Dealing With an Employee You “Can't” Fire: 2 questions every leader needs to ask 

Summary

Podcast Summary: No Bullsh!t Leadership with Martin G Moore

Episode: Dealing With an Employee You “Can't” Fire: 2 questions every leader needs to ask
Date: June 9, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Martin G Moore tackles one of the toughest leadership challenges: dealing with employees who are underperforming or toxic, yet seem almost impossible to fire due to their technical value, contractual arrangements, or cumbersome organizational processes. Through real questions from three leaders—Hayley (healthcare), Amit (consulting), and Luke (government)—Martin breaks down how leaders should handle these situations with clarity, courage, and a systems-based approach. The episode centers on two essential questions leaders must ask:

1. Do they need to stay or go?
2. If they need to go, how do I execute this at the lowest cost and risk?

Martin offers practical, no-nonsense advice on navigating organizational constraints, holding standards, and maintaining culture—even when the system works against you.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Problem of the "Unfireable" Employee

• Technical stars with toxic behaviors can hold teams hostage.
• Systems and processes (performance improvement plans, contracts, bureaucracy) often shield problematic employees.
• Leaders rationalize holding on to such team members due to short-term technical risk, but the long-term cost to culture and team performance is higher.

2. Real-World Scenarios from Listeners

Case 1: Hayley (Healthcare)

• Issue: Two technically strong but toxic team members relapse into bad behavior after performance improvement plans (PIPs).
• Hayley’s Question: What if you’re already short-staffed and can’t easily replace them, but their impact is negative?
• Martin’s Guidance:
  • Talent never outweighs toxicity: “Talented jerks just need to go. Any value they might bring through their technical skill is massively outweighed by the damage they do to the rest of the team.” (02:44)
  • The vital two-question framework (10:04–10:52)
    • First: Decide if they need to stay or go. Don’t convolute that with the practical difficulties of replacement.
    • Second: If they need to go, plan the exit to minimize risk/cost.
  • Don’t be swayed by labor market fears—team would prefer the relief even if short-staffed.
  • Trying gentle options again is usually a waste if PIPs have failed.

Case 2: Amit (Consulting/Contractor Management)

• Issue: Balancing holding third-party contractors accountable while resisting the urge to control everything.
• Amit’s Question: How do I know if someone’s underperforming vs. me just being impatient? How to avoid accountability shifting back to me?
• Martin’s Guidance:
  • Remote work magnifies uncertainty—can only assess by deliverables, not effort or process (19:44–20:51).
  • Be proactive about expectations and accountability.
  • “Being unreasonable in your expectations is not a bad thing... You can’t be irrational, but you can raise the standard on speed and momentum.” (22:20–23:11)
  • Early, proactive check-ins beat crisis interventions.
  • Watch your intensity—use “light and shade” to make emphasis effective: “If you’re just constantly intense, people just get used to it. It’s water off a duck’s back.” (28:30)

Case 3: Luke (Government)

• Issue: Impossible-to-fire government worker who games the system and saps morale.
• Luke’s Question: In an environment where formal consequences are slow or unsupported, how do you move someone like this or at least minimize their damage?
• Martin’s Guidance:
  • If possible, separate them from the team to limit cultural damage. (30:31–32:00)
  • Raise and hold the standard—even if process is slow, you must use the formal performance management mechanisms (however laborious).
  • Don’t let them drop back to old behaviors after lifting performance during PIPs; next time, use first-and-final warning, not repeat PIPs.
  • Engage HR and your boss—“air cover” is essential.
  • Documentation and process compliance are your shield if challenged legally or by HR.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Talented Jerks:
  • “Talented jerks just need to go. Any value they might bring through their technical skill is massively outweighed by the damage they do to the rest of the team.”
    — Martin Moore (02:44)
• On the Leadership Dilemma:
  • “Most leaders blur these two [stay/go and execution] together and they talk themselves out of the obvious answer because they overestimate the degree of difficulty of the change.”
    — Martin Moore (38:27)
  • “While you hold onto the person destroying your culture, your really good people are quietly working out that there’s an easier way to earn a living somewhere else.”
    — Martin Moore (02:20)
• On Second Chances and Habit:
  • “This is habit forming... you can predictably manage that process and drive yourself even more crazy and have another six or twelve months of impact on your team, or you can rip the band-aid off completely.”
    — Martin Moore (15:10)
• On Control in Leadership:
  • “We can say it. I’m a control freak.”
    — Amit (21:42)
  • “If you’re just constantly intense, people just get used to it. It’s water off a duck’s back and then they just think you’re a bit of a dick...”
    — Martin Moore (28:30)
• On Government and Unaccountable Employees:
  • “That’s the problem. It’s not that you’ve got one malcontent who’s backing the system, it’s the fact that the rest of the team looks at that and goes, ‘Oh, well, why would I bother?’”
    — Martin Moore (34:35)
  • “You’ve got to enforce the standard even when the system is working against you. In fact, especially when the system is working against you.”
    — Martin Moore (38:41)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:44] – Dealing with “talented jerks” and cultural toxicity
• [04:08–12:39] – Hayley’s healthcare scenario and Martin’s coaching
• [13:45–16:05] – Should you give a “last chance” or just terminate?
• [17:07–28:30] – Amit’s contractor management scenario
• [21:42] – Admitting to being a control freak
• [29:16–37:43] – Luke’s government scenario and performance management advice
• [38:41] – The core uncomfortable truth: you can’t motivate your way out of a behavioral problem

---

Actionable Takeaways

• Always Split the Decision: Don’t muddle “would I like them gone?” with “how hard would it be to replace them?” Decide first, execute second.
• Enforce Standards Relentlessly: It’s better to be short-staffed than to allow staff who erode your culture and drive away your best people.
• Early Intervention Beats Heroics: Challenge for speed, clarity, and accountability from the start—even (especially) when stakes are high.
• Documentation and Process: Especially in bureaucratic or unionized environments, start documentation early and strictly follow prescribed processes.
• Get Air Cover: Ensure your boss and HR are aligned before making tough calls.

---

Final Thoughts

Martin closes by reiterating that there is no “motivational fix” for a behavior or attitude problem: enforcing standards is a leader’s job, even when (or especially when) the system makes it hard. Hold the line, keep your best people, and don’t let complexity cloud your judgment on what’s good for your culture.

---

Transcript

[Martin Moore]

Before we get into the episode, I want you to ask yourself a hard question. Is your team where you thought they'd be by this point in the year? Because for a lot of leaders, that answer is no. The energy has dropped, focus has slipped, deadlines are moving, decisions are slowing down, and the things that should be owned by your team are somehow still landing back on your desk. That is what we call the mid year slump. And it doesn't fix itself just because everyone comes back from a long weekend or starts the next quarter with good intentions. You need to reset the bar. That's why Marty and I are running a free workshop, the Mid Year Leadership Reset. It'll be on Thursday 11 June at 10am Australian Eastern Standard Time. In two hours, we'll cover how to reset your team's focus, lift accountability and get them performing at the standard that you need for the second half of the year. If your team is capable of more than they're currently delivering, this workshop is for you. Go to Bit Ly Reset Workshop to register for the session and save your free seat. Now. I'll also leave a link in the show notes. All right, enjoy the episode.

When you start something new, whether it's

[Podcast Narrator]

a business, a project or a podcast, there's always that moment of doubt.

[Martin Moore]

Is this the right move?

[Podcast Narrator]

Is it actually going to work? Look, I've been there. And while the uncertainty never fully goes away, having the right systems in place

[Martin Moore]

makes a big difference.

[Podcast Narrator]

That's where Shopify comes in. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and it powers 10% of all E commerce in

[Martin Moore]

the US from established brands to people just getting started.

[Podcast Narrator]

It's time to turn those what ifs

[Martin Moore]

into

[Podcast Narrator]

with Shopify Today, sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com leadership. Go to shopify.com leadership. That's shopify.com leadership. Talented jerks and people who game the system just need to go. Any value they might bring through their technical skill is massively outweighed by the damage they do to the rest of the team. You can't motivate them, you can't inspire them, you can't lift them. So stop trying. Because while you hold onto the person

[Martin Moore]

destroying your culture, your really good people

[Podcast Narrator]

are quietly working out that there's an easier way to earn a living somewhere else.

[Martin Moore]

Welcome to the no Bullshit Leadership Podcast. In a world where knowledge has become a commodity, this podcast is designed to give you something more access to the experience of a successful CEO who has already walked the path. So join your host, Martin Moore, who will unlock and bring to life your own leadership experiences and accelerate your journey to leadership excellence.

[Podcast Narrator]

Here's a common scenario. You've got someone who isn't meeting the standard, and for whatever reason, you can't deal with it the way you'd really like to. Maybe they're great at their technical role and you don't have anyone who can replace them in the short term. Maybe the system and the culture you're working within make any reasonable performance expectations in impossible to enforce.

[Martin Moore]

So you're stuck.

[Podcast Narrator]

You know you're stuck. The individual knows you're stuck. And what's even worse, they know that you know. This week I sat down with three no bullshit leaders from our community facing exactly that problem. Hayley runs a healthcare team carrying two talented jerks who've gamed every performance improvement plan that she's throwing at them amidst a consulting CEO trying to hold subcontractors to account without the accountability always defaulting back to him. And Luke is a senior leader in government, where the performance management process is so cumbersome that anyone who wants to game the system to avoid any repercussions can do it really easily. Three industries, three completely different sets of rules. But honestly, the same answer applies to all of them. Let's start with Hayley.

[Hayley]

I'm Hayley. I'm a senior leader in the healthcare industry, and I have two team members who are genuinely strong performers technically, but their attitude and behavior are toxic. And after a period of improvement following their pips, they've slipped straight back into their old patterns. My question to you, Marty, is when someone is too good at the job to easily replace but too disruptive to ignore, and you're already short staff, what's the next real step? I've had direct conversations. I've put them on performance improvement plans and got them to the point of almost being let go, but the behavior keeps coming back once the pressure is off.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, fantastic question, Hayley. You know, it's almost like they know how good they are at their jobs. It's almost like they feel indispensable. And when people feel indispensable, sometimes they use that for good and try and share their knowledge with other people. And sometimes they're used for evil and carry on like their behavior is terrible because they know you're unlikely to get rid of them, so they feel secure. The only way to deal with people like this is to make them feel insecure. And normally I'd say, hey, performance improvement plans the way right put them under a performance improvement plan and put them on notice that you're not going to tolerate that behavior. And that seems to have not made the slightest bit of difference. Is that. Did you see any difference or did they just play the game to get through the pip and then just straight back?

[Hayley]

Exactly that, Marty. They played the game. And once I closed out the pip, and it took about six months to finally close it out, and it was the next month, we had a lab meeting and I had eye rolls and scoffs and they raised their voice and they yelled and it was just very disrespectful.

[Martin Moore]

Is it directed to you as their leader or is it directed all around?

[Hayley]

When I'm there, it's directed towards me, but it's also towards their co workers and other departments of the. Of the hospital.

[Martin Moore]

Right. How many, how many people have you got in your team that work closely with these two?

[Hayley]

I have 10 people under me.

[Martin Moore]

Okay. And that's. So that's 20% of your team is carrying on like idiots.

[Hayley]

Yeah.

[Martin Moore]

Completely. Completely disregarding the normal codes of behavior and, you know, social acceptable behavior. Yeah. Okay.

[Podcast Narrator]

All right.

[Martin Moore]

So unfortunately, you're gonna have to go really hard on these two and you're gonna have to bite the bullet and live without the technical expertise or you will always have that same culture in the team. I'm assuming that because you put them under a PIP that you were prepared for the eventuality of having to wave one or both of them goodbye.

[Hayley]

Yeah, I was on the verge of just getting rid of them before the pips started.

[Martin Moore]

Right, right. So you'd sort of reconcile the fact in your head that it was likely one might go. So that in itself says to me, don't worry about the labor market. Yes, it's tough.

[Amit]

Yes.

[Martin Moore]

Yes, it's hard to replace people and yes, their expertise is wanted. But what you have is a couple of talented jerks. And talented jerks, in my book, after the years of working with them and seeing all different shapes, sizes and flavors of them in the corporate world, talented jerks just need to go. The upside of their technical skill is always massively outweighed by. By the impact they have on the rest of the team and the disruption and lack of morale that it drives through the team. So culturally, if that behaviour is seen to be acceptable, and when I say seen to be acceptable, they don't get pulled up when they carry on or roll their eyes or, you know, yell out in meetings. And they still have jobs when Monday rolls around again. So that's sending the message to the rest of the team that it's okay to behave like that. How do you feel about that, Hayley?

[Hayley]

I see it and I know it's a problem. It's just so hard. We waited four months to get one applicant for somebody else I had to let go in February. So I just, I don't want to put the rest of their co workers in a tough spot either. And working shorter than we already have been.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah. Which is a genuine consideration. Right. But I suspect if you to ask your team, individually and collectively, how would you feel if I got rid of. I don't know, let's just call him Peter. How would you feel if Peter wasn't here anymore? Knowing that would increase the pressure on you to deliver in a resource constrained environment, I'd almost guarantee that 80% of them would say, hayley, do it, do it now. Don't wait now. This is just my interpretation of what's going on. And I don't work in your environment. Right. Health care, you know, particularly in the US is highly understaffed, very difficult, complex. You know, skills are short. It's a really difficult field to be in. And it's not like, you know, if you don't do your job, you're going to lose a couple of bucks. Like, people's lives rely on this. So I get the criticality of it. And that's probably why in my head, it's even more important that you enforce a standard. Because the other eight people are suffering and underperforming and being demotivated and not being their best because of these two who are misbehaving.

[Hayley]

I feel it in my gut that that's the. That's what I need to do. And I actually have the backing of my boss.

[Martin Moore]

Great. That was going to be my next question solved. Keep going. So you feel as though it's what you need to do. How would you execute on it? So when I talk to people about removing staff members or employees who are very, very capable technically, and their skills are rare, I talk to them about making the decision in two separate parts. The first part of the decision is, do they need to stay or go? But that's the first part of the decision. Don't, don't convolute that part of the decision with all the difficulties and complexities of removing and replacing them, because that'll muddy the waters. So the first question is, do they need to stay or go? And if the answer to that is they need to go, then your second question is, how do I execute this to do it? At the lowest cost and lowest risk to my employer. So if you break that up into two questions, quite often it makes it a little bit easier to bite that off and chew it. Do they need to go? Absolutely. That is a no brainer. If you don't break it up, you go, do they need to go? Well, probably, but, but it's hard to replace them, but I have, you know, an extra load that's going to fall on the rest of the team. But, but, but. And so you end up almost talking yourself out of something that's absolutely obvious because implementation is hard. Does that make sense?

[Hayley]

Yes, 100%.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, totally. Because you'll be sitting there thinking, yeah, they need to go, but oh my God, how much work's in that for me? And then what am I going to get out the back end of it? And how much more pressure is it going to put on the team? So you'll talk yourself out of it in the same sentence as realizing they

[Hayley]

have to go, not wrong. Marty.

[Martin Moore]

Good. Hayley, what we're going to do. This is a fantastic question and it's an absolutely common, incredibly difficult situation for leaders to face. So I'm sure a huge number of leaders across the world are going to love hearing this and identifying with what you're saying. We'll leave a link in the show notes to this episode with a link to an episode I did ages ago called the Talented Jerk.

[Hayley]

I listened to it.

[Martin Moore]

It goes through in a little bit more detail. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a cracker, isn't it? So. So it's a little bit more detail about how to deal with that talented jerk and to make sure that you don't poison the rest of the team just because you've got one rogue element that wants to misbehave.

[Hayley]

Sounds good.

[Martin Moore]

Is there any other guidance I can give you? Anything else you want to test me on or. Or ask?

[Hayley]

I guess my question was like, I met with my CEO, my boss today and we actually are gearing up to get raises soon. And I had recommended that they either don't get one or get. They get the lowest number, like the lowest amount. So she recommended give them the lowest amount and explain to them in my planned one on ones with them why, and then give them an opportunity to fix their attitudes or make a three. Like make a 360 in the next six months. And at the end of the six months they can earn the rest of their raise or their 2% or whatever it may be, and they give them that opportunity. But Coach them along the way and if they're willing to listen, then see where we're at in six months. But if at any point in time they revert back to being the talented jerk, then call it quits and just be done with it on the spot. What are your thoughts on that?

[Martin Moore]

Do you follow football?

[Hayley]

Not at all.

[Martin Moore]

Not at all. Do you at least know what the expression Hail Mary means?

[Hayley]

Yeah, yeah.

[Martin Moore]

It's throwing a speculative pass in a play that is successful one in a hundred times and hoping it comes off. She's just giving you a Hail Mary.

[Hayley]

That's what I thought and I'll tell you why.

[Martin Moore]

The logic isn't bad. Like she's got good logic and it's a good way to try and gently address the problem and give them another chance. You've given them chances. You've tried everything, you've tried to motivate them. I know you've been a no bullshit leadership listener for a long time. So you'll know that you've done most of the things that would typically work in those circumstances. They're not working. They're not going to work. The only thing that is going to solve this situation, these people need to get like a 40,000 volt shock through them, metaphorically speaking. Don't act on that. You know what they need? No. Want them near high voltage equipment. But the only thing that's going to change them is to have some sort of shock. And that shock will be either termination, no money in the pay rise, which, and I get her, you know, we'll give them the lowest amount and explain why, but you know, hey, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Give them no money and explain why. Same impact. And then give them a chance to earn back. Maybe, maybe, maybe not. Maybe I'll see you next year, you know, because. Because sure as shit what's going to happen is you'll say you have a chance to win that money back. If you do X, Y and Z. Well, if they want the money, they'll pull their socks up and they'll get the money and then they'll drop back to where they were. Habit forming, this stuff. Habit forming. Lift out of the woods. Drop. Lift. I'm out of the woods. Drop. So this is, this is habit forming. Right. So you can predictably manage that process and drive yourself even more crazy and have another six or 12 months of impact on your team or you can rip the band aid off completely. Up to you what you do. And you do have to have your boss's support, but it sounds like your boss is on board with this, which is good, but I'd be taking a. I don't know, Hayley. Let's call it a more decisive route. How does that sound?

[Hayley]

That's where I was a year ago, and it's taking a huge toll on me, wanting to even be there. Something has to change or I'll no longer be in my dream position, and I can't let them win. So I think a decision has to be. Has to be made.

[Martin Moore]

Absolutely does. And by the way, a podcast episode a little While ago, episode 404, only a few weeks ago, is. Is about reducing turnover, reducing unwanted turnover. So as long as you're holding onto these people who are destroying team culture, you're going to have good people like you and like others in there who are just going to go, well, this is no fun. And it's a hard way to earn a living. There's easier jobs and better jobs, and I'm going to go out and find one of those. So your talented jerks stay and your great people leave. So I'd love to nip that in the bud with you, Hayley.

[Hayley]

Me, too.

[Amit]

I'm Amit. I'm the CEO of Evince Consulting. And in my line of work, I depend on some independent contractors and very experienced subcontractors to deliver some outcomes that I've promised to my customers. And so I hold them. I hold them to account because they're very experienced people. And so my question is, how do I tell the difference between someone who's genuinely under delivering and me just sort of being impatient because I can see a faster path? Because, like, what I find is that when I step in, because I see a fast path, I want to get results. I never quite find out if they would have got there in the end. And the issue is that when I do sort of step in and I start challenging and asking questions, I can sort of feel that accountability shifting from them back to me, and that's not really what I want.

[Martin Moore]

So, yeah, that's an outstanding question, Amit. I'm glad you brought it. I'm assuming that these companies and individuals are subcontracted through you to your company.

[Amit]

Yes. Yeah. So for all intents and purposes, I treat them as if they're on my team and. And I take them as team members.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, sure. The slight difference is, though, that they don't report you as such. They've got their own business structure and they've got a contractual mechanism that binds them to you. So I'm assuming that in that contract you have things around, you know, quality deliverables, you know, service, course of conduct, like all the sorts of things that you want to have that keep people's expectations clear. It won't hold them to account, but it's the framework that tells them what the expectations are on them. Is that right?

[Amit]

Yeah, there's always a contract. It's always very, very clear and ironclad. And I think that's part of why it can be frustrating, because it's just like you have a contract with an employee, they've got an employment agreement, it's the same sort of thing. I treat it in the same sort of way. But, yeah, it is nuanced, obviously.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, yeah, sure. And look, don't get me wrong, the contract belongs in the bottom drawer. So you just need the parameters for the engagement that make it really, really clear who's doing what and what the expectations are. And then it comes down to how you. How you lead them directly yourself, because they're still, you know, accountable to you because they're contracted to your business. So are these people working remotely or on site?

[Amit]

It's accommodation. Sometimes it's on site, sometimes it's remote. Yeah.

[Martin Moore]

Way easier when you're in physical proximity. Way easier. And the reason for that is because you can see exactly what they're doing. You can see the energy and urgency they move with. You know, they're not messing around because you're there in there with them, you know, feeling the tension, the pressure, the excitement. Like, you get to feel all of that when you're in the same room. So if they're working remotely and just delivering tasks, your ability to see whether or not they could have delivered it faster is limited. Like, you don't know what they're doing when they're away from you. The only thing that guides you is the task they deliver according to the parameters you've given them. So when you say, I can see a faster way, if you weren't to intervene, would they still deliver the thing as per the expectations that were originally set? So I guess my question is, are you asking them to do more than the original expectation, or is it that they lag behind the original expectation and you have to recover so that you don't miss the deadline?

[Amit]

Yeah, that's. That's a good question. And maybe the issue is the monitoring or maybe lack thereof. I think, to your point, when on site, the monitoring is there in real time, and maybe I'm getting the intuition or the feel that things are Moving and I don't feel the need to interject, but when things are more remote or when there's work being done that doesn't require on site presence, maybe I'm sitting there going, what's happening? What's happening, what's happening? That could be it.

[Martin Moore]

Yes. Now, I'm not saying this is the case, Amit, I'm just going to ask the question. Do you feel a sense of loss of control when you can't physically see them? And does that create in you a sense of this unease or, you know, uncertainty around what's happening that forces you to intervene a bit more, a bit more closely?

[Amit]

We can say it. I'm a control freak.

[Martin Moore]

Thanks, mate. I was trying to. You know how I stumbled on those words? I was trying to dance around a mitt. You're probably a control freak, buddy.

[Amit]

I'd like to. I'm gonna borrow what Emma says. I'm a recovering control freak.

[Martin Moore]

Oh, good, good, good. I like that.

[Amit]

Yeah. I'm recovering, but I slip back. I slip back and I think, you know, on a serious note, when stakes are high, when stakes are really high, you know, it's my brand, my promise, my customer that I've made, it's very hard to feel like I've let go of control.

[Martin Moore]

Oh, for sure.

[Amit]

Yeah. And that's probably therein lies the challenge, for sure.

[Martin Moore]

You know, I just ran only a couple of hours ago a workshop for our no Bullshit Leaders Club, who are all our graduates from the Leadership beyond the Theory program, as you know. And it was about increasing speed and momentum in your team. And I think some of what you're talking about could really borrow from those principles. So when we talk about increasing momentum and speed, being unreasonable in your expectations is not a bad thing. You can't be irrational. You can't say, do this. And then they say, hang on a minute, I'm not resourced for that. And you just stick your head in the sand and say, do it anyway. Like, don't be a Nike boss. But being unreasonable about how you query the progress and the speed of deliverables, how can we get this done faster? What would you need from me to make this an accelerated deliverable?

[Podcast Narrator]

What.

[Martin Moore]

What resources can I put into this that increase the delivery capacity that you have? Like all those types of questions that bring out a bit more creativity about how they could go about delivering. And I think if you do that type of thing proactively, you become less concerned about the speed of delivery because you've already tested it and already, you know, Put it under some, some pressure to, to see if it holds up the way it was originally cast. So I think there's a few things in that, you know, some of the content I do on speed and momentum. So have you considered that as being a potential solution here?

[Amit]

I think something you just said has triggered a bit of an aha moment in me, perhaps. Let me see what you think. I think when you say proactively, probably what I might need to be doing is to doing those actions before I sense there's a problem the whole way through. And maybe that's what I'm not doing. Maybe when, when things, certainly the beginning, when things are running pretty smoothly, I don't have much to worry about. Maybe I'm not involved. Then my behavior probably changes as things get progress, progress along. Because maybe I'm starting to worry a little bit and it's probably the way that I'm interjecting that's. It's probably that maybe the tone that I'm using, perhaps that's, you know, it's not working the way that I expect because I do feel like I do the things that you say, but maybe I'm doing it too late or under the wrong. In the wrong circumstances.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, well, I think doing it is better than not doing it at all, obviously. But the earlier you can raise the awareness of the need for momentum, the better. And I know you've got a really finely developed bullshit detector amid, so you're going to see these things early enough that you can recover a situation for sure. But I get the frustration that comes where you say, well, why do I have to be doing this? Like, why do I have to be on top of this when they're being paid really good money to do a job that's extraordinarily clear and obvious as to what the deliverables are. Yet still I have to spend my time intervening instead of doing the other stuff I should be doing. So I sense that frustration. By the way, did I describe it accurately?

[Amit]

That's exactly it.

[Martin Moore]

I was just channeling my career in it when I was thinking about that. So, yeah, so it's extraordinarily frustrating. However, that's why you're the prime contractor. That's why you've been entrusted with a project by your clients, because they know that you've got this shit under control, they know that you will manage it and they know that you will deliver. So what separates you from many other companies you might compete against is that you're onto it early. You take intervening steps to get things back on track and you eventually get the job done to everyone's satisfaction or even above their normal sense of expectation. So the fact that you have to do a shit ton of work in between is probably what I'd call the ugly reality of leadership in the sphere you're in.

[Amit]

Yeah, yeah, you're probably right. And you're spot on in the sense that I do have very, very high standards and I obviously hold myself to those standards and I expect others to perform at those standards. But some of these others do not report to me. And probably that's kind of what you picked on at the beginning. But that shouldn't change the quality that I expect and, and you know, the results that I expect. It's probably just the way that I maybe am expecting to be kept informed of those things and maybe the way that I'm driving or maybe being clear enough in my expectations in the first place. Probably the nuances in those areas.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, I guess. One other question. Are you expecting deliverables that come from client internal staff that you need things from? Is that where you're talking about? The disconnect?

[Amit]

That's occasionally true as well. In fact, not occasionally. Almost always. There's always a team effort. It's always a team effort. And I don't control those resources, obviously. Yeah. And I, you know, I expect that we all have a shared goal here. We're all like, we all trying to achieve the same result. But that's. So you say, always enough. Well, yeah.

[Martin Moore]

You spent long enough around, around the corporate traps to know that's not the case.

[Amit]

Yeah, you're right.

[Martin Moore]

Everyone has different agendas.

[Amit]

Yeah, I, maybe I sometimes have an overly idealistic view of how things should be.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah. Matt, I thought I'd beaten that out of you over the last five years, but apparently not.

[Amit]

I needed this wake up call.

[Martin Moore]

That's good. Well, look, you can only do what you can do. But I think early intervention, challenging speed and momentum all the time and making sure that everyone's super clear on their objectives, which I think you're already doing. So then it's just a matter of herding the cats, which is, you know, it's not easy, but that's why you get paid the dizzy dollars a minute.

[Amit]

Yeah, no, that makes sense. That makes sense. I think I probably have to watch my intensity. I've been told feedback I've had is that my intensity sometimes gets too high. So I might be saying the right things, but maybe saying them in the wrong way. But a few things to work on.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah. Intensity is good, but you've got to have light and shade. So, so it's building in the light and shade which enables your intensity to be much more emphatic. If you're just constantly intense, you know, people just get used to it. It's water off a duck's back and then they just think you're a bit of a dick. When you, so to speak, you know, when you, when you're constantly in their face and constantly intense, when you show light and shade in your personality because you've got a great sense of humor, you can be extremely light. But bringing that into the workplace and demonstrating that is really useful because when you need to be serious and when you need to be intense and really ramp up the message, you can do it. And they'll know, oh shit, Amit's really serious about this one.

[Luke]

I'm Luke, I'm a senior leader in state government. In my environment, performance management is laborious and rarely support unless someone is completely non compliant, which means a certain type of person learns to game the system perfectly. My question is, when someone is willfully difficult, just doing enough to avoid consequences, but constantly needing to be redirected, how do you drive them to the outcome you need when the formal levers are almost impossible to pull? I've tried developing shared visions, team resets and direct conversations. And while most of the teams come with me and adapt, sometimes you just get someone that just doesn't want to change just after it hits about how to deal with it.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah, really good question, Luke. So we're talking about managing in a consequence free environment and most people want to do a good job and I find that, I find that most people, regardless of the industry they're in, whether in a not for profit or a commercial business or government, they normally want to come in and make some productive use of the time they have to spend at work. So it's unusual for someone to be a real recalcitrant, but I've seen this in unionized businesses. It's not just government this happens in where someone knows exactly the parameters they can work within. They do just enough to not fall foul of the system and they know that they are slippery, that you'll have real trouble pinning them down. So there's a couple of ways you can handle it. The first one is to ignore them, give them no work and push them into a corner. You can't motivate them, you can't inspire them, you can't lift them. So this is, you know, this is very, very common or it Used to be very common in Japanese culture, which was in a large organization. If someone wasn't performing and doing their job, you would give them no work and you'd sit them to the side and they would be shamed into resigning. And that was a very common technique a number of years ago. I don't know if it's still done. I'm certain there are companies that probably still do over there, but we're talking about a similar sort of thing now. The difference is that people who are like this, the ones you describe, Luke, they're not going to be shamed into anything. They are playing the system for all it's worth. And you can bet that they know every single dotted iron crossed T in that enterprise agreement that they're hiding behind. You can bet your life on that. And I've seen it many, many times. So the first thing is to separate and ignore. Simply keep them out of the team because they're going to infect everyone else who's in the team. And if you can't remove them, physically remove them in terms of their impact. Right. So at least you can work with the ones who are serious about doing some good. And that's going to be the vast majority of your people. That's a pretty nuclear outcome. It's not the most attractive way to handle something like that. It is quite aggressive. The other thing I do is to just keep raising the standard. Now you say the performance management is very difficult. Yes, it is. It's sometimes soul destroying. Sometimes you think the people who design the processes have designed them to drive the manager crazy as opposed to deal with the individual who's not performing. That's, that's, they're just terrible. And if you overlay on top of that the cultural expectation that no one is removed from the job. Everyone has a safe job here and we support jobs no matter what the individual is like, no matter what they do, within reason. Like you said, there are some really non compliant people who fall foul. But most of the time you're just talking about people who are pretty dodgy and have no interest in working. So you've got to bite the bullet and go hard on the performance management. Now quite often what will happen is that someone will see themselves under formal performance management. They'll lift just enough to get through the process with all of that, you know, support and scaffolding you put around them to get them through a, you know, two or three month period. And then the minute they come out of form performance management, they're straight back where they were you can't let that happen. You've got to corral them. So when they say, oh, well, I'm, you know, I'm. I'm doing everything that was asked of me and I'm meeting the standard because I've just been through performance management, the trick is to maintain that standard and to say you've got to be able to continue at that level. So we've established that you can do that because we've just seen you do it for three months now. If you drop below that, we don't put you in performance management again, because we could do this all day long and you'll just keep pushing us to it and then I'll end up being, you know, absolutely mentally unstable by having to manage you. So instead of that, you're going to get a warning letter and it'll be a first and final that says, we've had you under performance management. You've come through that just. And then the minute we've taken the scaffolding away, you've dropped back down to a level that's unacceptable. Now, I'm not an HR specialist. I know you're in Australia. And the industrial relations law in Australia is once again designed to make it very, very difficult for companies to manage performance. That's the way it's designed and you know that. And it's not just about being in government, it's about any company that's operating in this environment. So what I'd suggest is that you get HR behind you and you say, we've got to close off the exits because this person has just simply taken the piss out of us and it's destroying the rest of the team. That's the problem. It's not that you've got one malcontent who's backing the system, it's the fact that the rest of the team looks at that and goes, oh, well, why would I bother? You know, this. This guy over here is just getting paid for nothing, you know what I mean? So we're paying tourists to do nothing while we're picking up their workload. So I've been talking for about 45 minutes, I reckon. Luke, how did that land?

[Luke]

Yeah, landed well, Absolutely. My experience before, and, you know, probably, while I might not have put in the same terms, definitely the most recent example that comes to mind, it was definitely that sort of. All right, I'll put you to one side. Here's a task, but I'm going to keep using my good people and spending the time with them and giving them the Opportunities to continue to sort of push forward. And as you sort of say that this one came with the extra kink, give no redundancy clause in their contract for various reasons. So HR were very reluctant to trigger anything performance management wise, despite me sort of saying, hey, that's no redundancy, not no performance management outcomes.

[Martin Moore]

Redundancy is completely irrelevant. Do you need me to come and do a session for your HR team just to let them know how this works or.

[Luke]

I think that'd be great. Yeah, I'll get you across. Yeah, absolutely.

[Martin Moore]

Redundancy is a completely different thing. When you talk about performance management, as you well know, Luke, that's all about their performance and behavior on the job to the standard they're being paid to produce. Redundancy says a job has become surplus to requirements. Completely different things.

[Luke]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Martin Moore]

So knowing that HR departments by nature are conservative and knowing that really any process for performance management, even if it's quite cumbersome, can be used to best effect. And by the way, in Australia, one thing I learned was that the only thing that will trip you up in the Fair Work Commission if an employee complains and takes it there is if you didn't follow the prescribed process. And there's always a prescribed process which you can follow. And if you use it diligently, it doesn't have to be too onerous. But the overlay is that you've got to get cultural agreement that that's okay. And if your boss doesn't support you and HR tells everyone that you're going rogue and you end up with a reputation that says, ah, you know Luke, well, he's a good guy, but he sort of doesn't really fit our culture. Maybe we better throw him back to private enterprise where he'll be more comfortable. You know what I mean?

[Amit]

Yeah.

[Martin Moore]

So you've got to, you've got to think about blocking off that particular avenue before people start to make it your problem.

[Luke]

No, no, absolutely agree. Now, it's something I learned well over the years. Like soon as I start seeing a problem, start documenting, start following, you know, so that you've got all that there and you're not scrambling to make it up at the end or catch up at the end, you've got it all there ready to go, so you can execute.

[Martin Moore]

Yeah.

[Podcast Narrator]

So that's three leaders, three completely different scenarios and one uncomfortable truth. You can't motivate your way out of a behavioral problem. The old expression, the squeaky wheel gets the oil is alive and well. But if you want to protect your good people. You've got to enforce the standard even when the system is working against you. In fact, especially when the system is working against you. Remember how I framed it with Hayley? Split the decision into two first question do they stay or go? Don't muddy the first question with how hard it might be to replace them. That makes the second question easier. Given that they need to go, how can I execute it at the lowest cost and lowest risk for the business? Most leaders blur these two together and they talk themselves out of the obvious answer because they overestimate the degree of difficulty of the change.

[Martin Moore]

And before you move on any of

[Podcast Narrator]

this, of course you need air cover. That means your boss has to be on board and HR has to be in your corner.

[Martin Moore]

And you.

[Podcast Narrator]

If you don't close off the exits, there'll be a whole lot of people who are trying to convince upper management that you're the problem. These are the kinds of issues we work through every week. Inside leadership, beyond the theory, real leaders, real situations, and real answers that help them move forward. We're about to open doors to the June 2026 cohort, so head to leadershipbeyondthetheory.com to learn more about our nine week program. Until then, I know you'll take every opportunity you can to be a no bullshit.