Will Letting Go of a Senior Hire Destroy Your Team?

Rebecca asks: "If I make a senior change, will it destabilise my team?" 

James and Freddie break down why this fear keeps founders stuck - and why inaction is almost always the bigger risk. 

They cover: how to read the real signal from your team, what actually happens after a senior exit, the one case where it did go wrong, and how to use the moment to reset standards and re-energise the people who matter. If you're avoiding a decision you already know is right, this is worth a listen.

More from James:

Connect with James on LinkedIn or at peer-effect.com 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Welcome to the Peer Effect Post Bag. I'm James Johnson, joined by Freddie Burley. We ask for your questions, and Freddie and I are going to tackle them together. These aren't theoretical case studies, it's the stuff keeping you up at 2 a.m. Let's get answering. Welcome to the Peer Effect post bag. I'm James Johnson.

SPEAKER_00 0:19

And I'm Freddie Burley.

SPEAKER_01 0:20

So, Freddie, what have you been up to this week?

SPEAKER_00 0:23

So, um, what have I been up to? I I've been listening to this amazing book by Jim Collins called What to Make of a Life. And it's essentially his research over the last, I think, 12 years on high performance or humans that have achieved extraordinary things and what patterns he has observed. And it's honestly fascinating. Um there's so many different stories from like Nobel Peace Prize winners through to um like entrepreneurs and um humanitarians. It's such a cross section of human beings, but I'm just loving it. I'm learning tons. So would really recommend.

SPEAKER_01 1:00

Have you read the sort of earlier ones like Built to Last, Good to Great?

SPEAKER_00 1:04

I haven't, but they're meant to be amazing.

SPEAKER_01 1:06

You've got to.

SPEAKER_00 1:06

Yeah, I've got to get involved.

SPEAKER_01 1:08

Yeah, I I think what I like really like about him is just he he does these 10, 12-year research projects, so it feels super rigorous. And then each time he does a new book, he kind of calls back to his old ones. So he's doing it for like 50 years or something now. And like e even the stuff from his first book is still relevant. Like you get the right people on the bus and all sorts of stuff.

SPEAKER_00 1:29

And you feel him spiralling. It's like he comes back to old themes but with a new perspective or deeper research. And I also listened to his Tim Ferris episode, which was amazing. So would really, really recommend.

SPEAKER_01 1:44

I have to check it out. Is it how how long is it?

SPEAKER_00 1:47

It's like two and a half hours. It's good for a car journey.

SPEAKER_01 1:50

Wow.

SPEAKER_00 1:50

Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So it's a really meaty, but really, really good. I left feeling so energized. Yeah, would recommend. So this week we have a question from Rebecca. Um if I make a senior change, will it destabilize my team?

SPEAKER_01 2:12

The fear.

SPEAKER_00 2:13

The fear. The fear.

SPEAKER_01 2:16

I mean, I think this comes up a lot, the sense of that making a move is risky. And I I think I think that's just a natural way we look at risk as humans, kind of like if I do something, that creates risk. And there's this kind of unspoken assumption that if we don't do something, then it's less risky. Which I often think is a logical fallacy and and just not true. Because in this case, what you're hearing, what sort of Rebecca's saying is like I've got a senior person, they're not working out, but if I make a change, I know that making a senior change can lead to destabilization, in which case people will leave.

SPEAKER_00 2:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 2:51

And I think it's definitely true that you make a senior change and you change someone's manager, it then people can leave. I think that's definitely true. But I think if there must be a reason why she's looking to make this change, and if that's the case, then I would say it's more risky not to make the move because people will be a couple of things. One be looking at her wondering whether she hasn't made a move, I imagine, if if this person's not performing or not behaving, whatever the case is. Yeah. And actually, good people leave if bad people stay.

SPEAKER_00 3:18

100%.

SPEAKER_01 3:20

Pretty much. And often you get sort of is that conversation in the pub sort of a week later, or someone's going to go, oh, oh, we weren't like, how come also how come it took so long is often is often the question that c that comes up. Um so I think if she's thinking about it, I would say it's probably more risky. And is it clear that it's the right thing to do for the business? Yeah. I would definitely think it's more risky not to do it than to do it.

SPEAKER_00 3:43

Yeah, that's a really that's a really nice way of putting it. I think often with even if there is an exodus post that person leaving, often those people are misaligned in the same ways as that person is misaligned. And so even though it's it can feel brutal in the short term in that you don't have people executing on tasks, I think often in the longer term you then get to hire people in that are better aligned. And so there's this feeling of you're reaching more resonance. And I exactly as you've shared in my experience or what's come up in coaching is that people I actually can't think of a single example of when someone has changed a senior high, like let go of a senior hire, and the team was anything but like on board.

SPEAKER_01 4:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 4:38

We're actually just thinking about I can't think of a single example where the team wasn't on board.

SPEAKER_01 4:43

I've only seen it once.

SPEAKER_00 4:45

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 4:46

Where someone was a founder and they came back into their business having stepped out of it.

SPEAKER_00 4:50

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 4:50

And the senior person had been effectively running the business. Yes. And actually making that change did leave people leaving because they had got used to a certain way of behaving. Yes. Now that actually that way of behaving wasn't actually performance, which is why you need to make the senior change. Yes. But then the people who uh who then left, could they have something held to a performance standard that needs to be held to, but was uncomfortable for them. So again, I would say in that case, those those second level changes needed to happen again because the senior person was not holding, had not hired to the right level and was not holding them to account to the right level. Yeah. In which case they're unhappy with the new sort of fairly reasonable performance and behavioural expectations.

SPEAKER_00 5:30

Yes, interesting.

SPEAKER_01 5:31

Um, but apart from that, I would 100% agree that I've I don't think I've ever sat in a session with someone. Often it's sort of a oh, it's so hard. I don't want to do this. Like it's a big risk. I feel comfortable. And actually, by the time then it happens, there's almost a sense of freedom that that appears in the next session of like, oh, I'm so glad I had that conversation. Oh, I feel free. It's I'm excited about who I can bring into the role next. Yes. It's kind of it's freeing.

SPEAKER_00 6:00

Totally. And you're not caged or constricted by that person anymore. I think often with senior hires, some especially when they're an expert in an area that you're not an expert, you can feel a bit. I've seen in coaching sessions a lot of the founders I've worked with, sometimes you feel a bit stuck in between a rock and a hard place of I don't feel like I can show up in the way that is like speaking the truth and holding the bar that I want to hold with this senior leader because they're on a different page. Yeah. And um, that incongruence, even for yourself, it means the way you're showing up in your company, um, it's stopping you from doing the right thing. Yeah. And even though it's uncomfortable to have the conversation and it's uncomfortable to check have that, like make that change, it I've exactly what you've described, that freedom and that sense of expansion. And I also think with hires as well, it's always a vote of what you want to create. So when you when you let someone go, it's a vote of what we're not standing for. And then when you bring someone new in, it's also an opportunity to communicate about what we do stand for and where we're going and what it means to be part of this team and the opportunities that are here for you, and the level of performance you want to see, but also the level of like enthusiasm and energy and um and the kind of culture fit too.

SPEAKER_01 7:10

And I think like I think that communication point is really important because I think it's you do non-verbally communicate some things with that hire, which is why I think it's really important to both also verbally communicate, sort of be clear what your vision is and where you're trying to get to. Because I have seen it happen sometimes where you make that change because it's not working, yeah, but that haven't really put the thought into how to maximize opportunity in terms of where okay, what does this mean for the business? Where do I actually want to get to? What is that, what does the senior hire then need to be to achieve it? And I think that is a massive missed opportunity. And often it's because I think the founder is so drained by that experience of the senior hire not working, that they've lost a bit of confidence, they've stopped being able to dream about the future, and therefore it's a bit responsive. Whereas actually it's kind of if you can go, okay, what would excite you? Like, where do you let's tap back into excitement? Where do you want to be in two, three years' time? Okay, what does that mean for this role? And then actually bring in someone that excites you, then excites the team, and it really mitigates it. And maybe there is a bit of a sort of a a hangover between that person leaving and not having someone in. Unlikely, particularly if you can show up as a founder and you and they can see your excitement. Yeah. But once that next person hits and you've made a good hire, and they then I think it's it's exciting for people.

SPEAKER_00 8:31

Totally. And that idea of, especially in how they frame this question of if I make a senior change, will it destabilize the team? The destabilization, if communicating like we want the team to be malleable, we want them to be adaptable, we want them to be moving, we want them to be growing. And if uh even that behavior being like, I we do what's right for the team and for the company, not what's comfortable. And especially using it as an opportunity to even talk through their own process, especially with their immediate senior team, to be like, this was a really hard decision, this was uncomfortable, and and be human in that leadership of like, this is what stopped me from doing it, these are all the reasons why I didn't want to do it. You know, and obviously you've got to be conscious of um like what you can share, what you can't share, but using it as an opportunity to be like, but this is the type of team I want to be part of, this is how I want us to be moving, this is how I want us to be focused. You can really use it as an opportunity to re-energize and also show the team that you're you do the right thing, not the comfortable thing. And that's inspiring energy to be around too.

SPEAKER_01 9:29

Yeah, particularly particularly if you're sh being deliberate with it.

SPEAKER_00 9:33

And that comes down to intentionality. And I think even being explicit about what does work with this person and what really doesn't work with this person, and then how do I communicate in a way that's respectful. Um, but also it means that as a team we can learn, as a team we can be clear about who we are and what we stand for and what we don't.

SPEAKER_01 9:50

And I think this really ties back into the idea of sort of people say hire, sort of hire slowly, fire quickly is a bit of a truism. Yeah. But I do think that it's very easy to be to be rushed into hires, particularly if you feel like there's a gap that you need to fill. It's like, oh, who's available? Who can I get now? And that just feels like such a mistake because in the moment you're like, oh, okay, that's it's ticked off my list, I filled that that gap. But like, is that gap still the gap when the gap you hired for, is it still the gap that you have now? Is the person the best place to fill it? Because really, you can hire someone in a week, but you're gonna re you can repent at leisure in that hire so quickly because it is de I think it is destabilizing for a team if you hire badly repeatedly. Because then I think the teams stop giving new people, oh, is this person gonna work out? Yeah. Should we really combine to it? But what it doesn't really matter what they say, they're probably gonna be gone in three to six to nine months anyway.

SPEAKER_00 10:49

Yeah, totally. That's not the vibe.

SPEAKER_01 10:51

That's not the vibe. So this is probably not like carte blanche, like so just just suck it in C and just see who you can For sure.

SPEAKER_00 10:58

With each eye, you do you want to be learning like what does work, what doesn't work. How do we apply those learnings? And if you're sick if you're going through humans like a revolving door, then that's that's a that's kind of a different question. Yeah. But the tone of this question I I don't get. It it sounds almost the opposite leaning of leaning too far into stability and comfort. And actually the stretch here is about how do you communicate reasonable risk? And yeah.

SPEAKER_01 11:27

But I wonder what's sitting behind the question in terms of history, in terms of have they experienced that before? Yeah. What has the sort of the retention of the business looked like? Have they been burnt before by someone because there must be there must be there could be something sitting behind it to go to to create that that fear.

SPEAKER_00 11:50

Yeah, that's true. And I I've often seen this come up, especially if they're an early hire. So especially the if this was someone they hired in the early days and they were part of the core team and the business has scaled and this person hasn't grown, and there's more of an emotional relational tie, and separating between the will this destabilize everything if our core team members are no longer part of the business in the future, or our original the OGs aren't here anymore, and what does that mean? So that's often when I see the language of like destabilizing and you embodying stability. It sounds kind of weird, but as a founder, when you embody like clarity and conviction and groundedness in the decision, which often comes from like the insight of what isn't isn't working and what am I moving towards, then you can be the confidence, you can be the anchor, you can be the person that's grounded when people are moving through. It's like when you're on a flight, right? If you're going through air turbulence and the SGS is screaming, you're like, okay, we can't do air people. That's an issue which actually happened on flight with me when I went to Canada. And I was like, yeah, and I was like, if she's screaming, I should probably be screaming, but I can't control anything, so I'm just gonna smile as we go down. But the um um in this in this situation, right? Like if if the SGLS is like chilled, calm, this is what we need to do, you then automatically feel calm.

SPEAKER_01 13:14

Yeah, it's very true.

SPEAKER_00 13:16

Funny metaphor, but you know what I mean.

SPEAKER_01 13:18

Keep an eye on the SGLS.

SPEAKER_00 13:20

Yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_01 13:23

Um so what would be your sort of main takeaway on this then?

SPEAKER_00 13:29

Um that it's hard and it's human to start with. So the the feelings that people have, it this isn't easy. And that's just the starting point. Um and I think the the blind spot for a lot of founders is not being considered enough and getting the clarity they need about what is and isn't working, so they can make sure that they do vote towards what they think is working and make a change next time. And that it's like when you're on the edge of a pool and it's freezing, it doesn't get any warmer the longer you stand on the edge. Sometimes it's just like once you've got the clarity, no, it's gonna be it's a tough conversation, it is uncomfortable, but you're voting towards the future you want to create, and so it is ultimately worth it, and that there's freedom on the other side of that, and when you do the hard thing that is right, there is always a sense of freedom, um, even if it's tough. I think those would be my takeaways.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

Amazing. Well, that's uh that's it for us for another week.

SPEAKER_00 14:38

Like if we can just do it a few times. If we get one good one, then we can just you can just use that in all of them. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

That's it for us this week. Hit subscribe before you go, and we'll see you next Monday for another postbag episode. If any questions, just reach out at hello at peer hyphen effect.com and happy scaling.