Key Takeaways
- Treat onboarding as a structured evaluation period to identify performance gaps early and intervene before issues escalate.
- Diagnose root causes with objective assessments and transparent communication to determine whether problems are skill-based, environmental or behavioural.
- If improvement is not achieved, manage reassignment or exit decisions with clarity and respect to protect team morale and organisational integrity.
A bad hire is one of the most expensive and disruptive challenges any organisation can face. Even the most rigorous recruitment processes cannot fully eliminate the risk of bringing in someone who ultimately does not fit the role, the culture, or the expectations of the team. Research has shown that a single bad hire can cost a company significant financial loss when factoring in wasted salary, recruitment expenses, lost productivity, reduced morale, and the time managers must invest in correcting the situation. For fast-growing companies and lean teams, the impact can be even more severe, as one underperforming employee can slow down entire workflows and create tension within established team dynamics.
Yet hiring mistakes happen. They are a natural part of business growth and people management, and they do not necessarily reflect poor judgment or flawed processes. Sometimes a candidate excels during interviews but struggles to execute once in the role. In other cases, expectations may not have been fully aligned, onboarding may have been rushed, or the employee may lack critical soft skills that are difficult to assess during hiring. There are also situations where a new hire may simply require more support, clearer guidance, or better alignment with the organisation’s values and goals. Understanding these nuances is the first step toward resolving performance issues effectively rather than reacting emotionally or making rushed decisions.
When managers recognise the early warning signs of a bad hire—missed deadlines, poor communication, skill gaps, a lack of accountability, or visible frustration—it becomes essential to act quickly yet thoughtfully. Allowing the problem to continue unchecked rarely solves anything and often intensifies the negative effects on the broader team. However, dealing with a bad hire is not just about deciding whether to terminate the employment relationship. It involves diagnosing the root cause of the mismatch, addressing performance concerns constructively, providing structured opportunities to improve, and evaluating alternatives that could benefit both the employee and the organisation.
The good news is that not every bad hire needs to remain a bad hire. With the right steps, some employees can be guided toward meaningful improvement, while in other cases, a graceful and well-managed exit can protect morale and preserve organisational integrity. What matters most is that managers have a clear, strategic approach to handling the situation rather than relying on reactive or ad-hoc decision making.
This guide explores five practical, evidence-based tips to help leaders navigate the complexities of managing a bad hire. From treating the onboarding period as an extended evaluation phase to identifying underlying issues, implementing performance improvement structures, exploring role realignment, and, when necessary, handling departures professionally, these strategies offer a balanced and realistic framework. Whether you are an HR professional, a team leader, or a business owner, mastering these steps can significantly reduce the long-term impact of hiring mistakes and strengthen the overall quality of your talent management practices.
By recognising the signs early and taking a structured approach to resolution, organisations can transform hiring setbacks into opportunities for learning, improvement, and stronger future recruitment outcomes.
Before we venture further into this article, we would like to share who we are and what we do.
About 9cv9
9cv9 is a business tech startup based in Singapore and Asia, with a strong presence all over the world.
With over nine years of startup and business experience, and being highly involved in connecting with thousands of companies and startups, the 9cv9 team has listed some important learning points in this overview of the Top 5 Tips to Deal with a Bad Hire.
If your company needs recruitment and headhunting services to hire top-quality employees, you can use 9cv9 headhunting and recruitment services to hire top talents and candidates. Find out more here, or send over an email to hello@9cv9.com.
Or just post 1 free job posting here at 9cv9 Hiring Portal in under 10 minutes.
Top 5 Tips to Deal with a Bad Hire
- Treat Onboarding as a Real Probation Period
- Diagnose the Root Cause — Don’t Assume It’s Just ‘Bad Fit’
- Open Honest Conversations + Clear Feedback & Support
- Consider Reassignment — Maybe the Role, Not the Person, Is the Problem
- If Nothing Improves — Manage the Exit with Respect and Clarity
1. Treat Onboarding as a Real Probation Period
Understanding the importance of onboarding as an extended evaluation window is essential for minimising the risk and long-term impact of a bad hire. Many organisations treat onboarding as a simple orientation process, but high-performing companies increasingly use it as a structured probation period that allows both the employer and the employee to assess fit, measure performance, and diagnose potential gaps early. When treated seriously and systematically, onboarding becomes one of the most powerful tools for identifying bad hires before they become costly, long-term performance concerns.
Purpose of a Probation-Focused Onboarding Framework
A probation-structured onboarding framework serves three primary purposes: it creates clarity, accelerates performance evaluation, and provides a controlled environment where expectations and behaviours can be tested. Unlike traditional onboarding, which focuses mainly on introductions and administrative tasks, this approach incorporates measurable milestones, performance checkpoints and behavioural observations into the first 30, 60 and 90 days.
This enables organisations to detect early signals such as repeated misunderstandings, difficulty adapting to workflow processes, inability to meet training milestones or mismatches in communication style. It also reduces the emotional and financial burden of corrective action later in the employment cycle.
Key Components of an Effective Probationary Onboarding System
Clear expectations from day one
Ensure the employee understands key responsibilities, workflow processes, performance standards and company culture. Many bad hire issues stem from ambiguity rather than incompetence.
Structured training roadmap
Outline what the employee must learn and achieve weekly. This creates a transparent development path and allows managers to track progress objectively.
Milestone-based performance evaluation
Define what success looks like at the 30-day, 60-day and 90-day marks. Use measurable KPIs to avoid subjective assessments.
Frequent feedback loops
Schedule weekly or bi-weekly check-ins to review performance, clarify misunderstandings and gather employee feedback.
Eligibility for extension or termination
Make it clear whether the probation can be extended or whether failure to meet expectations may lead to dismissal. Transparency protects both parties and reduces conflict later.
Illustrative Example of Probationary Onboarding in Practice
Consider a marketing coordinator hired to manage social media content and reporting. In a traditional onboarding structure, the employee may spend the first month attending meetings, completing HR paperwork and gaining general familiarity with the company. If performance problems emerge later, managers may feel caught off guard.
In a probation-based system, the first 90 days are mapped around concrete checkpoints:
First 30 days
Learns brand voice guidelines, demonstrates basic competency with scheduling tools and produces at least one round of content under supervision.
First 60 days
Manages weekly publishing independently, completes engagement reports and collaborates with design teams.
First 90 days
Runs full monthly social media cycle independently with minimal intervention and presents performance insights with recommendations.
If the employee fails to meet these expectations, managers can clearly diagnose whether the issue stems from skill gaps, misunderstanding or lack of cultural alignment.
Matrix Comparing Traditional vs Probation-Driven Onboarding
Category | Traditional Onboarding | Probation-Focused Onboarding
Clarity of Role Expectations | Low to moderate | High, with measurable KPIs
Performance Tracking | Informal or ad-hoc | Structured checkpoints (30-60-90 days)
Employee Fit Assessment | Occurs late, often after issues arise | Occurs early before problems escalate
Training Approach | Broad and general | Targeted, milestone-based
Manager Involvement | Limited after initial orientation | High involvement through ongoing reviews
Risk of Retaining a Bad Hire | High due to delayed detection | Significantly lower due to systematic evaluation
Practical Tools for Managing a Probationary Onboarding Period
Organisations benefit from internal tools and systems that make early evaluation easier and more consistent. The following table outlines practical resources that enhance decision-making:
Tool | Purpose | Example Usage
Task Tracking System | Monitors progress toward onboarding milestones | Setting weekly deliverables in Asana or Trello
Performance Scorecard | Quantifies skills, behaviours and productivity | Rating communication, task quality and accuracy
Manager Observation Log | Captures behavioural and interpersonal data | Notes on collaboration style or responsiveness
Employee Reflection Sheet | Helps employees self-assess and identify support needs | Weekly self-evaluation on challenges faced
Training Completion Checklist | Tracks required learning modules | Verifying completion of role-specific training
Early Warning Indicators Identified Through Probation-Based Onboarding
Performance indicators
Repeated missed milestones
Frequent accuracy errors
Inability to understand workflow processes
Behavioural indicators
Resistance to feedback
Poor communication with team members
Low engagement or initiative
Cultural indicators
Difficulty adapting to company values
Misalignment with communication norms
Lack of collaboration in group settings
Example: Evaluating Two New Employees After 45 Days
Employee A demonstrates rapid learning, completes training modules ahead of schedule and proactively communicates challenges. Employee B struggles with core tasks, misses multiple deadlines and repeatedly requests clarification on responsibilities already explained. The structured onboarding system highlights these differences quickly, enabling managers to invest more in Employee A’s development while deciding whether Employee B requires a performance improvement plan or early termination.
Visual Chart: 90-Day Onboarding Performance Curve
(Conceptual Representation in Text)
Day 1 to Day 30: Steep learning phase; performance increases gradually.
Day 31 to Day 60: Performance stabilises; employee begins delivering tasks independently.
Day 61 to Day 90: Performance either accelerates to full competency or plateaus, indicating potential mismatch.
If an employee’s curve remains flat or declines after day 45, this becomes a quantifiable sign of a potential bad hire.
Why This Approach Reduces the Risk of Retaining a Bad Hire
Organisations that treat onboarding as probation gain early visibility into strengths and weaknesses, reduce uncertainty in performance assessments, and benefit from structured decision-making. This prevents months of lost productivity and prevents situations where managers feel obligated to retain an employee simply because they have already invested heavily in them.
By implementing a rigorous 30-60-90 day evaluation model, companies build a stronger foundation for talent success, minimise hiring mistakes, and create a workplace culture where clarity, accountability and continuous improvement are prioritised. This disciplined approach ensures that hiring decisions are not only based on interviews but are validated through real-world performance and measured behaviours.
2. Diagnose the Root Cause — Don’t Assume It’s Just ‘Bad Fit’
Identifying the true cause of underperformance is one of the most critical steps in dealing with a bad hire. Many managers make the mistake of assuming the issue is simply a personality mismatch or a poor cultural fit, when in reality, the problem often stems from unclear expectations, inadequate training, communication barriers or environmental factors. A structured diagnostic approach gives organisations the clarity needed to respond appropriately, whether that means coaching, reassignment or termination. Without proper diagnosis, managers risk making inaccurate judgments that can lead to missed opportunities for recovery or unnecessary turnover.
Understanding the Importance of Root-Cause Diagnosis
Managers should adopt a holistic mindset before labelling someone as a bad hire. Employee performance is influenced by multiple variables, and incorrect assumptions can create bigger problems, including broken trust, legal risks and damage to the employer brand. Diagnosing the root cause means investigating skill competency, behavioural dynamics, role clarity and managerial effectiveness. This ensures decisions are rooted in evidence rather than emotion.
Key Areas to Investigate Before Concluding ‘Bad Fit’
Performance expectations
Determine whether the employee truly understands what success looks like in the role. Many cases of underperformance trace back to ambiguous instructions or inconsistent messaging during onboarding.
Skill and capability gaps
Assess whether the employee lacks essential skills, or whether the organisation failed to provide adequate training. Not all skill gaps indicate a bad hire; some can be resolved through mentorship or structured learning programs.
Environmental or organisational barriers
Examine whether the employee has access to the right tools, processes or support. A high-performing individual may struggle if systems are outdated or workflows are unclear.
Communication and collaboration issues
Identify whether the problem arises from communication breakdowns, interpersonal conflicts or misunderstandings. These issues can often be resolved through clear protocols or facilitated conversations.
Cultural and behavioural mismatch
Evaluate whether the employee aligns with organisational values, work style expectations and behavioural norms. Unlike fixable skill gaps, cultural misalignment tends to be more persistent and harder to correct.
Illustrative Example: When ‘Bad Fit’ Is Actually a Training Issue
Consider a newly hired sales executive struggling to close deals after the first month. At first glance, managers might assume the employee is not cut out for the role. However, a deeper assessment reveals the employee never received product knowledge training and has relied solely on personal research. After receiving proper training and shadowing top performers, the employee’s conversion rate improves dramatically. What initially appeared to be a bad hire was actually an organisational oversight.
Decision-Making Matrix for Diagnosing Performance Issues
The following matrix helps managers identify the type of intervention needed based on skill alignment and cultural alignment:
Performance Diagnosis Matrix
Category | High Cultural Fit | Low Cultural Fit
High Skill Alignment | Training refinement, increased autonomy | Communication coaching, role adjustment
Moderate Skill Alignment | Targeted training, mentorship programs | Consider reassignment or structured intervention
Low Skill Alignment | Intensive skill development plan, extended onboarding | Likely mis-hire; evaluate exit strategy
This matrix enables managers to make evidence-based decisions and reduces emotional bias during the evaluation stage.
Diagnostic Tools for Root-Cause Investigation
Observation and behavioural logging
Managers should document specific behaviours or performance gaps. General impressions are insufficient for diagnosis.
Manager-employee feedback interviews
These structured conversations help uncover misunderstandings, external challenges or hidden barriers.
Peer feedback collection
Team members can provide valuable insight into collaboration issues or strengths not visible to managers.
Task-based performance tests
Assign controlled tasks that evaluate whether issues are skill-related or connected to external factors.
Work environment audit
Analyse whether inefficient processes, unclear workflows or tool limitations are contributing to perceived underperformance.
Example Comparison: Two Employees Showing Similar Underperformance
Employee A misses deadlines frequently.
Employee B misses deadlines frequently.
A superficial assessment may conclude both are bad hires. A diagnostic approach reveals the distinctions:
Employee A
Has strong technical capability
Struggles because instructions are unclear and priorities change frequently
Improves significantly after workflow restructuring
Employee B
Lacks foundational knowledge required for the role
Misses deadlines due to inability to complete tasks independently
Shows minimal improvement even with training support
Likely a genuine mismatch
Diagnostic Chart: What the First 60 Days Reveal
Representation in text format:
Days 1–20
Employee demonstrates engagement but struggles with task execution.
Cause unclear; further observation required.
Days 21–40
If performance improves with coaching, issue is likely skill or clarity-based.
If no improvement despite training, misalignment becomes more evident.
Days 41–60
Sustained progress signals successful remediation.
Stagnation or regression signals deeper, potentially unfixable mismatch.
This timeline highlights the value of structured evaluations rather than early assumptions.
Table: Common Symptoms vs Likely Root Causes
Symptom | Possible Cause | Diagnostic Action
Missed deadlines | Skill deficiency, unclear expectations | Assign task-based assessment, clarify deliverables
Poor documentation or accuracy | Inadequate training, attention to detail | Provide structured templates and review logs
Low engagement in meetings | Cultural mismatch or confidence issues | Conduct behavioural interview to identify barriers
Resistance to feedback | Mindset issue or misalignment with culture | Facilitate coaching conversations
Slow ramp-up speed | Lack of clarity, overwhelmed workload | Review onboarding plan and workload distribution
Why Root-Cause Diagnosis Prevents Costly Mistakes
Organisations that invest in diagnosing root causes reduce the likelihood of prematurely terminating employees who could succeed with the right support. This approach also strengthens internal leadership capabilities by teaching managers to distinguish between solvable performance problems and genuine mis-hires. Moreover, it builds a workplace culture grounded in fairness, transparency and evidence-based HR decisions.
For employees, this method fosters trust and psychological safety. Even those who ultimately exit the company experience a more respectful and informed process, reducing reputational risk for the organisation.
Root-cause diagnosis ultimately leads to more accurate decisions, clearer performance insights, and a substantial reduction in turnover costs. Instead of reacting quickly and emotionally, leaders gain a strategic framework that prepares them to support employee success or manage exits responsibly.
3. Open Honest Conversations + Clear Feedback & Support
Transparent communication is one of the most powerful tools for addressing performance problems early, yet many organisations hesitate to engage in honest dialogue until issues have escalated. Creating a structured environment for open, respectful and solution-oriented conversations allows managers to uncover misunderstandings, clarify expectations and understand the employee’s perspective. This step often determines whether a struggling hire can recover or whether deeper issues require escalation. Effective communication also promotes trust, reduces defensiveness and aligns both parties toward shared improvement goals.
Importance of Transparent Dialogue in Performance Correction
Open conversations create a two-way channel in which both the manager and the employee can express concerns, identify obstacles and define a path forward. Without this stage, decisions may be based on incomplete information or assumptions. Honest dialogue helps managers determine whether the problem lies in unclear instructions, skill gaps, workplace integration issues, or personal stressors affecting performance. When conducted correctly, these conversations shift the tone from blame to collaboration, making the improvement process more constructive and actionable.
Preparing for the Initial Performance Conversation
Gather documented observations
Managers should compile specific examples of behaviours or tasks that fell short of expectations. This ensures the conversation remains factual rather than emotional.
Define performance standards
Clarify what the role requires in concrete terms. Vague feedback makes improvement difficult, but clear benchmarks guide accountability.
Establish a supportive tone
The purpose is not to confront but to understand and evaluate. A constructive tone helps reduce defensiveness and encourages transparency.
Invite employee perspective
Ask open-ended questions to identify unseen barriers such as unclear onboarding, personal challenges, or workflow obstacles.
Example of an Effective Performance Discussion Flow
A project manager notices that a new business analyst consistently delivers incomplete reports. Instead of assuming incompetence, the manager schedules a private conversation and presents specific instances. The employee reveals that they were unsure which data formats were expected and had not received full training on reporting tools. Together, they establish a training plan, clarify reporting templates and set weekly check-ins. Within three weeks, the employee’s performance improves significantly.
Implementing Clear Feedback Systems
Effective feedback is timely, specific and actionable. The manager should avoid general statements and instead highlight precise behaviours that need improvement.
Specific feedback
State the observed behaviour, its impact and what better performance would look like.
Actionable recommendations
Provide clear steps the employee can take. This shows commitment to helping them improve rather than simply criticising.
Balanced delivery
Recognise strengths while addressing weaknesses. Balanced feedback improves motivation and encourages continued effort.
Table: Examples of Weak vs Strong Feedback Statements
Feedback Type | Weak Example | Strong Example
Clarity | Your work needs to improve. | The last two reports missed key data points. Let’s walk through the template together to ensure expectations are clear.
Actionability | You need to communicate better. | During meetings, you often skip status updates. Starting next week, please prepare a two-minute summary outlining progress and blockers.
Specificity | You seem disengaged. | Over the past two weeks, you have declined four collaboration requests. Let’s discuss any concerns or workload issues contributing to this.
Supporting the Employee After Feedback
Once feedback is delivered, support mechanisms must be activated to enable improvement. Without support, feedback may feel punitive rather than developmental.
Training and skill reinforcement
Provide access to learning modules, shadowing opportunities or coaching to fill gaps.
Structured check-ins
Hold weekly or bi-weekly meetings to review progress, clarify concerns and adjust action plans.
Workload recalibration
Ensure the employee’s workload is realistic and aligned with their capabilities during the improvement phase.
Mentorship pairing
Connecting the employee with an experienced team member accelerates learning and provides a safe space for questions.
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as a Structured Support Tool
A PIP provides a formal framework for improvement, setting measurable expectations and timelines. It is not a punishment; it is a structured opportunity to succeed.
Key components of a PIP:
Performance expectations
Concrete tasks and behavioural changes required for success.
Metrics and measurable KPIs
Quantitative goals such as task accuracy, turnaround time or communication frequency.
Timeline for improvement
Typically 30 to 90 days depending on the role and severity of issues.
Support resources
Training schedules, assigned mentors or tool access.
Review checkpoints
Scheduled evaluations at established intervals.
Example: PIP for a Customer Support Representative
Issue: Low customer satisfaction ratings
Goal: Improve average rating from 3.0 to 4.2 within 60 days
Support: Weekly coaching with supervisor, product knowledge refresher course
Checkpoints: Bi-weekly performance reviews to evaluate call quality and ticket handling accuracy
By the end of the period, the employee demonstrates clear improvement, highlighting the value of structured support systems.
Matrix for Determining When Conversations Lead to Recovery vs Escalation
Outcome Decision Matrix
Employee Response | Level of Improvement Potential | Recommended Action
Open and engaged | High | Provide coaching, training and defined milestones
Open but overwhelmed | Moderate | Offer more structured support, reduce workload temporarily
Defensive but cooperative | Moderate | Establish firm expectations with documented progress tracking
Defensive and resistant | Low | Consider escalating to PIP or exploring reassignment
Unresponsive or dismissive | Very low | Evaluate early exit strategies based on performance documentation
This matrix helps managers assess whether further investment is likely to yield results.
Chart: Improvement Curve in Response to Clear Feedback
Represented in text:
Week 1
Employee receives feedback and gains clarity on expectations. Motivation increases.
Week 2
Employee corrects basic mistakes and begins using templates, tools or guidance more effectively.
Week 3
Performance stabilises; errors reduce; communication improves.
Week 4
Employee consistently meets baseline expectations. If progress stalls, this indicates deeper issues requiring reassessment.
Real-World Example: When Feedback Reveals Hidden Barriers
A software engineer repeatedly fails to deliver code on time. During the feedback meeting, the manager learns the employee is debugging outdated systems that no one explained during onboarding. With mentoring and updated documentation, the engineer improves significantly. Without honest dialogue, this issue would have been misinterpreted as poor performance or lack of commitment.
Why Open Dialogue and Support Are Essential for Determining True Fit
Organisations that prioritise honest communication reduce misunderstandings, prevent premature terminations and promote a healthier performance culture. Clear feedback reveals whether the employee is willing and able to improve. Support structures provide the conditions necessary for success. When combined, these approaches offer evidence-based clarity on whether the individual can grow into the role or whether a deeper mismatch exists.
A well-executed conversation paired with structured support transforms performance management from a reactive process to a proactive strategy. It ensures fairness, strengthens trust and allows managers to either rehabilitate a struggling employee or make confident decisions about next steps based on measurable outcomes.
4. Consider Reassignment — Maybe the Role, Not the Person, Is the Problem
Not every underperforming employee is a bad hire. In many cases, the issue lies not in the individual but in the mismatch between their strengths and the demands of the role. Reassignment offers a strategic alternative to termination, allowing organisations to retain talent, protect team morale and reduce turnover costs. When executed thoughtfully, reassignment transforms a struggling hire into a high-value contributor in a different capacity. This approach reflects a mature talent philosophy rooted in flexibility, data-driven evaluation and long-term workforce optimisation.
Understanding Why Reassignment May Be the Right Solution
Role mismatch is one of the most common and preventable causes of poor performance. Employees may possess strong potential but struggle with the specific requirements of their initial role. They may have been placed into the wrong position due to limited evaluation during hiring, evolving job scopes, or misaligned expectations. Identifying whether the issue stems from role suitability rather than personal capability requires managers to analyse performance patterns, behavioural indicators and natural strengths.
Reassignment becomes a viable option when the employee demonstrates commitment, strong cultural alignment and a willingness to learn but lacks compatibility with the technical, cognitive or interpersonal demands of the current role. Instead of losing a potentially valuable team member, organisations can re-channel their abilities into a better-fitting position.
Signs the Problem Is Role Mismatch, Not Inherent Performance Failure
Positive attitude but inconsistent delivery
The employee shows enthusiasm and dedication but struggles to keep up with complex or high-pressure role expectations.
Strong skills in unrelated areas
Performance reviews reveal strengths not required in the current position but valuable elsewhere in the organisation.
Improvement in certain tasks but not others
Employee excels in tasks involving creativity but struggles with analytical work, or vice versa.
Cultural alignment with team but mismatch with role function
They work well with colleagues and embody company values but are misaligned with the job’s skill demands.
Example: Misplaced Talent in a Sales Role
A new salesperson struggles with cold calling and fast-paced deal cycles. However, they excel at relationship-building and have strong written communication. Rather than terminating the employee, the manager reassigns them to a customer success role where they maintain client relationships and handle onboarding. The employee thrives, overall client retention increases and the organisation avoids rehiring costs.
Assessing Whether Reassignment Is a Strategic Fit
Before making the decision to reassign, managers should evaluate three core dimensions: capability alignment, organisational needs and long-term potential.
Capability alignment
Does the employee’s skill set naturally align with another department’s needs?
Have they demonstrated aptitude for tasks outside their official job scope?
Organisational needs
Is there a suitable role available?
Would reassignment support broader workforce planning objectives?
Long-term potential
Does the employee demonstrate adaptability, cultural fit and growth capacity?
Would investment in training yield sustainable contribution?
Decision-Making Matrix for Reassignment Suitability
Reassignment Suitability Matrix
Employee Strengths | Role Demand Alignment | Recommended Action
Strong interpersonal and communication skills | Low alignment with current role | Explore roles in customer service, account management or HR
High analytical and technical capability | Low alignment with communication-heavy role | Consider data-focused or operations roles
High creativity and innovation | Low alignment with process-driven role | Explore marketing, design or product development
Strong organisational and administrative skills | Low alignment with strategic or conceptual tasks | Reassign to coordination or support roles
This matrix helps leaders understand where employees may naturally excel, guiding more informed reassignment decisions.
Steps for Implementing an Effective Reassignment Strategy
Conduct capability and strengths assessment
Evaluate personality traits, technical skills and behavioural tendencies using performance records, assessments and manager observations.
Map potential roles within the organisation
Identify roles with overlapping or complementary skill requirements.
Have an honest conversation with the employee
Discuss the mismatch openly, explain reasoning and explore the employee’s career preferences.
Create a transition plan
Define timelines, responsibilities, training requirements and performance milestones for the new role.
Monitor progress post-transition
Ensure regular reviews to measure improvement and gauge suitability in the new environment.
Example: Reassignment After Repeated Performance Challenges
A junior analyst consistently struggles with detailed financial modelling but demonstrates strong presentation and stakeholder communication abilities. After multiple coaching attempts, managers reassess the situation and discover that the employee’s strengths align more closely with project coordination. Once reassigned, the employee becomes a key liaison across departments, significantly improving cross-functional efficiency.
Organisational Benefits of Reassigning Instead of Terminating
Reduced turnover costs
Hiring and onboarding new employees can be expensive. Retaining capable individuals through reassignment preserves institutional knowledge.
Stronger morale and culture
Employees appreciate companies that invest in their success rather than replacing them at the first sign of struggle.
Better utilisation of internal talent
Reassignment ensures the right people are in the right roles, optimising productivity and team alignment.
More adaptable workforce
A culture that supports mobility fosters agility and resilience in fast-changing business environments.
Chart: Performance Trajectory Before and After Reassignment
Text-based representation:
Before reassignment
Performance fluctuates, productivity remains inconsistent, stress levels increase and confidence declines.
During reassignment transition
Performance stabilises as workload aligns with strengths; engagement improves.
After reassignment
Productivity rises, contributions become more meaningful and the employee demonstrates sustained growth.
Table: Comparing Outcomes of Termination vs Reassignment
Outcome Category | Termination | Reassignment
Financial Impact | High cost due to rehiring and training | Lower cost by retaining talent and reducing turnover
Time Investment | Requires full hiring cycle | Minimal time compared to recruitment process
Cultural Impact | Can lower morale and psychological safety | Boosts morale by demonstrating organisational support
Employee Outcome | Loss of employment and skills continuity | Increased growth opportunities and job satisfaction
Organisational Knowledge Retention | Lost entirely | Retained and often strengthened
Real-World Example: Role Mismatch Identified Through Leadership Review
During quarterly reviews, a technology company identifies that a newly hired developer is struggling with intense coding tasks but excels in user research and documentation. Reassignment to a product documentation role leads to improved technical accuracy and better product adoption rates among internal teams. What appeared to be a hiring mistake became a catalyst for operational improvement.
Why Reassignment Is Often the Smarter Strategic Choice
Reassignment acknowledges that talent is multi-dimensional and that job performance depends on alignment, not just capability. It prevents managers from prematurely discarding potentially high-value employees and strengthens the internal mobility culture. More importantly, it allows organisations to transform hiring setbacks into strategic wins by identifying how employees can contribute in more meaningful, sustainable ways.
By recognising the difference between a role mismatch and true performance incapacity, companies create pathways for employees to thrive while minimising financial waste and operational disruption. In many cases, reassignment is not just a solution to a bad hire; it is a way to unlock potential that was previously hidden behind incompatible job expectations.
5. If Nothing Improves — Manage the Exit with Respect and Clarity
Despite structured feedback, targeted support, reassignment opportunities and continuous coaching, there are situations where a struggling employee is unable to meet the performance standards required for the role. Managing the exit process with professionalism, empathy and clarity is critical for protecting organisational culture, reducing legal risks and ensuring the departing employee retains dignity. A respectful exit also reinforces fairness and psychological safety for the remaining team, demonstrating that the organisation handles difficult decisions with integrity.
Understanding When an Exit Becomes Necessary
An exit decision should be based on consistent patterns of underperformance, documented evidence and a clear lack of progress despite structured support. Key indicators include repeated failure to meet milestones, resistance to feedback, low cultural alignment, decreased reliability or behavioural concerns that undermine team performance. The decision should always follow an objective, systematic evaluation process that ensures fairness and avoids impulsive judgments.
Three major conditions typically justify a managed exit:
Persistent underperformance
The employee continues to miss key targets or deliver substandard work despite coaching and a structured performance improvement plan.
Lack of role alignment
Even with training or reassignment opportunities, the employee does not demonstrate capability to succeed in any suitable role within the organisation.
Behavioural concerns
Ongoing issues such as poor communication, defensiveness, unreliability or negative influence on team morale become unmanageable or disruptive.
Example: When Exit Becomes the Only Viable Step
A customer support representative repeatedly fails customer satisfaction benchmarks over a 90-day improvement period. Despite receiving mentoring, scripts, templates and additional training, their call resolution accuracy does not improve. The employee struggles with multitasking, time management and conflict resolution. Managers determine that retention would compromise overall service quality and team workload, making a respectful exit the most responsible decision.
Steps for Executing a Dignified and Transparent Exit Process
Prepare documentation and supporting evidence
Ensure all performance reviews, PIP progress reports, deadlines missed and coaching notes are compiled. This protects the organisation and makes the exit process objective and defensible.
Schedule a private and structured meeting
Deliver the decision clearly and respectfully. Managers should avoid vague wording and provide concise, factual reasoning without personal criticism.
Explain next steps and logistics
Outline timelines, final deliverables, transition responsibilities, handover expectations and any outstanding administrative requirements.
Offer support where possible
Support may include severance pay, extension of benefits, outplacement assistance or providing a positive reference if appropriate. These efforts preserve trust, reduce conflict and strengthen employer reputation.
Communicate internally with sensitivity
Inform relevant teams without disclosing private details. Focus communication on continuity and workflow stability rather than cause of exit.
Example Dialogue Approach for Delivering an Exit Decision
An effective conversation avoids ambiguity and maintains professionalism:
“We have reviewed your performance over the past 90 days, including the goals set in your improvement plan. Despite the support and coaching provided, we have not seen the sustained progress necessary for the role. As a result, we have made the difficult decision to end your employment. We appreciate your efforts and want to support your transition. We will discuss next steps, handover and resources available to assist you.”
Comparison Table: Constructive Exit vs Poorly Managed Exit
Category | Constructive Exit | Poorly Managed Exit
Communication | Clear, respectful and concise explanation | Vague, abrupt or emotionally charged conversations
Documentation | Fully supported by evidence and timelines | Minimal or unclear documentation
Employee Experience | Dignified, supported and informed | Confusing, stressful and hostile
Team Impact | Maintains trust and morale | Creates fear, anxiety or resentment
Employer Brand | Strengthened through fairness | Damaged through perceived unfair treatment
Decision Matrix to Determine Termination Readiness
Termination Readiness Matrix
Employee Response Patterns | Performance Progress | Recommended Action
Open but unable to improve | Low progress despite support | Proceed with structured exit
Resistant and disruptive | Negative impact on team and workflow | Prioritise exit with documented justification
Inconsistent performance with no sustainable improvement | Brief improvements followed by decline | Exit after final review window
No engagement or accountability | No progress and no ownership | Immediate exit after due process
Strong attitude but minimal improvement | Minor progress but below acceptable standard | Extend PIP once before final exit
This matrix ensures that exit decisions are grounded in clear behavioural and performance patterns.
Managing Transitions Smoothly After Exit
A structured transition plan reduces operational disruption and ensures workflow continuity.
Key actions include:
Handover completion
Ensure the employee documents ongoing tasks, open issues and access requirements before departure.
Knowledge transfer
Assign team members to absorb knowledge or delegate tasks temporarily.
Role rediscovery and refinement
Consider whether the role requires redefinition before rehiring to prevent repeated mismatches.
Support for remaining team members
Communicate transparently about workload distribution and reassure teams that decisions are made fairly and strategically.
Chart: Team Morale Impact Before and After a Respectful Exit
Text-based representation:
Before exit
Team experiences frustration due to inconsistent contributions from the struggling hire. Productivity and morale decline.
During exit decision
Managers communicate carefully, reducing uncertainty. Team regains confidence in leadership’s fairness.
After exit
Workflows stabilise, productivity improves and team morale strengthens due to restored accountability.
Real-World Example: How a Respectful Exit Strengthens Culture
A logistics company hires an operations coordinator who struggles with inventory accuracy and task prioritisation. Despite comprehensive training and extended coaching, their errors cause repeated delays in shipment processing. The manager conducts a respectful exit meeting, provides two weeks of transition support and helps the employee secure interviews elsewhere. The team appreciates the transparent handling of the process, and productivity increases once a better-matched employee joins. This reinforces a culture of fairness and performance integrity.
Legal and Ethical Considerations in Managing Exits
Comply with employment laws
Ensure compliance with local labour regulations, notice periods and documentation requirements.
Avoid discriminatory language
Keep discussions focused on measurable, job-related performance data.
Preserve confidentiality
Do not share sensitive exit details with colleagues; protect the employee’s dignity.
Provide accurate records
Maintain documentation in case of future legal inquiry or unemployment claims.
Why Respectful Exits Build Stronger Organisations
Exits handled poorly can damage employee trust, weaken morale and create long-term reputational issues. Conversely, exits managed with clarity and compassion reinforce a culture where fairness, accountability and professionalism are prioritised. Employees observe that leaders address problems responsibly rather than ignoring or mishandling them.
A respectful exit process:
Protects the dignity of the departing employee
Maintains stability within the team
Reduces legal exposure
Preserves employer brand reputation
Demonstrates leadership maturity
When improvement is no longer possible, an exit is not a failure but a necessary organisational decision. Approached with empathy, structure and clarity, it becomes part of a healthy performance management strategy that protects long-term organisational health and talent integrity.
Conclusion
Dealing with a bad hire is one of the most challenging responsibilities for managers and HR leaders, yet it is also one of the most defining tests of an organisation’s maturity, culture and leadership strength. While no hiring process is perfect, what separates resilient companies from reactive ones is their ability to recognise early warning signs, intervene strategically and uphold fairness throughout the employee lifecycle. A bad hire does not have to result in long-term disruption. With structured onboarding, careful diagnosis, transparent communication, thoughtful reassignment and respectful exit management, organisations can significantly reduce the negative impact and even uncover opportunities for growth and learning.
The first major lesson is the importance of treating onboarding as an extended evaluation period. Many performance issues emerge because expectations were not clearly outlined, competencies were not properly assessed or new hires did not receive the guidance necessary to succeed. By transforming onboarding into a structured 30–60–90 day framework with clear milestones and feedback cycles, managers can identify concerns early and support employees before small issues escalate.
A second key insight is the need for deep, unbiased diagnosis. Too often, leaders conclude that an employee is simply a bad fit without understanding the underlying cause. Skill gaps, unclear responsibilities, insufficient training or environmental obstacles can all lead to underperformance. Taking the time to analyse these factors prevents premature decisions and ensures fairness in evaluating whether the issue is solvable or structural.
Third, open communication remains an essential part of effective performance management. Honest, structured conversations allow employees to understand expectations, share their challenges and receive actionable feedback. These dialogues create psychological safety, strengthen alignment and give both sides a clear path forward. When paired with practical support systems such as coaching, training or performance improvement plans, many employees who initially struggle can regain confidence and meet required standards.
Reassignment serves as a strategic alternative that many organisations overlook. Sometimes the problem lies not in the person but in the mismatch between their abilities and the demands of the role. By identifying transferable strengths and placing employees in positions that better align with their natural skills, organisations can turn struggling hires into high performers, preserve institutional knowledge and reduce the financial and cultural costs of turnover.
Finally, when all reasonable interventions have been exhausted, managing the exit with professionalism and respect becomes vital. A well-handled departure protects the dignity of the employee, maintains team morale and demonstrates organisational integrity. Leaders should prioritise clarity, documentation and empathy, ensuring the transition is smooth and grounded in fairness. A respectful exit not only reduces legal risks but also reinforces a culture of accountability and transparency.
Ultimately, dealing with a bad hire is not merely about deciding whether to retain or release an employee; it is about building systems that prevent avoidable mistakes, support continuous improvement and strengthen the overall quality of talent within the organisation. Each step of the process—onboarding, diagnosis, communication, reassignment and exit management—plays a role in creating a resilient workforce and a responsible leadership culture.
By adopting these five strategic approaches, companies can minimise disruption, reduce costs and uphold a positive employer brand. More importantly, they can turn a difficult challenge into an opportunity to refine internal processes, elevate performance standards and cultivate a workplace where both leaders and employees are empowered to succeed.
If you find this article useful, why not share it with your hiring manager and C-level suite friends and also leave a nice comment below?
We, at the 9cv9 Research Team, strive to bring the latest and most meaningful data, guides, and statistics to your doorstep.
To get access to top-quality guides, click over to 9cv9 Blog.
To hire top talents using our modern AI-powered recruitment agency, find out more at 9cv9 Modern AI-Powered Recruitment Agency.
People Also Ask
What is considered a bad hire in the workplace?
A bad hire is an employee who consistently underperforms, fails to meet expectations or negatively impacts team morale despite training and support.
How can employers identify a bad hire early?
Early signs include repeated missed deadlines, poor communication, low engagement and an inability to meet onboarding milestones.
What is the first step in dealing with a bad hire?
Start by reviewing onboarding clarity, expectations and training to determine whether the employee had the right foundation to succeed.
How long should managers wait before addressing performance issues?
Issues should be addressed as soon as consistent patterns emerge, ideally within the first 30 to 60 days of employment.
Can a structured onboarding plan reduce the chances of a bad hire?
Yes, a milestone-based onboarding plan helps identify gaps early and ensures employees understand expectations from day one.
Should managers assume a bad hire is due to poor cultural fit?
No. Many performance issues stem from unclear instructions or insufficient support rather than cultural misalignment.
How can managers diagnose the root cause of underperformance?
Use documented observations, feedback discussions, skill tests and employee input to uncover training gaps or role mismatches.
What questions should managers ask during a performance review conversation?
Ask about challenges, roadblocks, unclear responsibilities and tools needed to help the employee succeed.
Can training fix performance issues in a bad hire?
Training can help if skill gaps are the root cause, but it may not solve issues caused by poor attitude or cultural misalignment.
What is a Performance Improvement Plan and when should it be used?
A PIP sets clear goals and timelines for improvement and should be used when informal feedback has not produced results.
How long should a performance improvement plan typically last?
Most PIPs last between 30 and 90 days, depending on job complexity and severity of performance gaps.
What if an employee shows effort but still struggles?
This may indicate a role mismatch. Consider reassignment to a position aligned with their strengths.
How can reassignment save a struggling employee?
Reassignment places the employee in a more suitable role, allowing their strengths to contribute more effectively.
What are signs that reassignment is a better option than termination?
Strong cultural fit, positive attitude, willingness to learn and success in tasks outside the current role suggest reassignment potential.
How should managers communicate an exit decision?
Use clear, concise language supported by documented performance data, and deliver the message with professionalism and respect.
Why is documentation important when dealing with a bad hire?
Documentation protects the organisation legally and ensures decisions are based on facts, not assumptions.
How can managers protect team morale when removing a bad hire?
Communicate the transition sensitively, redistribute workload fairly and highlight commitment to maintaining performance standards.
Can a bad hire damage long-term team productivity?
Yes, prolonged underperformance can burden teammates, reduce morale and slow overall workflow efficiency.
What should companies learn from a bad hire?
Review hiring processes, role clarity and onboarding structures to prevent similar issues in the future.
Is it possible for a bad hire to improve with support?
Yes, if root causes are skill-related or clarity-based. Improvement is less likely when behaviour or attitude is the core issue.
How can managers give feedback without discouraging the employee?
Focus on specific behaviours, provide actionable steps and balance criticism with recognition of strengths.
Should managers involve HR when dealing with a bad hire?
Yes, HR ensures legal compliance, supports documentation and guides the corrective action process.
Can personality differences cause someone to be labeled a bad hire?
Only if they affect communication, teamwork or performance. Differences alone do not justify the label.
What legal risks exist when terminating a bad hire?
Risks include wrongful termination claims, discrimination complaints or disputes over lack of documentation.
Is it better to act quickly or wait longer to evaluate improvement?
Act promptly but fairly. Early intervention prevents deeper problems and offers more opportunity for recovery.
How can companies minimise the cost of a bad hire?
Use structured hiring, thorough onboarding, early feedback loops and role suitability assessments.
What if the employee denies all performance issues?
Use documented evidence, clarify expectations and outline measurable improvement steps in a PIP.
Should the team be informed about why someone was let go?
No details should be shared. Communicate only what is necessary to maintain workflow continuity.
What role does company culture play in managing a bad hire?
Supportive cultures encourage feedback, accountability and structured improvement, making issues easier to resolve.
How can organisations prevent bad hires in the future?
Improve job descriptions, strengthen interview methods, validate skills through assessments and refine onboarding processes.