. I've used most of them myself. They're all costing you more than you think.

What this is actually costing

The cost isn't in their output. Adequate performers don't actively break things. The cost is in what gets normalised when you let this drag on.

Your high performers are watching. They're carrying extra weight and they know it. The longer this goes on, the more resentment builds. Some of them will stop compensating. Others will just leave.

You're spending mental energy managing around this person constantly. Redistributing work, avoiding assigning them to anything critical, calculating who can pick up the slack. That's time and energy you could be spending on work instead of damage control.

When mediocrity goes unchecked, it becomes the baseline. New hires look at this person and recalibrate their own expectations. Your team's collective ambition drifts downward.

That salary could be going to someone who actually wants to be there. Someone who brings energy, asks questions, pushes for better outcomes. Every day this person stays is a day you're not building the team you need.

I've made this move multiple times. You know what happens? The team doesn't mourn. They feel relieved. Because they've been carrying that weight too, and someone finally acknowledged it.

When to have the conversation

You don't need to wait for them to fail. Act when you see these patterns showing up consistently:

• They're absent in ways that matter. Not physically, but mentally checked out. They contribute nothing in meetings, raise no ideas, question no assumptions.

• You're actively working around them. You've stopped giving them important work because you know it won't get the care it needs. You assign tasks based on who you trust, not who has capacity.

• Other people are compensating without being asked. Your high performers have quietly absorbed work this person should be doing. They're not complaining yet, but you can see the strain building.

• They're visibly disengaged. They're on LinkedIn during meetings. They're first out the door every day. They're doing the minimum and everyone knows it.

If any of those feel familiar, the conversation is overdue.

What to actually do

I'm not going to walk you through HR process step by step. That's what your People team is for, and they'll tell you what's possible in your jurisdiction. But you have options.

Start with the direct conversation. Most of the time, when you name what you're seeing, they'll tell you they're not happy either. People usually know when they're not the right fit. They're often waiting for permission to leave.

"I don't think this is working for either of us. I'm seeing these patterns. What's going on from your side?"

That conversation goes one of two ways. Either they acknowledge it and you work out an exit plan together, or they push back and you move to formal performance management.

If you go the performance route: set clear expectations that are actually measurable. Give them a genuine chance to meet them. Document everything properly. Work with HR to do it right.

Most people either lift their game or self-select out when they realise you're serious. The ones who were genuinely disengaged often leave on their own once they understand the free ride is over.

If the role itself has genuinely changed since you hired them, a restructure conversation might be the honest path. But get proper advice on that. Blog posts aren't legal counsel.

The part nobody wants to say

Keeping someone in a role where they're merely adequate is bad for them too. They know they're not crushing it. They see how everyone else performs. They feel the weight of your lowered expectations every day.

That's not kindness. That's a slow erosion of their confidence and career prospects.

Sometimes the kindest thing you can do is give someone clarity. Tell them this isn't the right fit. Help them find something that is. Staying in a role where they're barely adequate isn't serving anyone (not you, not the team, not them).

I've had to do this multiple times. It's never comfortable. But every single time, I've wished I'd done it six months earlier. The relief isn't just mine. The team feels it. And eventually, they do too.

The question that matters

If this person handed in their notice tomorrow, would you feel relieved?

If the answer is yes, you already know what needs to happen. You're just deciding how long you're willing to wait before you do it.