Helping an Employee Self-evaluate Their Role
A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
When I got out of college, all I thought about is how I wanted to be a manager. An executive. However, when I rose to enter that realm and deal with personnel issues, I paused. What was I thinking? I fell in love with working with numbers, analyzing all kinds of data—both financial and non-financial. Spreadsheets never argued back. Forecast models didn’t need coaching. Variance analyses did not require emotional intelligence.
People do.
And that is where the romance of leadership meets its reckoning.
Most ambitious professionals imagine leadership as strategy, vision, influence, decision-making at altitude. What we rarely picture is sitting across from a capable, intelligent adult and realizing the role is not working. Not because they are lazy. Not because they are unethical. But because something fundamental is misaligned.
At that moment, a younger version of me might have secretly hoped they would “figure it out” and leave on their own. Clean. Quiet. No confrontation.
Experience teaches otherwise.
Leadership is not about engineering exits. It is about clarifying reality.
The higher one climbs in management, the more one discovers that personnel decisions are not side work. They are the work. Culture, performance, momentum, morale—these are human systems. If someone in a mid-level management or executive role is struggling, the consequences ripple. Teams hesitate. Decisions stall. Accountability softens. Others compensate quietly. The organization absorbs the cost.
Avoidance only compounds it.
The professional and caring way to handle misalignment begins with intellectual honesty. Before initiating any difficult conversation, a leader must ensure expectations were explicit. Was success defined? Were leadership behaviors articulated? Were outcomes measured consistently? If ambiguity existed, the fault may lie upward, not downward. Clarity is a prerequisite to accountability.
Once clarity exists, the conversation must shift from accusation to alignment. Framing matters. Saying, “You’re underperforming,” corners a person. Saying, “Let’s talk about role fit and where you do your best work,” invites reflection. Especially at the managerial and executive level, dignity and autonomy are powerful forces. Talented professionals rarely respond well to coercion, but they often respond thoughtfully to insight.
This is where courage quietly enters the room.
A leader must be able to say, calmly and respectfully, “The expectations of this role require consistent execution in these areas. We are not seeing that at the level needed. I believe in your abilities, but I am not convinced this seat aligns with your strengths.”
Notice what happens in that sentence. The person is separated from the role. Capability is affirmed. Standards remain intact. Reality is illuminated without humiliation.
When that light is turned on, adults can evaluate their situation.
At this stage, it is appropriate to present two structured paths. One is a defined improvement plan—clear metrics, defined timeline, documented expectations, and transparent consequences. This path communicates belief in growth while protecting the organization. The other path is a professional transition plan—time to explore other roles, assistance with references, perhaps even networking support. This path communicates respect for the individual while acknowledging misfit.
What should never occur is silent pressure, social isolation, or engineered discomfort designed to force resignation. Beyond the legal risks of constructive discharge, such tactics erode culture. Teams notice. Trust weakens. The leader’s credibility diminishes.
A voluntary exit that emerges from informed choice is fundamentally different from a resignation squeezed out through discomfort. In the first, the individual retains dignity and agency. In the second, everyone loses a measure of integrity.
The paradox of leadership is that the clearer and calmer one holds standards, the more often outcomes resolve themselves. When expectations are unmistakable and consequences are predictable, some professionals rise to the occasion. Others, recognizing the gap, choose to step aside. Neither outcome requires manipulation. Both require steadiness.
For analytical minds—those of us who once preferred numbers to nuance—this can feel inefficient. Human conversations lack the precision of balance sheets. Yet leadership at its highest level is a moral discipline as much as a managerial one. It asks: Are we being fair? Are we being clear? Are we protecting both the organization and the individual?
It also asks something more personal: Are we avoiding discomfort under the guise of kindness?
True care is not softness. True care is clarity delivered without cruelty.
In the end, helping someone recognize that a role is not right for them can be one of the most professional and humane acts a leader performs. It prevents prolonged frustration. It preserves team health. It allows the individual to find an environment better suited to their strengths. And it reinforces a culture where standards are real but respect is constant.
The spreadsheets still matter. The data still tells stories. But leadership’s most important analyses are human ones—patterns of behavior, alignment of strengths, trajectories of growth. And unlike financial models, these cannot be outsourced.
The young graduate who dreamed of being an executive imagined strategy and authority. The seasoned leader learns that the real work is steadier, quieter, and far more consequential: telling the truth with care, holding the line with composure, and trusting adults to choose wisely when the landscape is made clear.
That is not manipulation.
That is leadership.
Let's Talk About It, Lewis! 
You must be logged in to post a comment.