Is Anyone Better Than No-One?

In today's job market, it can be difficult to fill open positions.
 
Given that, leaders may be tempted to keep a non-performing employee around, as opposed to having them leave, meaning there is now a vacant position.
 
Because surely anyone is better than no-one, since it's currently difficult to find people, especially if your culture is not what it could be?
 
Think again:
 
💠 Any minor benefit you may get from keeping a low performer, is offset by the cost of them staying.
 
💠 Holding onto someone who is unhappy, stops them from finding somewhere they can shine.
 
💠 Having fewer employees is likely better than having a poor performer, with more actually getting done without them.
 
Because productivity isn't just about the number of people you have, but rather about the quality of employee.
 
𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙, 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨.
 
So, the longer they stay, the deeper the disengagement, leading to other great employees leaving.
 
From their perspective, why should they give it their all, if a non-performing employee isn’t expected to?
 
Additionally, you're jeopardizing accountability in your culture.
 
Know too that everyone notices and wonders why no action is being taken.
 
Causing even more disengagement, further undermining your culture.
 
✅ Because having the right person in every single seat is critical to employee engagement.
 
Even if it means that occasionally a position is left empty, as you wait to have it occupied by the right person.
 
Since allowing even one poor performer to stay is undermining your business success.
 
And you’ll keep losing additional employees and find it difficult to recruit great candidates as long as it continues.