I had just finished speaking to command-level officers at a major city police department when the senior staff graciously took me out to dinner. In the more relaxed atmosphere, they began discussing an ongoing issue within their department—one they were struggling to solve.
As they brainstormed solutions, I listened intently. They debated creating a new position in a division, adding another box to the org chart, and another salary to the budget. I let them talk, but it was already obvious to me:
They didn’t have a process problem. They had a person problem.
The reason they were considering this new position was because the person currently responsible for the role wasn’t performing. But rather than addressing that head-on, they were looking for a workaround—one that avoided confronting the real issue.
The employee in question wasn’t a bad person. They had been with the department for years, were well-liked, and weren’t causing disciplinary issues. They just weren’t effective in their role. Yet, instead of making the tough decision to either develop them or replace them, leadership was willing to restructure the entire system around a single underperforming person.
I finally chimed in:
“Can I offer my perspective?”
Of course, they said yes.
I told them, “You’re trying to solve a problem without confronting the real problem—the person.”
They all had a moment of enlightenment.
Leadership’s Emotional Blind Spots
This is why organizations hire external consultants. Outsiders aren’t emotionally invested in the “nice employee” who is underperforming. We don’t carry the weight of past relationships, tenure, or the fear of making an unpopular decision. We aren’t smarter or wiser — we see things clearly because we aren’t emotionally compromised.
This is what weakens leadership: the unwillingness to make the hard decisions.
Many leaders know exactly what needs to be done, but they let emotions and personal connections override the right call. And so, inefficiency persists. The result?
- Teams are forced to compensate for someone else’s deficiencies.
- Productivity is sacrificed at the altar of comfort.
- Organizations burn resources on unnecessary workarounds.
This happens everywhere—corporate America, public safety, nonprofits. Anywhere a leader avoids confrontation, inefficiency thrives.
Why? Because no one wants to be the bad guy.
Leadership, at its core, is about people. And people want to be liked. We want to be seen as fair, compassionate, and reasonable. It’s human nature to seek harmony and avoid conflict. But great leadership isn’t a popularity contest.
Running an organization optimally means making decisions that serve the mission, not the emotions of the moment. It means putting aside the temporary discomfort of disappointing someone and focusing on what’s best for the team as a whole.
The harsh reality is this: if you are more concerned with being liked than being effective, you are failing as a leader.
Avoiding tough decisions doesn’t just impact you—it drags down everyone around you. It creates resentment among high performers, enables mediocrity, and suffocates progress. When you keep an underperformer in place because you don’t want to upset them, what you’re really doing is upsetting every person who has to pick up their slack.
The best leaders don’t prioritize being liked. They prioritize being respected.
And respect comes from having the courage to make the right call, even when it’s hard.
Why Leaders Avoid the Obvious Solution
There are three common reasons leaders avoid dealing with underperforming employees:
- Tenure and Loyalty Bias – The longer someone has been with an organization, the harder it becomes to take corrective action. There’s a misplaced sense of loyalty that equates longevity with entitlement, even when performance declines.
- Emotional Attachment – We are social creatures. It’s difficult to make decisions that negatively affect people we like. But liking someone is not a leadership strategy.
- Lack of Documentation – Many leaders hesitate to hold employees accountable because they (or previous managers) have failed to document shortcomings properly. Without a paper trail, they feel powerless to act.
The Cost of Avoidance
Research in organizational behavior consistently shows that one underperforming employee can drag down the morale and productivity of an entire team. A Harvard Business Review study found that high-performing employees are 54% more likely to quit if forced to work with low performers because they feel their effort is wasted.
In contrast, leaders who confront performance issues directly—either through coaching, repositioning, or letting someone go—see higher engagement, productivity, and team satisfaction.
The Disruptor’s Mindset
The best leaders don’t let comfort dictate their decisions. They recognize when a human problem is masquerading as a process problem—and they disrupt it.
So, take a hard look at your own organization:
- What problems are you trying to solve with unnecessary complexity because you refuse to address the real issue?
- Who are you keeping in place because it’s easier than making a hard decision?
- What would your team look like if every seat was filled with a high performer?
The hardest decisions are often the ones that unlock the greatest progress. But it takes courage to make them.
Disruptors don’t build workarounds—they build better organizations.
Onward and Upward, My Fellow Disruptors,
Kristen
*This blog was inspired by a conversation with Chief Michael Baker from the Tulsa Fire Department—a reminder that some of the best insights come from talking things out with the right people.
