Firing someone is one of the most unpleasant parts of a manager’s job. Especially if you’ve only recently become a manager and have a team reporting to you for the first time.
The problem usually isn’t that the manager doesn’t see weak results. They do. The problem is the moment of decision.
"Maybe they just need more time." "One more month and things will turn around." "I need to explain the task better."
Sometimes that’s true. But sometimes the manager is simply putting off a decision that should have been made long ago.
Over my career, I’ve hired more than 100 people. I’ve had to let people go for not fitting the role or not delivering the expected results far less often — roughly 10–15 times. That’s not hundreds of cases, but it’s enough to spot certain patterns.
I mostly work with marketing teams, so I look at the problem through that lens; I’ve already broken down some of these observations on my blog. That said, I believe most of the principles apply to management in general.
The best firing is the one you avoided at the interview
In my experience, a large share of situations that end in a firing start with a hiring mistake. And it’s not necessarily a weak specialist: more often, the person simply isn’t right for the specific role, the way of working, or the results the manager expects from them.
Companies try to reduce this risk with test assignments, questionnaires, and multiple interview rounds. But there’s a flip side: strong candidates aren’t always willing to spend hours on test tasks and go through a lengthy hiring process either.
That’s why one of my main criteria in an interview is to understand not just whether the person can do the job, but whether they want to do exactly what we need. Those are two different things.
Asking "Are you ready to do this?" tells you almost nothing — most candidates will say "yes." It’s far more useful to ask: "How exactly would you do it?"
Walk through real situations with the candidate
I like to go through several scenarios with a candidate that are as close as possible to the actual job. Here’s a specific situation — what would you do? Campaign results have suddenly dropped — what are your first steps? You’ve been given this task — how will you organize the work?
What matters here isn’t the "right" answer. You need to understand the person’s reasoning and compare it with how your team actually works.
I’ve had interviews that effectively ended right at this stage: we’d go through a case, and the candidate would say outright, "No, I don’t want to work like that. I see this role differently." To me, that’s a good outcome. We didn’t hire a bad person — we realized in time that we weren’t a good fit for each other.
If you discover this after hiring, the cost of the mistake is much higher: the manager’s time, onboarding, salary, the extra load on the team, and ultimately an unpleasant firing process.
The first checkpoint: the probation period
In the first month, I try not to pressure a new hire about results. They need a chance to onboard properly: to understand the product, the team, the processes, and the context.
But there’s the opposite extreme — a comfortable "bubble" around the newcomer that they stay in for the entire probation period. They get simplified tasks, aren’t held to real results, and are constantly cut slack for being new. Three months go by, and the manager still doesn’t know whether the person can do the job they were hired for.
So after onboarding, I gradually move the employee into real working conditions. If the probation period is three months, then from the second month on there should be concrete tasks, ownership, and measurable results.
By the end of the probation period, the manager should have an answer to a simple question: can this person handle the workload and deliver the results we hired them for?
If the tasks were clearly defined and the person got the resources and support they needed, but the expected results aren’t there, I see no point in hoping things will suddenly change after probation. What’s more, the first few months are usually when people are most motivated to show their best. So consistently weak results at this stage are a serious red flag for me.
The second checkpoint: around six months
The next point I pay particular attention to is roughly six months in. A person may have breezed through probation, shown strong performance, and been highly engaged — and then suddenly dropped off. That kind of decline is an important signal for me.
The reasons can vary. Maybe during probation the person was working at the limit of their capacity and then went back to their usual pace. Maybe their motivation changed. Maybe something came up in their personal life. In remote teams, there’s another scenario too: the person has already found their next job or taken on a side project, so their engagement drops sharply.
The manager’s job isn’t to guess the reason, but to talk about it.
A drop in performance is a topic for a one-on-one first
If an employee used to maintain strong performance and then dropped off sharply, I don’t rush straight to letting them go. First, you need to understand what happened.
The conversation should be specific: here are the results you had before; here are the results now; here’s where I see the problem. Not "I feel like you’ve started working worse," but a concrete change in the work.
After that, you need to agree on expectations for the next period. If performance comes back, the problem is solved. If not, then it’s time to talk about parting ways.
The worst thing a manager can do is watch things get worse for months and hope it’ll pass on its own.
The third checkpoint: one year
After a year on the job, the evaluation is different. During probation, we’re answering the question: can the person do this job? At six months: can they consistently maintain the required level? At one year: what results has this person delivered over a sufficiently long period?
At this point, you should look not at an individual good or bad month, but at the overall trajectory: have the key goals been met, is the required level of performance holding, has the person grown stronger in their role, can you rely on them without constant micromanagement?
A year is long enough that chance stops being the main explanation for the results.
What about people who’ve been with you for three, five, or more years
Long-tenured employees are a separate story. There’s no simple algorithm here like there is for the probation period.
I’ve seen several times how, at around the three-year mark, a person hits a kind of crisis. They already know the company, the processes, and their work well; what was once new and exciting has become routine. They start wondering whether they want to stay.
That doesn’t mean such an employee should be let go. Quite the opposite: if the person keeps doing good work and you want to keep them, it’s worth figuring out what the next stage of growth could offer them. Sometimes it’s a raise; sometimes it’s a different area of responsibility, new challenges, or more comfortable working conditions.
But the economics have to work for both sides. If the person does good work, wants to stay, and the company is ready to offer terms that make it worthwhile — great. If the employee’s expectations and the company’s capabilities no longer align, parting ways can be a perfectly normal outcome. Not every ending of a working relationship means someone did a poor job.
Conclusion: firing doesn’t solve every problem — but you shouldn’t put off the decision either
I’m not a fan of the "missed your KPIs — goodbye" approach. A manager always needs to look at the context. Were the goals realistic? Did the employee have the resources they needed? Were they properly onboarded? Did priorities shift? Were they getting clear feedback? After all, the manager themselves can be the cause of weak performance.
But once those questions have been answered, it’s time to make a decision.
For myself, I identify several checkpoints: the interview, the end of probation, roughly six months, one year — and after that, any moments of significant change in the person’s performance or motivation. The earlier a manager spots a problem and starts talking about it, the less likely it is that a firing will come as a surprise to either side.
This is my approach, shaped by my own experience hiring and managing teams. I’m sure there are many more scenarios.
I’d love to hear from other managers: what signals tell you it’s time to part ways with an employee? And have you ever decided to give someone another chance — and it turned out to be the right call?