# How to Know It's Finally Time to Fire Someone

> Learn the clear signs it’s time to fire someone and how to protect your team’s morale.

- **Author:** Robin Keyen
- **Category:** FrAt3ycTNlDFiLc76yf2
- **Published:** 2026-03-30
- **Language:** en

## Most managers know months before they act. The delay is the expensive part.
There's a version of this conversation you've had with yourself already. Maybe several times.
You've noticed the pattern. The missed deadlines that always come with an explanation. The tension in the room when this person joins a meeting. The quiet complaints from teammates who've stopped saying anything directly because nothing changed the last time they did. The energy that leaves the room when they walk in.
And still you haven't done anything.
Not because you don't care. Because letting someone go is one of the hardest things a manager or founder has to do — and because it's genuinely difficult to know when you've reached the real line versus when you're in a rough patch that's still recoverable.
This article is about the difference between those two things. And about what happens to your team, your business, and the person themselves when you mistake one for the other.
## What the delay is actually costing
The hesitation feels responsible. In reality, it's expensive — and not just for you.
Research from Harvard Business Review found that a single underperforming team member can drag the rest of the team's output down by 25%. That's not the cost of one person failing to deliver. That's the drag they create on everyone around them.
Will Felps and colleagues at the University of Washington went further. Their study of roughly 50 teams found that one toxic or disruptive member can reduce overall team performance by 30 to 40%. The mechanism isn't just missed work — it's the psychological weight the team carries. Trust breaks down. Communication dries up. People stop bringing their full effort because they've learned it doesn't matter.
Disengaged employees cost their organisations approximately 20% of their annual salary in lost productivity — and that's before absenteeism, which adds an estimated €2,400–€3,300 per salaried employee per year in additional cost.
The research on resolving the problem early is equally direct: acting quickly on a toxic or underperforming hire saves an estimated €11,500 per case in compounding costs. That's the floor, not the ceiling.
 ⚠️ Warning: The most expensive version of this problem isn't the person who fails visibly. It's the person who underperforms just enough to stay under the threshold of action — consistently draining the team, eroding standards, and gradually normalising lower expectations for everyone around them.
## How it spreads: the contagion effect
This is the part that's hardest to see from inside the situation.
Negative behaviour in a team doesn't stay contained to the person generating it. Research shows that rudeness, disengagement, and low standards spread through teams the way a cold spreads through an office — fast, invisible at first, and capable of infecting people who had nothing to do with the original source.
In Felps et al.'s research, the defensive responses to a toxic team member followed a predictable pattern: denial first, then social withdrawal, then anger and anxiety. As those responses spread, team members began physically and psychologically distancing themselves from the work — not from the toxic person specifically, but from the team itself.
Your strongest performers are usually the first to withdraw. They have the most options — other teams, other companies, other opportunities. When the environment stops being worth their full effort, they don't complain loudly. They quietly reduce their investment. Then they leave.
By the time you decide to act, you may already be managing the fallout of losing people you didn't mean to lose.
 💡 Quick tip: Watch the people around the problem, not just the problem itself. If your strong performers have become quieter, less collaborative, or less willing to take on stretch work, that's often the earliest visible sign that a team dynamic issue has already spread beyond its origin point.
## The actual signs it's time
Performance data alone is rarely the clearest signal. These are the patterns that show up across most cases where the answer turns out to be yes.
The behaviour has been addressed, clearly, more than once. Not hinted at. Not mentioned in passing. Directly named — in writing — with a clear expectation of change. And the change either didn't happen, or happened briefly and reverted. This is the most important signal of all.
You're managing around them instead of with them. You've started quietly redistributing their work, excluding them from certain decisions, or mentally discounting their output before it arrives. You're doing this not because it's a project fit issue — but because you no longer trust them to deliver.
Their presence changes how other people behave. Meetings shift when they join. Conversations stop. People choose their words differently. The team is already working around the problem — you're the last one to formalise it.
You'd hire them again if you had to today. Ask yourself this question with complete honesty. If the answer is no — not "probably not" or "it would depend" but a clear no — that's signal.
You're spending more management time on one person than on the rest of the team combined. A consistent pattern of disproportionate time on one person is usually a sign that you're managing a symptom, not a performance curve.
 ✅ Best practice: Keep a simple written log when you start noticing persistent issues — dates, specific behaviours, conversations you had about them, and responses. This serves two purposes: it gives you pattern visibility (so you can see whether something is worsening or resolving), and it gives you documentation if you eventually need it legally. In Belgium, this paperwork is not optional — it's the foundation of a defensible dismissal.
The improvement plan ran its course and didn't work. A formal performance improvement plan (PIP) is a useful tool — it names the problem, sets the timeline, and creates accountability. But it is only useful if you're willing to act when it ends without the required improvement. A PIP that runs out and quietly gets extended is not a management tool. It's a delay mechanism.
 ⚠️ Warning: A performance improvement plan that everyone involved knows is not going to be enforced is worse than no PIP at all. It signals to the employee that the consequences aren't real, signals to the rest of the team that standards aren't maintained, and creates a paper trail that can actually complicate a future dismissal by suggesting the process was not genuine.
## Why managers wait — and why that instinct is understandable but wrong
Most managers who delay a necessary dismissal aren't being cowardly. They're being human. The psychology is well-documented.
Fear of conflict. The actual conversation is uncomfortable. The manager dreads the person's reaction — the tears, the anger, the defensive justification. They weigh the discomfort of the conversation against the background discomfort of the current situation and choose the path with the least immediate pain.
Fear of being wrong. What if things turn around? What if this is a rough personal period and they come back stronger? These are legitimate questions. They're also the questions that extend a situation that's already been clearly assessed.
Fear of legal exposure. In Belgium especially, managers are aware that dismissal without proper process can be expensive. This fear is rational — but the answer is better process, not continued avoidance.
Sunk cost thinking. "We've invested so much in them." True. That investment is gone whether you act now or in six months. The only question is how much more you invest in a situation that isn't going to change.
The irony is that the conversation most managers dread rarely goes the way they imagined. In most cases — especially when someone has been struggling for a while — the person being let go already knows something isn't working. They're often carrying the weight of that uncertainty themselves.
## When to try harder versus when to stop
Not every underperformance situation leads to dismissal. Some do belong in the "try harder" category. Here's the distinction.
Try harder if:
- The performance issue is specific, bounded, and relatively new

- The person has a track record that contradicts the recent pattern

- The root cause is something external and addressable — a role mismatch, a support gap, a team dynamic that's changed

- You haven't had the direct, explicit conversation yet


Stop and move forward if:
- The problem is behavioural and has recurred after clear, documented feedback

- The issue affects other people's ability to do their work

- The person has been given time, support, and clarity — and the output hasn't changed

- The cost to the team of continuing outweighs any realistic benefit of waiting


 ✅ Best practice: Before making the final decision, talk to one trusted person outside the immediate situation — another founder, a senior HR professional, a business adviser. Not for permission, and not to be talked out of it, but to pressure-test your reasoning. If you can lay out the situation clearly and the other person's reaction is "yes, that sounds like you've reached that point" — you probably have.
## Having the conversation
Once the decision is made, the how matters.
Be direct and brief. The conversation should be short. Say what is happening, why it has been decided, and what happens next. Do not build to it over 20 minutes of preamble. The person in front of you deserves clarity.
Do not over-explain or over-apologise. Excessive explanation tends to invite counter-argument and can create legal risk by introducing inconsistencies. Say what needs to be said, once.
Have everything prepared before you speak. The final pay calculation, the written notice, the practical next steps (return of equipment, access removal, etc.) should all be ready before the conversation happens — not after.
Do it on a weekday, early in the week if possible. This gives the person access to support resources — including legal advice or an employment counsellor — immediately rather than facing a weekend alone with the news.
Have HR or a witness present. In Belgium, this is practically important as well as procedurally sound.
 💡 Quick tip: After a dismissal, the team will be watching how you handled it — not just whether you did it. A conversation about the departure that is honest, measured, and respectful signals more about your leadership culture than almost anything else you could do. You don't need to share details. You do need to acknowledge the change and give people stability.
## The Belgian and European legal framework
This is where the practical becomes legally specific — and where acting without preparation can turn a necessary decision into a costly one.
Standard dismissal with notice (opzeggingstermijn): The default route for ending an employment contract in Belgium. Notice periods are calculated based on seniority under the Wet betreffende de arbeidsovereenkomsten. Most employers pay a severance (verbrekingsvergoeding) in lieu of notice to end the contract immediately. The longer someone has been employed, the higher this amount.
Dismissal for serious cause (dringende reden): Allows immediate termination without notice or compensation — but only when the employee has committed a fault severe enough to make continued professional collaboration immediately and permanently impossible. The employer must notify the employee within 3 working days of becoming aware of the triggering event. Reasons must be confirmed by registered mail within a further 3 working days. Miss either window and the serious cause dismissal becomes legally invalid — and you owe the full notice period indemnity as if it had been a standard dismissal.
Manifestly unreasonable dismissal (CBA No. 109): Under collective bargaining agreement No. 109, an employee dismissed under an open-ended contract can claim damages of 3 to 17 weeks' gross salary if they can show the dismissal was not based on conduct, capability, or genuine operational necessity. This makes performance documentation throughout the process — not just at the end — legally critical.
The employee's right to request reasons: A dismissed employee has the right to formally request the reasons for their dismissal within 2 months. The employer must respond by registered mail within 2 months of receiving that request. This is not optional and an inadequate or missing response strengthens a potential unfair dismissal claim.
GDPR and HR records: Performance documentation, written warnings, and PIP records are personal data under GDPR. They need to be handled proportionately — stored securely, shared only with those who need access, and retained only as long as legally necessary. The Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (Belgian DPA) enforces this actively in employment contexts.
 ✅ Best practice: In Belgium, the single most protective thing you can do in the lead-up to a difficult dismissal is document consistently and contemporaneously. Written feedback conversations, formal warnings, and PIP records that exist before the decision is made are defensible. Documentation assembled after the fact — to support a decision already taken — is not. The difference matters significantly in a labour tribunal.
## Rebuilding after the exit
A dismissal well handled doesn't end with the person leaving. It ends when the team has processed the change and is moving forward.
Address it directly and briefly with the remaining team. You don't need to share reasons. You do need to acknowledge that a change has happened, that the decision was made thoughtfully, and that the work continues. Teams that are left in information vacuums fill them with speculation — and speculation is almost always worse than a measured, honest statement.
When you're ready to rebuild the role, the brief matters as much as the search. Being specific about what the previous situation taught you about what the role actually needs — not just what the job description said — is the best way to avoid repeating the same mistake.
The wider market for talent is increasingly transparent. Candidates research teams, culture, and leadership before they apply. Platforms like Joobs surface employer reputation signals alongside job listings, which means how your team feels after a difficult exit — and whether they'd recommend working for you — is part of what the next strong hire will be weighing up. The departure is a chapter. How you close it determines what the next one starts with.
## FAQ
Should I always do a formal performance improvement plan before dismissing someone?Not necessarily — it depends on the situation. A PIP is appropriate when the issue is performance-based, bounded, and genuinely addressable with support and time. For conduct issues, serious misconduct, or situations where the relationship has fundamentally broken down, a PIP may not be appropriate. In Belgium, for serious cause dismissal, a PIP is not a legal requirement — but documentation of the conduct and prior conversations is.
What if the person is a protected category — pregnant, on sick leave, or a union representative? Belgian law provides specific protections for employees in certain categories. Dismissal of a pregnant employee or one on maternity leave is prohibited except in limited circumstances. Dismissal during illness is not prohibited in Belgium but creates practical complexity. Union representatives have specific protection procedures. In all these cases, consult a qualified employment lawyer before proceeding.
How do I handle the rest of the team after a dismissal?Briefly and honestly. Tell them a change has been made, that you won't share the details, and that you're focused on what comes next. Give them a clear sense of how the work will be covered in the short term. If the person who left was causing problems the team was aware of, the relief in the room will often be visible — but avoid validating complaints or criticising the person who has left.
What if I made the decision and doubt it later?Normal. The doubt usually peaks in the first few days. Test the decision against what you knew when you made it, not what you're feeling now. If the reasoning was sound — documented behaviour, clear feedback given, pattern repeated — the doubt is emotional, not rational. That's okay to acknowledge and still move forward.
What's the difference between 'it's time to let them go' and 'they're not right for this role'? Sometimes the honest answer is the latter. Someone can be a genuinely good person, capable in other contexts, who is simply wrong for this specific role at this stage of your company. If that's the case, say so — in the conversation, honestly. It changes the tone of the exit and, importantly, it's accurate. Belgian labour law still applies regardless of how the situation is framed, but the human dimension of the conversation matters too.

---
*Source: [Joobs.be](https://joobs.be/en/blog/how-to-know-it-s-finally-time-to-fire-someone)*