When My Boss Said I Couldn't Be Promoted Until I Fired Someone
The promotion conversation I wasn't expecting
I thought the one-on-one was routine. My team was performing well. Projects were shipping. People were growing in their roles. I'd been working toward the Sr. Manager promotion for months.
Then my boss said it.
"You can't be promoted to Sr. Manager because you've never fired anyone."
The words hung in the air between us. I don't remember my exact response, but it was something like "So I won't be promoted because I'm good at leading my team?"
What I wanted to say was much sharper. What I thought later, driving home, was even worse.
I walked out feeling like I'd discovered an artificial ceiling. Like the rules of advancement had suddenly changed. My team's results didn't matter. The projects we shipped didn't matter. The people I'd developed didn't matter. Apparently, what mattered was checking a box on some invisible management scorecard: "Has terminated an employee."
That conversation, among others, changed everything about how I showed up at that company.
I stopped chasing visibility. Stopped networking for advancement. Stopped doing things because they'd look good on a promotion packet. Instead, I focused on doing excellent work, being direct when I saw problems, and honestly? I stopped caring if my honesty was career-limiting. Part of me hoped it would be.
I also quietly started looking for other jobs.
What I Didn't Understand Then
Years later, after managing many people and teams, and coaching dozens of leaders through similar transitions, I understand that conversation completely differently.
I still think my boss handled it terribly. But he was pointing at something real, even if he couldn't articulate it clearly.
Here's what I know now that I didn't know then: there's a massive gap between understanding performance management and having actually done it.
We can teach new managers the process. Show them the forms. Walk them through the legal requirements. Explain the SMART goal framework and the importance of documentation.
But according to Gartner Research, 85% of new managers receive no formal training when they assume their roles. They're expected to figure it out. And even when training exists, it can't bridge the gap between knowing what you should do and having the emotional awareness to actually do it when it matters.
That gap? That's what my boss was really talking about.
The Decisions You Won't Make (Until You've Made Them Once)
If you've never managed someone through formal performance issues or let someone go, there are specific judgment calls you're unlikely to make:
"This person isn't the right fit for this role."
"We need different skills on the team, which means making a change."
"Despite months of feedback and support, this isn't working."
Why? Because managers who haven't crossed that line tend to give endless chances.
They make excuses for underperformers. They take 100% responsibility for someone else's performance. They believe that if they just try harder, communicate better, or find the right project, everything will click into place.
They do work for struggling team members "because it needs to get done." They run interference to prevent those team members from looking bad to other stakeholders. They have the same feedback conversation over and over, hoping this time it will land differently.
One more chance. One more coaching session. One more improvement opportunity.
Research backs this up. Studies show that 70% of employees avoid difficult discussions with others. Among managers, only 24% report directly confronting challenging situations, while 53% deal with difficult circumstances by ignoring them.
The cost? Gallup research estimates that every avoided difficult conversation costs organizations $7,500 and seven lost workdays. But the real cost is what happens to your team when they watch you avoid accountability over and over.
The Invisible Line
Here's what changes after your first time managing someone through serious performance issues:
You draw an invisible line.
It's not something you can point to or explain easily. It's a feeling based on experience. A threshold of "this far and no further" that exists only in your head.
Before you've been through it, you don't know where that line is. You keep giving chances because you genuinely don't know when to stop.
After? You work harder to keep people from approaching the line in the first place. You give feedback earlier and more directly. You address small problems before they become big ones. You document more carefully. You involve HR sooner.
And when someone crosses the line? You move to formal performance management without the endless hoping and second-guessing.
According to research on first-time managers, this clarity is essential: "Performance management is arguably one of the most important functions of a manager. In addition to keeping team members on track, performance reviews can also be used to support growth and development."
But you can't get that clarity from a training manual.
What I See Coaching Managers Through This
I've coached dozens of managers through their first serious performance management situation. The before and after is striking.
Before: They frame everything as "How can I help you succeed?" without acknowledging that success requires the employee to do their part. They're absorbed in solving their team's problems instead of helping team members solve their own.
After: They understand that clear expectations and support are their job. Meeting those expectations is the employee's job. They stop taking 100% ownership for someone else's performance.
It's not about becoming cold or less empathetic. It's about understanding where your responsibility ends and theirs begins.
When I managed someone through formal performance issues the second time, everything felt different. I was more direct from the start. I escalated sooner. I'd learned to recognize the patterns that reliably predict continued underperformance.
That learning? That's what my boss was pointing at, even though he framed it as an arbitrary firing requirement.
Is This Experience Really Necessary?
Not everyone agrees, including me.
Some leadership experts argue that requiring specific "hard experiences" creates unnecessary barriers to advancement. They point out that managers can learn through coaching, simulations, and observation.
There's truth to this. Artificial gates can delay talented people from advancing. And some managers learn faster through various methods than others.
But here's what I've observed both as a manager and a coach: there's something fundamentally different about facing the actual consequences of a performance conversation.
When the stakes are real and someone's employment is genuinely on the line, you learn things about yourself you can't learn in a training room:
- How you handle the emotional weight
- What you're willing to tolerate and for how long
- How direct you can be when it truly matters
- Where your empathy ends and accountability begins
As one leadership researcher notes, "The skills that made you successful in your previous role are not the same ones you need to manage performance effectively."
You discover those new skills under pressure, not in theory.
What To Do If You Haven't Been Through This Yet
If you're managing people and haven't had to manage someone through serious performance issues, that gap is affecting your decisions right now. You might be avoiding conversations, giving too many chances, or making excuses without realizing it.
Here's what to do Monday:
Look honestly at your bottom performers. Not to punish them, but to see clearly. Write down specifically where they're not meeting job-level expectations.
Be concrete. Not "communication needs improvement" but "misses three out of five deadlines without proactively flagging delays" or "delivers work requiring 10+ hours of rework by senior team members."
If you're avoiding this exercise, that's information. If you're making excuses for them, that's information. If you're hoping it improves on its own, that's information.
You don't need to start a formal process tomorrow. But you do need to see where the line is before someone crosses it.
This connects directly to giving effective feedback. You can't manage performance if you're not communicating clearly about expectations and gaps. And remember, telling someone once isn't leadership. Performance management requires ongoing, documented conversations that build a clear pattern.
The Real Learning
That conversation with my boss years ago was poorly delivered. It was probably motivated by budget constraints rather than genuine development concerns.
But the underlying point he couldn't articulate? That was valid.
Management is experience-based in ways that training can't replicate.
The first time you manage someone through serious performance issues fundamentally changes how you lead. It changes what you're willing to tolerate. It changes how quickly you act. It changes where you draw the line between support and accountability.
I wish someone had explained it that way instead of framing it as "you need to fire someone to get promoted."
Maybe if they had, I would have actively sought out that learning instead of feeling punished for managing well.
But I got there eventually. And when I did, I understood exactly what he was trying to say.
What's been your experience with performance management? Did your first serious performance conversation change how you lead?
You're great at the work. Let's make it visible.
I coach tech and systems leaders who want to lead with clarity, communicate their value, and grow without burning out. If you're struggling with performance conversations or managing underperformers, let's talk about how you can get clearer on expectations and act faster when problems show up.
Comments
Post a Comment