The Surest Way to Lose a High Performing Team Member
Leadership ought to be measured not only by vision and execution but by the ability to cultivate a culture of accountability. Yet, one of the most overlooked threats to team cohesion and operational success is the quiet tolerance of inefficiency and incompetence of a team member, particularly when it is shielded under the guise of protection. When managers prioritize shielding underperforming team members over promoting efficiency, the result is not only diminished output, but the erosion of morale among those who carry the weight of excellence.
Defining Inefficiency in the Context of Team Dynamics
Inefficiency, in its most basic form, refers to the misalignment between effort and outcome. In team settings, it manifests as delayed deliverables, duplicated efforts, and inconsistent standards. Inefficiency coupled with incompetency often appears as insufficient follow-through, team members failing to comprehend their role or the impact their [poor] performance has on other components of the team. These inefficiencies are not merely operational, they become cultural, especially when tolerated by management. They signal to high-performing employees that excellence is optional and that mediocrity [at best] is, and will continue to be, institutionally protected.
Protection Over Performance
Managers are often faced with difficult decisions when a team member underperforms. In some cases, the instinct to protect may stem from empathy, loyalty, or fear of confrontation. However, when protection becomes a pattern, especially in lieu of performance management, it creates a dangerous precedent. The team begins to internalize the message that accountability is negotiable, and standards are selectively enforced.
This dynamic is particularly harmful in environments where initiatives are central to the growth and safeguarding of the broader community. For example, consider a scenario in which a team member consistently fails to follow SOPs in the development and delivery of a Training, Learning, and Development Program (TL&D) for caregivers, yet is shielded from consequences. The result is multifold; internally, team members who apply their resources (ie. time, efforts, knowledge, etc.) and skills with rigor are undervalued, perhaps even taken advantage of, while more broadly, the investment in labor is squandered, with learners not receiving the utmost of what the TL&D Program could have, and arguably should have, delivered.
Exploring Strategic Responses to Inefficiency
There exist several pathways to address inefficiency and incompetence, each with distinct implications:
1. Direct Performance Management
This approach involves clear expectations, regular feedback, and structured improvement plans. While effective, it requires managerial courage, institutional support (ie. HR involvement), and consequences (rather than coddling or protection).
2. Redesigning Roles and Responsibilities
Sometimes inefficiency stems from misalignment rather than incompetence. Reassessing roles and one’s ability to perform their role, can uncover hidden strengths and redistribute tasks more effectively. Instead, and too often, the labor is shifted to high performing team members or even taken on by management.
3. Cultivating a Culture of Peer Accountability
Encouraging teams to hold one another to high standards can diffuse the burden of enforcement from managers alone. However, this requires psychological safety and a shared commitment to excellence. High performing team members who voice concerns need to be listened to, believed, validated, with their input, including their recommendations, carrying weight.
The Recommended Strategy: Strategic Internal Design Restructuring
The most sustainable approach to resolving inefficiency, particularly when it is culturally embedded, is strategic internal restructuring. This involves reexamining the architecture of team initiatives, application of real consequences, aligning roles with competencies, and embedding accountability into the very structure of work. By designing teams that demand clarity, collaboration, ongoing feedback loops, and measurable outcomes, inefficiency becomes visible and addressable. Moreover, this approach allows managers to shift from reactive protection to proactive enablement, supporting team members through structure rather than shielding them from consequence.
In some cases, however, restructuring alone is insufficient. When a team member consistently demonstrates incompetence, an unwillingness or inability to meet performance expectations, the most responsible course of action may be separation. Retaining inefficient team members out of loyalty or discomfort not only undermines the integrity of the high performing team members it places undue burden on those who are performing. Letting go is not a failure of leadership; it is a recognition that protecting the whole sometimes requires releasing the part. A true leader (not merely a manager) concerns themselves with the wellbeing of the team, and prioritizes professional performance over personal loyalty to inefficient and incompetent staff.
When managers fail to enact the aforementioned, they themselves become the greatest hindrance to the team, even more so than the ineffient and incompetent team member. This isn’t leadership, it’s nothing more than management; poor management that often leads to distrust and even the disrespect of high performers.
Conclusion
The surest way to lose a good employee is tolerating the incompetence and inefficiencies of another.
High performers thrive in environments where excellence is expected, supported, and rewarded. Too, they desire leaders they can learn from, trust to uphold psychological contracts, and even admire professionally. When managers protect underperformance at the expense of team efficiency, they risk alienating those who drive results. And when leaders fail to act, when they allow inefficiency to persist unchecked and without consequence, they become complicit in the erosion of morale and momentum. In such cases, the greatest problem is no longer the underperforming employee, but the leader who enables them.
Strategic restructuring, particularly through thoughtful strategic internal design, offers a path forward. It allows organizations to honor empathy without compromising standards, and to build cultures where protection and performance are not at odds, but deliberately woven together in such a way as to not prohibit retention of frustrated and undervalued high performers.
To Cite This in APA7
Drost, A.R. (2025). The surest way to lose a high performing team member. The Braided Strategist. https://www.thebraidedstrategist.com/articles/the-surest-way-to-lose-a-high-performing-team-member
Discussion Questions
What mechanisms can be introduced to ensure that empathy does not override performance standards in managerial decision-making?
As a leader, how do you differentiate between empathy-driven support and avoidance of accountability?
How do we, as emerging and experienced leaders, validate and act on concerns raised by high-performing team members? And how do we uphold the psychological contract?
Within you own company, how do you assess when separation is a strategic necessity?
How does you organization ensure restructuring efforts embed accountability rather than merely redistribute tasks?
What leadership behaviors are currently eroding trust among high performers?
