Part 2 of a series. If you haven’t read “Hire Slow, Fire Slow, Regret Both,” start there. This one will hurt more if you do.

Last week I wrote about keeping the wrong person too long.

This week’s uncomfortable sequel: Sometimes the person isn’t wrong. You just set them up to fail and called it empowerment.

I’ve done this. I’ve had this done to me. And I’ve watched it murder teams that should have thrived.

Let me tell you about the campaign I almost killed while playing Enlightened Leader™.

The Time I Called Abandonment “Trust”

A few years ago, I handed a major campaign to one of my best people. Smart. Capable. Had earned the keys.

I gave her the brief. Told her I trusted her. Told her to run with it.

Then I vanished like a dad going out for cigarettes.

Not literally. I was around. But I was “giving her space.” I was “not micromanaging.” I was “letting her own it.”

Translation: I was too busy and too lazy to do the actual work of leadership.

Three weeks later, the campaign launched.

It flopped.

Not catastrophically—just... mediocre. Off-target. Missing the insight that would have made it work.

And I had the audacity to be disappointed.

Here’s what I didn’t give her:

• The context on why this client was different

• The stakeholder dynamics that would shape creative

• The history of what had been tried before

• The unspoken expectations I’d built up over years

I gave her a task.

I called it trust.

It was abandonment dressed up as empowerment.

Like giving someone a parachute without checking if it opens and calling yourself “hands-off.”

Abandonment vs. Delegation

They look identical from the outside.

The difference is everything.

Abandonment sounds like:

“Handle this.” (No context about why it matters or what success looks like.)

“Figure it out.” (When they don’t have the information or authority to actually figure it out.)

“I trust you.” (Said while walking away, never to be seen again. The organizational equivalent of “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.”)

“Why isn’t this done?” (Asked three weeks later with zero check-ins. Surprise! You’re both disappointed now.)

Real delegation sounds like:

“Here’s what success looks like. Let me paint you the picture.”

“Here’s why this matters and how it connects to the bigger thing we’re building.”

“Here’s who can help you. Here’s what you have access to.”

“You can make decisions about X. Come to me for Y.”

“Let’s connect Tuesday to catch problems while they’re still small—not to spy on you, to actually help.”

The first list feels efficient.

The second list feels like work.

And it is—upfront.

But here’s the thing: the first list guarantees you’ll do the work twice. Once when you “delegate” it. Again when you fix what came back broken.

Or worse—when you lose someone good because they couldn’t succeed in the dark.

Why We Abandon Instead of Delegate

(I’ve been guilty of all of these. Probably today.)

We’re too busy to do it right.

Ironic, because we’ll spend more time cleaning up bad delegation than we would’ve spent setting it up properly. But the urgent always beats the important, so we throw it over the wall and hope.

Hope is not a strategy. Hope is what people use when they’re out of strategies.

We assume they know what we know.

The curse of expertise. What’s obvious to you isn’t obvious to them. You’ve forgotten what it’s like to not know the context. You’ve had eighteen conversations and seven years of experience with this client. They’ve had the brief you wrote in eleven minutes between meetings.

You’re playing chess. They’re trying to figure out where the board is.

We confuse delegation with testing.

“I want to see if they can handle it.”

Fine—but say that explicitly. Tell them it’s a stretch assignment. Tell them you’re evaluating. Otherwise, you’re setting them up to fail without telling them they’re being graded.

That’s not leadership. That’s a trap.

We want to feel like we empower.

“I don’t micromanage.”

Cool. Neither do I. There’s a vast territory between micromanagement and abandonment. You might want to explore it.

It’s called management.

We’re avoiding the real work.

Because real delegation—the kind that actually transfers capability—requires you to articulate things you’ve never had to articulate. It forces you to examine your own assumptions.

That’s hard. It’s easier to just hand off the task and call it growth.

Osho said: “You can only give what you have. If you have clarity, you give clarity. If you have confusion, you give confusion—and call it freedom.”

Most leaders are handing out confusion and calling it autonomy.The Handoff Framework

After that campaign flopped, I built this. I use it for any significant delegation now.

It takes ten minutes. It saves weeks.

1. WHAT — What specifically needs to happen? What does “done” look like? Be concrete. “Improve the campaign” is not an outcome. “Launch creative by Friday that increases CTR by 15%” is.

2. WHY — Why does this matter? How does it connect to the larger goal? People execute better when they understand purpose. They make better decisions when they know what you’re actually trying to achieve. This is where I failed with that campaign—I gave the what without the why.

3. WHO — Who are the stakeholders? Who can they go to for information? Who has veto power? Who needs to approve what? Nothing kills momentum like discovering there’s a gatekeeper you didn’t know about.

4. BOUNDS — What decisions can they make alone? What requires your input? What’s the budget? What’s off-limits? Clear authority prevents the paralysis of “I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this.”

5. WHEN — What’s the timeline? When do you want check-ins? Not surveillance—waypoints. “Let’s connect Wednesday so I can remove obstacles” is different than “Report to me Wednesday so I can judge your progress.”

6. STUCK — How should they reach you if they hit a wall? What counts as an emergency? What can wait? Give them permission to ask for help. Most people won’t unless you explicitly open that door.

The Uncomfortable Part

f you read last week’s piece on firing slow, you might be wondering:

How do I know if someone’s failing because they’re wrong for the role—or because I abandoned them?

Honest answer: Sometimes you don’t. Not right away.

But here’s the gut check:

Did you set them up with everything they needed to succeed?

Did you check in before things went sideways?

Did you give them the context, the authority, and the support?

Or did you hand them a task, call it trust, and vanish?

If someone fails after real delegation, that’s data. Maybe they’re not right for this role. Maybe they need more time to grow. Maybe—and this is the hard one—they’re the person from last week’s article.

But if someone fails after abandonment? That’s on you.

And it’s not fair to hold them accountable for a setup they were never given.

The Reframe

Delegation isn’t giving someone a task.

It’s giving them what they need to succeed at the task.

The ten minutes you spend on the handoff are the difference between building capability and breeding resentment.

Between developing your team and burning them out.

Between leadership and abandonment with a good story attached.

That campaign I mentioned?

I went back to her. Told her what I should have told her from the start. Walked her through everything I’d been carrying in my head that I never thought to share.

The next campaign was one of the best we ever did.

Same person. Different setup.

The person wasn’t the problem.

My “trust” was.

Think about the last thing you delegated.

Did you hand off a task?

Or everything someone needed to succeed at it?

If you’re honest with yourself, you already know.

If this hit a nerve, forward it to another leader who might be calling abandonment “trust.” Sometimes the kindest thing is naming what’s actually happening.

And if you’re reading this thinking, “I’m the person who got abandoned,”—you’re not crazy. It wasn’t you.

— Captain

Share

Most leaders get the first part right—sometimes too right, paralyzed by the fear of a bad hire like it’s a tattoo of an ex’s name.

But almost everyone fails on the second part.

We fire slow. Too slow. Embarrassingly slow.

And it costs more than we realize.

Let me tell you about the most expensive lesson I learned in leadership. Buckle up. This one’s going to sting.

The Hidden Cost

A few years ago, I had someone on my team who wasn’t performing.

Not terribly—just... not well.

Missed deadlines. Mediocre work. The kind of underperformance that’s hard to point to because there’s no single fireable offense. Death by a thousand paper cuts. Each one too small to act on, all of them together slowly bleeding you out.

I told myself stories.

They’re going through a hard time.

They have potential.

They’ll turn it around.

Maybe the problem is me.

I gave feedback. I created improvement plans. I moved them to different projects like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Months passed. Nothing changed.

And during that time:

My top performers picked up the slack—and grew resentful. They didn’t sign up to carry someone else’s weight. Every time they watched me give another chance, they wondered why their excellence wasn’t being protected the way this person’s mediocrity was.

The team’s standard of “acceptable” drifted down. When you tolerate B-minus work, B-minus becomes the ceiling. Your A-players start questioning why they’re killing themselves when coasting is clearly fine.

I spent hours in coaching conversations that went nowhere. Same feedback. Same nodding. Same promises. Same results. I wasn’t coaching—I was performing patience for an audience of one: myself.

Everyone knew the situation—and wondered why leadership tolerated it. Teams aren’t stupid. They see everything. And when they see you avoiding the obvious, they stop trusting your judgment on everything else.

One of my best people left, citing “culture issues” in their exit interview. That’s corporate-speak for “you let mediocrity win and I’m not staying to watch.”

The Math Nobody Does

Here’s what the cost of a bad hire actually looks like:

Visible CostsHidden CostsTheir salaryYour A-players leavingSeverance (eventually)Standards erosionRecruiting replacementTeam trust damageTraining replacementYour time and energyOpportunity cost of what you could’ve builtThe next bad hire you make while distracted

The visible costs are annoying.

The hidden costs are catastrophic.

One underperformer kept six months too long can cost you two top performers, a year of momentum, and your reputation as someone who holds the line.

But sure, let’s give them one more quarter to “turn it around.”

Why We Fire Slow

Let’s be honest about what’s really happening here. Because it’s not noble. It’s not kind. It’s avoidance wearing a compassion costume.

We want to be “fair.”

We tell ourselves everyone deserves a chance. Multiple chances. Infinite chances. A chance factory that never closes.

But here’s the uncomfortable math: fairness to one underperformer often means unfairness to everyone else carrying the weight.

When you give unlimited grace to someone who isn’t delivering, you’re taking it from everyone who is.

We’re afraid of being wrong.

What if they turn it around next month? What if I’m the problem? What if I haven’t given them enough support?

The uncertainty keeps us in holding patterns. But here’s the thing about holding patterns: they burn fuel without getting you anywhere. And eventually, you run out.

We avoid hard conversations.

This is the same dynamic I wrote about in “The Lie of the Open Door Policy.” Avoidance masquerading as patience. Conflict aversion dressed up as giving people room to grow.

You’re not being patient. You’re being scared.

We conflate liking someone with needing them.

Good people can be wrong for a role. Someone you’d grab a beer with can still be tanking your team’s output. Someone who makes the Slack channel fun can still be the reason your best people are updating their LinkedIn.

Liking someone is not a business case for keeping them.

We’re protecting ourselves from feeling like the bad guy.

Let’s just say it: firing someone feels bad. It makes you the villain in someone else’s story. And nobody wants to be the villain.

So we delay. We create one more improvement plan. We give one more “final” warning. We wait for them to quit so we don’t have to pull the trigger.

That’s not leadership. That’s cowardice with a HR process attached.

The Mercy of Clean Cuts

Here’s what I’ve learned—and it took me way too long to learn it:

Letting someone go can be the kindest thing you do. For them and for you.

That person I kept too long? After I finally let them go, they went to a different company, in a different role, and thrived.

The job wasn’t right for them. I knew it. They knew it. But neither of us was brave enough to act on that knowledge.

I thought I was being compassionate by keeping them.

I was actually being cruel.

Every day they stayed in a role where they were failing was a day they weren’t moving toward something that fit them better. Every meeting where they felt inadequate. Every performance review that confirmed what they already feared. Every morning they woke up with that pit in their stomach.

I called that kindness.

It was prison with a paycheck.

Osho said: “The moment you become aware of the ego, it disappears. Awareness is enough.”

The same is true here. The moment you become honest about what’s actually happening—not the story, the reality—the path becomes obvious. The only question is whether you have the courage to walk it.

The Diagnostic

Ask yourself these questions. Answer honestly. No one’s watching.

1. If this person quit tomorrow, would you be relieved?

Not sad. Not neutral. Relieved.

If the honest answer is yes, that tells you everything.

2. Would you hire them again, knowing what you know now?

Not “would you give them a chance.” Would you actively choose them over other candidates?

If you’re hesitating, you have your answer.

3. Are you spending more energy managing them than they’re contributing?

Add up the hours. The conversations. The worrying. The cleanup.

Now compare that to what they’re actually producing.

If the ratio is upside down, it’s not going to flip.

4. Is your team compensating for their shortfalls?

Are your good people doing their job AND covering for this person?

Because that’s not sustainable. And they know it. They’re just waiting to see if you know it too.

5. Have you already given feedback that didn’t change anything?

Not once. Multiple times. Clear feedback. Specific feedback.

If the pattern hasn’t changed after clear communication, the pattern isn’t going to change.

The Timeline of Denial

Here’s how it usually goes:

Month 1-2: “They’re still ramping up.”

Month 3-4: “They’re going through something. I’ll give them space.”

Month 5-6: “Let me try moving them to a different project.”

Month 7-8: “I’ve given them feedback. Let’s see if it lands.”

Month 9-10: “One more quarter. Final chance.”

Month 11-12: “Okay, it’s clearly not working. But the holidays are coming...”

Month 13: You finally act. A year late. Two good people gone. Standards in the basement. Trust eroded.

And you tell yourself you “gave them every chance.”

No. You gave yourself every excuse.

How to Actually Do It

When it’s time—and you already know if it’s time—here’s the move:

Be direct. Don’t hide behind HR language or performance improvement theater. “This isn’t working, and we both know it. Here’s what happens next.”

Be fast. Once you’ve decided, act within days, not weeks. The longer you wait after deciding, the more it corrodes everything.

Be generous. Severance. References. Help with the transition. You can be firm and kind at the same time. This isn’t revenge—it’s redirection.

Be honest with yourself about why you waited. Not so you can beat yourself up. So you don’t do it again.

The Reframe

Here’s the truth nobody wants to say out loud:

Keeping someone in a role where they’re failing isn’t kind. It’s avoidance disguised as compassion.

Every day they stay is a day they’re not moving toward something that fits them better.

Every day you wait is a day your team loses a little more faith in your judgment.

The kindest thing you can do for someone struggling in a role is help them find a role where they won’t struggle.

Sometimes that’s in your organization.

Usually it isn’t.

Either way, the delay isn’t helping anyone.

It’s just making you feel better about yourself while everything burns in slow motion.

The Bottom Line

Hire slow. Yes.

Fire slow? That’s not wisdom. That’s fear.

And fear is expensive.

The cost of a bad hire isn’t their salary.

It’s the talent that leaves. The standards that erode. The trust that breaks when your team watches you tolerate what everyone knows shouldn’t be tolerated.

The question isn’t whether you should act.

The question is whether you’ll do it now—or in six months, after more damage is done.

You already know the answer.

The only question is whether you’re brave enough to admit it.

If this hit close to home, forward it to a leader who’s been “giving someone more time” for six months too long. Sometimes the kindest thing is naming what’s actually happening.

And if you’re the person being kept in a role that isn’t working, you deserve to know too. The delay isn’t protecting you. It’s trapping you.