Ask owners who have let someone go what they would do differently and the answer is almost always to do it sooner — not because the person deserved less patience, but because the cost had already been paid several times over in callbacks, in customers who quietly stopped calling, and in the good technicians who noticed that poor work carried no consequence. This piece covers how to separate the three causes of underperformance before deciding, the documentation that has to exist first, why the termination conversation should take ten minutes, the same-day logistics checklist, and what to say to the team afterward.
In this article
- Almost every owner waits too long
- Before deciding: separate the three causes
- The documentation that has to exist first
- The conversation: ten minutes, and shorter is kinder
- The logistics that need to be handled the same day
- The day after, with the team
- The two things worth trying before termination
- Five mistakes in letting someone go
- What to track so the next one comes sooner
- Frequently asked questions
Almost every owner waits too long
Ask owners who have let someone go what they would do differently and the answer is nearly always the same: do it sooner. Not because the person deserved less patience, but because by the time the decision was finally made, the cost had already been paid several times over — in callbacks, in customers who quietly stopped calling, in the good technicians who noticed that poor work carried no consequence, and in the owner's own attention, which went to one problem for months.
The delay has understandable causes. Firing someone is genuinely unpleasant, replacing a warm body in a tight labor market is hard, and there is always a hope that the next conversation will be the one that works. But the arithmetic is unforgiving: a technician generating callbacks on one job in five costs more than an empty truck, because an empty truck does not damage the reputation that fills the other trucks.
Before deciding: separate the three causes
Not every underperformer should be let go, and sorting the cause first prevents both the unnecessary termination and the endless one.
- Cannot. The person lacks a skill they could plausibly acquire. This is a training problem, and it is worth solving if the person has the aptitude and the attitude — training a willing technician is almost always cheaper than hiring. The test is whether specific instruction produced improvement within a defined period.
- Will not. The person has the skill and does not apply it: late, careless, avoidant of the parts of the job they dislike. This is a performance problem, and it responds to clear expectations and consequences — or it does not, which answers the question.
- Should not be here. Conduct that is dishonest, unsafe, or damaging to customers and colleagues. This category is different in kind, not degree, and the response is immediate rather than developmental.
Owners routinely treat a will-not as a cannot and spend a year training someone who was never going to change. Distinguishing them takes one honest conversation with a specific expectation and a date attached.
Keep reading — free
The rest of this article is worth the 20 seconds
Tell us where to send it and the full piece unlocks right here, along with everything else on this blog.
Rather just talk? Message us on WhatsApp.
The documentation that has to exist first
Documentation is not about building a case against someone. It is about being able to demonstrate, later and to a stranger, that the decision was based on performance and applied consistently. Four things carry most of that weight.
A written job expectation, so the standard existed before the failure to meet it. Contemporaneous notes of conversations — date, what was discussed, what was agreed, what would happen next — written the same day rather than reconstructed afterward. Records of the performance itself: callbacks by technician, jobs completed, complaints, safety incidents, attendance. And evidence of consistency, meaning that the same standard has been applied to others in the same role, since inconsistent enforcement is where most disputes find their footing.
If none of that exists today, the answer is not to fabricate it — it is to start it now and accept that the first termination under the new process will be a few weeks slower than you would like.
The conversation: ten minutes, and shorter is kinder
The termination conversation goes wrong in one direction almost every time: it goes long. The owner, uncomfortable, explains, softens, re-explains, and inadvertently opens a negotiation about a decision that is not negotiable. That is worse for everyone in the room.
The structure that works is short and unambiguous. State the decision in the first sentence, in the past tense — "I've made the decision to end your employment, and today is your last day." Give the reason in one or two sentences, factual and already familiar to the person from previous conversations, with no new accusations introduced. Move immediately to logistics: final pay and when it will be received, benefits information, return of tools, keys, vehicle and uniforms, and what will be said to customers and coworkers. Then close it. Ten minutes is plenty, and the person is not absorbing much after the first sentence anyway.
Practical choices that reduce the damage: have a second person present, both as a witness and to keep the conversation on structure. Do it in a private space, never in front of the crew. Do it early in the day rather than at the end of a shift — the end-of-day termination is common and it leaves the person to process alone overnight with no ability to ask a question. And avoid Friday, for the same reason.
The logistics that need to be handled the same day
A clean separation protects the business and, just as importantly, protects the person's dignity. Six items belong on a checklist prepared before the conversation.
Final pay, prepared according to the rules that apply in your state, including any accrued time that must be paid out. Benefits information, including continuation options where applicable, provided in writing rather than explained verbally. Company property recovered and logged — tools, keys, fuel card, phone, vehicle, uniforms, customer lists. System access removed the same day, which includes scheduling software, email, shared drives, the phone system and any account with customer data. Any signed agreements reviewed so both sides know what remains in force. And a decision, made in advance, about what will be said: a short, neutral statement to the team and to customers who ask.
That last point matters more than owners expect. Silence invites invention, and detailed explanation invites gossip and legal exposure. "He no longer works with us, and I'll be handling your service personally this week" is the entire message.
The day after, with the team
The rest of the crew will draw a conclusion whether or not you give them one, and the conclusion they draw shapes the next six months.
Three things help. Tell them promptly and briefly, in person, without details about the individual — respecting the departed person's privacy in front of the team is itself a message about how the company treats people. Address the practical immediately: who covers the route, how the schedule changes this week, and when a replacement is expected. And be available for a day or two, because the question everyone has and nobody asks is whether they are next.
One thing worth noticing: when a genuine underperformer is let go, the most common reaction from a good team is relief, not fear. People know who was not carrying the load, and they have been carrying it. If the reaction is fear rather than relief, that is information about whether the decision was understood as fair.
The two things worth trying before termination
Not every performance problem needs to end in a separation, and skipping straight to termination on a will-not case wastes a person who might have been salvageable with one clear conversation. Two approaches resolve a meaningful share of cases, and both take less time than hiring a replacement.
The first is a single specific conversation with a date attached. Not a general talk about attitude — a concrete statement of what is happening, what needs to change, how it will be measured and by when. "You have had four callbacks in six weeks against a crew average of one. For the next thirty days I need that at one or zero, and I will check with you every Friday." That conversation does two things: it gives a person who did not realize how they were being seen a genuine chance, and it removes ambiguity from the decision if nothing changes. A surprising number of people improve after it, because nobody had ever said it plainly.
The second is a change of role. A technician who is careless on complex diagnostic work may be excellent on scheduled maintenance; someone who struggles with customers may be strong in the shop or on commercial jobs where the interaction is different. This is not a way to avoid a hard conversation — moving a problem to a quieter corner of the company solves nothing — but where the skills genuinely fit a different seat, it retains institutional knowledge that would otherwise walk out.
What both share is a defined end date. An open-ended improvement period is the same as no decision, and it is how a three-month problem turns into a two-year one. Set the date, tell the person the date, and honor it in both directions: if they meet the standard, say so and close the matter; if they do not, the decision has already been made and the conversation in the next section is short.
Five mistakes in letting someone go
- Waiting for a final incident. The cost accumulates in callbacks, lost customers and the standards of everyone watching.
- Terminating without documentation. Not because a case is needed, but because consistency has to be demonstrable.
- Letting the conversation run long. It opens a negotiation about a decision that is not negotiable and helps nobody.
- Explaining too much to the team and to customers. A neutral sentence protects everyone; details invite gossip and exposure.
- Skipping the legal review. Final pay timing, notices and benefit continuation vary by state, and one error costs more than the review would have.
What to track so the next one comes sooner
Four measures make performance visible before it becomes a crisis: callbacks and warranty visits by technician, which is the cleanest quality signal in most service trades; revenue or billable hours per technician against the crew average, which surfaces a will-not quickly; customer complaints and review mentions by name; and attendance and schedule adherence. None of these is a reason to fire anyone on its own. Together, reviewed monthly, they turn a decision that most owners delay for a year into one they make in a quarter — which is better for the company, better for the team, and usually better for the person, who gets to find work that suits them while the reference is still a good one.
Get your people process in order before you need it
Send us your current job descriptions, your review process if you have one and how you track callbacks and complaints by technician. We will show you what is missing from the documentation chain and which four measures would surface a performance problem months before it becomes a crisis.
Frequently asked questions
How do you know when to let an employee go rather than keep training them?
By sorting the cause into one of three categories first. Cannot means the person lacks a skill they could plausibly acquire — a training problem worth solving if they have the aptitude and attitude, since training a willing technician is almost always cheaper than hiring; the test is whether specific instruction produced improvement within a defined period. Will not means they have the skill and do not apply it: late, careless, avoidant of the parts of the job they dislike — a performance problem that responds to clear expectations and consequences, or does not, which answers the question. Should not be here covers conduct that is dishonest, unsafe or damaging to customers and colleagues, which is different in kind rather than degree. Owners routinely treat a will-not as a cannot and spend a year training someone who was never going to change.
What documentation do you need before terminating someone?
Four things, and the purpose is not to build a case against a person — it is to demonstrate, later and to a stranger, that the decision was based on performance and applied consistently. A written job expectation, so the standard existed before the failure to meet it. Contemporaneous notes of conversations with date, what was discussed, what was agreed and what would happen next, written the same day rather than reconstructed afterward. Records of the performance itself: callbacks by technician, jobs completed, complaints, safety incidents and attendance. And evidence of consistency, meaning the same standard has been applied to others in the same role, since inconsistent enforcement is where most disputes find their footing. If none of it exists today, start now and accept that the first termination under the new process will be slower than you would like.
How should the termination conversation be handled?
Short and unambiguous, because it goes wrong in one direction almost every time — it goes long, and the owner inadvertently opens a negotiation about a decision that is not negotiable. State the decision in the first sentence and in the past tense. Give the reason in one or two factual sentences already familiar from previous conversations, introducing no new accusations. Move straight to logistics: final pay and when it arrives, benefits information, return of tools, keys, vehicle and uniforms, and what will be said to customers and coworkers. Then close. Ten minutes is plenty. Have a second person present as witness, use a private space rather than in front of the crew, do it early in the day rather than at the end of a shift, and avoid Friday. If the person disputes the facts, do not argue — confirm that the decision is made and offer to put anything in writing.
What has to be handled the same day as a termination?
Six items, prepared before the conversation rather than improvised after it. Final pay according to the rules that apply in your state, including any accrued time that must be paid out. Benefits information including continuation options where applicable, provided in writing rather than explained verbally. Company property recovered and logged — tools, keys, fuel card, phone, vehicle, uniforms, customer lists. System access removed the same day, covering scheduling software, email, shared drives, the phone system and any account holding customer data. Any signed agreements reviewed so both sides know what remains in force. And a decision made in advance about what will be said, since silence invites invention and detailed explanation invites gossip and exposure — a sentence such as he no longer works with us and I will be handling your service personally this week is the entire message.
What should you tell the rest of the team?
Promptly, briefly, in person, and without details about the individual — respecting the departed person's privacy in front of the team is itself a message about how the company treats people. Address the practical immediately: who covers the route, how the schedule changes this week, and when a replacement is expected. Then be available for a day or two, because the question everyone has and nobody asks is whether they are next. One thing worth noticing: when a genuine underperformer is let go, the most common reaction from a good team is relief rather than fear, because people know who was not carrying the load and they have been carrying it. If the reaction is fear instead, that is useful information about whether the decision was understood as fair and consistently applied.