The fact is that your company probably has individuals or teams that could drastically improve results. (How to upgrade the talent in your business?
Do you have a few key critical roles where the person in the role is not fully living up to your expectations of performance?
Are they doing a great job for 65-70-75 percent of the job, but suck at the other 25 percent?
Why do you tolerate less than stellar performance in the critical game-breaker elements of the job? This article indicates that most companies don't want to address the issue because they have no one else lined up to take over the job.
I'll contend the issue is deeper:
You don't want to spend the time to find someone new. "Better the Devil I know than the one I don't"
You hope the person will change and get better so you're playing the "let's give it another 30 days game", only it's now 2 years later.
You have no hope of finding a better a candidate. You just throw up your arms and accept the status quo because you believe it's too hard to find, select, and develop a new person.
How dysfuctional do these rationalizations and justifications sound? Why do you keep uttering them when faced with under-performers in critical roles?
Have you thought about the 1 or 2 critical roles on your team which need to be upgraded?
Master of Hiring Accuracy
Doctor of Hiring Failure and Pain
Prognosticator of Radical Hiring Improvement