How many of you have made what you thought were truly…tough decisions? Assuming that you are in some type of leadership position, there is virtually no chance that you could avoid making “tough decisions.” Leaders make decisions, and good leaders make “tough decisions.” But, one person’s tough decision could be another’s routine actions. What do you consider a tough decision?

Most leaders spend a great deal of time making decisions. Indeed, decision-making is a huge part of what consumes leaders’ time and energy. Leaders are constantly looked upon to resolve conflict or to decide between alternative courses of action. There is no doubt that, as a leader, you must look to facts and observations, and then evaluate what should be the proper course of action. Then, once that process is completed a decision — and then action — is required. It is never easy, but decisions must happen if goals are to be achieved.

A leader’s true strength and quality of decisions reflects in the results achieved from those decisions. When a leader chooses well, and then executes effectively, the results will have a strong probability of success. But, there are times when the decisions do not come easily. The toughest decisions are usually the ones that seem to require actions that carry with them as much negative consequence as they do positive results. It is when the leader makes the decision to go forward, in spite of those negative consequences, that the tough decisions, and the decision maker, are tested. No matter how convinced a leader may be in the merits of the decision, it is almost impossible to avoid some semblance of anxiety, even regret. Only after the positive results are achieved will the leader feel the full sense of satisfaction that the right decision has been made.

From a general perspective, this process describes tough decisions. When we get more specific and focus on tough personnel decisions, the leader is immediately tested in an entirely new way. The challenge gets even more difficult when the decision requires taking action that will have an apparent and adverse result for an associate. That adverse result could be as simple as an associate’s disappointment at a lost opportunity, all the way to the associate’s termination. Taking the step required to deal with an adverse action impacting an associate is frequently the toughest decision a leader makes. Short of being a sadist, no leader is going to enjoy “hurting” an associate. Yet, many times the tough personnel decisions will cause and associate to feel “hurt.”

This is where love plays such a critical role for the great leaders. Great leaders do not terminate the employment of an associate because of dislike or disdain of an associate; they terminate from love. All too often, this statement causes some leaders to recoil with emotional rejection of this use of the word “love.” The response frequently is, “How can you call it ‘love’ when you are inflicting so much pain on the associate by firing them?” The plain truth is that — of course — firing an associate causes pain to that associate at that moment in time; but if the termination is for the right, albeit, tough-to-decide reasons, then it must have been made with love.

Let’s look at two examples: First, the person is failing to perform, and that failed performance negatively impacts the results of the work unit. In short, the unit is failing because of one team member’s failure to perform. If the leader truly understands the concept of love as we have proposed, then that love must be the driving force behind decisions and actions that impact the entire team. If the team is damaged by one person, then loving the other members of the team demands that the team must be rescued. If the leader truly loves the team members, as a group and as individuals, then the non-performer must be terminated. That individual may be “hurt,” but the team will be loved.

The second example is a bit more subtle, but no less correct. In this case, the unit member is failing, but not hurting the unit’s overall results in any material respect. In this case, the unit could probably continue to achieve above-average results, in spite of the individual failure of one member of the unit. In this case, the primary consequence of poor performance impacts the individual, not the unit. Obviously, termination of the failing individual should not happen until all the proper and fair feedback and development work are accomplished prior to that action. Once that has been done, then the leader’s only recourse is to terminate the employment of the associate. Love here must reflect the conviction that the individual will grow as a result of the action. The proverbial, “wake-up call” may be the only action that can help the failing associate come to terms with the failure.

In addition, the positive impact on the unit members cannot be overlooked. When one unit member is permitted to fail, it is almost always true that the other members resent an unacknowledged failure. No unit member will appreciate an environment that allows one member to fail without consequence. Indeed, it is highly de-motivating for high performers to be held to one standard, while another member is permitted to survive at a significantly lower standard. Unit members will always, even if they say nothing, approve of terminating associates who do not meet the standard. It shows true love of your unit when you act to terminate an underperformer.

Our associates expect us to lead them with fairness and equality, and to be tested and evaluated against the unit standard. When we compromise, we compromise the associates who are performing. Eventually the staff’s adverse reaction will become apparent if you allow an underperformer to survive.

The key to any termination is to do it with love and with compassion. If you truly love, then all associates will respect and approve of the action. It is never easy to see a colleague terminated, and that is particularly true if his or her associates “liked the individual.” This is a classic example of why the leader cannot allow “liking” to get in the way of her vision or expectations. Standards must be established, applied fairly and they must be met. If one associate is permitted to fall short, over a protracted period of time, every other associate will eventually resent the failure of your accountability standard.