When a Team Member Underperforms—but Has Organizational Capital
Some of the most damaging performance problems have nothing to do with who you hired. They’re about members of your team you’re not allowed to remove.
I’ve seen this time and again in my coaching work with executives: A leader inherits someone in a critical role who isn’t delivering, but replacing them isn’t an option. Maybe they’re close to the person in charge. Maybe they’ve been there so long that removing them would put years of client trust at risk, or maybe it just isn’t worth the political capital. I call this person “untouchable.” Because the leader can’t remove them, replace them, or fully hold them accountable, they’re left managing around the problem instead of solving it. The result is an accountability gap: The leader owns the results but lacks the authority to address the employee whose performance is holding the team back.
That’s exactly what happened to a client of mine, who I’ll call Alex. Two years into her role as chief revenue officer, she couldn’t rely on her VP of sales, who I’ll call Jerry, to operate at the level the role required of him. The company missed revenue targets, customer issues went unresolved, and key accounts weren’t getting the attention they needed.
On top of her leadership responsibilities, Alex found herself stepping in to take on Jerry’s work: asking reps to escalate customer issues directly to her, joining high-potential sales calls, and inspecting the pipeline to see whether there was enough sales activity to hit their revenue goals. Despite repeated performance discussions, Jerry stayed in place—deep ties to the CEO, who I’ll call Anjali, protected him—and Alex took full responsibility for results she didn’t have the resources to deliver.
When working with clients facing the same situation as Alex, I’ve found that trying to change what’s out of your control or to take on all the work yourself drains valuable time and energy. A more effective response is to become intentional about where you invest your capacity. The following strategies can help any leader in this position identify their constraints and maximize their impact by deciding where to intervene and where to push back.
Identify the constraint.
Before you decide someone is “untouchable,” make sure that’s really the constraint, and not a label you’re reaching for because the alternative (a difficult conversation or a tough call) feels harder. There are plenty of people who may seem hard to move—people who are influential among their colleagues or who have strong relationships up the chain of command—but are still subject to organizational standards. Someone who is “protected” is different in that there are genuinely no consequences for their actions, which is why making moves to get rid of them without leadership backing tends to backfire. I’ve seen this play out with clients: Leadership downplays the situation, and you’re left looking like you’ve blown things out of proportion—spending your own credibility on a fight you can’t win.
To figure out if the person you’re dealing with is “untouchable,” first look at what the organization has already shown you. Have you clearly raised the broader pattern with your boss—or only flagged one or two isolated performance issues? If you haven’t directly explained that this person’s behavior is an ongoing problem, start there. If you have, look at what happened next: Was the issue addressed as it would have been for anyone else, or did this person get a pass? Have others tried to hold them accountable—and what happened to them? Does someone above you benefit from keeping them where they are?
If leadership understands the pattern but enforcement remains uneven, speaking up has backfired for others, or someone influential benefits from the status quo, you’re likely dealing with someone who is protected.
The next step is to identify what is protecting the person. This is your biggest constraint and understanding it will help you decide which actions to take next. When coaching clients in this situation, we typically find the untouchable team member is protected by one or more of the following factors. Here’s how to tell which may be at play:
Nepotism or a close personal relationship with the CEO or another senior leader: The main argument against removing the team member is that a particular leader would object—not that the person’s performance or business impact justifies keeping them.
A halo from past performance: The main argument against removing the team member is their record of past success, even though their recent performance no longer meets expectations.
Perceived embeddedness in the business: The main argument against removing the team member is that their knowledge and relationships would be difficult to replace, despite them not delivering day-to-day.
For Alex, the issue was twofold. Her underperformer Jerry had a twenty-five-year relationship with the CEO, Anjali, and status as one of a small number of founding employees. Because of this, Anjali saw him through the lens of what he had once meant to the company as opposed to what the VP role now required. Naming those two constraints—a close personal relationship and a halo from past contributions—helped Alex see that another feedback conversation would not solve her problem. She needed to take a different approach.
Test what leadership will reinforce.
Alex knew Anjali would not remove Jerry. But that didn’t necessarily mean Anjali would refuse to hold him to any standard whatsoever. Before deciding what to do next, she needed to find out whether the CEO would back one specific expectation.
That’s also your next step. Meet with the leader whose support is needed to enforce consequences—Anjali in Alex’s case, or whoever has blocked action in yours—and ask them to support the person’s adhering to one narrow, concrete standard, like answering client emails within 24 hours or meeting a deadline for an important project milestone. Focus on a change that will reduce the harm caused by your team member’s underperformance, rather than presenting a list of grievances. A single, clear request is harder to sidestep and makes it easier to see whether the leader is willing to support any change at all.
Be sure to ask what the leader is willing to do publicly, as vague or private support won’t make much of a difference.
Alex asked Anjali to back one expectation: that the VP join reps on key sales calls for the new product launch and meet monthly with both Anjali and herself to discuss progress and risks. Anjali agreed and the first update was scheduled. But it kept getting pushed back until Anjali’s assistant relayed that they should handle it by email instead—an email Jerry never sent. That told Alex what she needed to know—she could not rely on Anjali’s reinforcement.
This approach also worked for my client who I’ll call Paul, the leader of distribution at a boutique investment firm. When one of his sales reps missed a target, the firm’s co-founders paid the rep his full bonus anyway, leaving Paul responsible for sales results without the authority to enforce consequences. Paul asked the co-founders to agree, in writing, that if the rep missed his goal again, he would have a set amount of time to improve and his bonus would be reduced. One co-founder then joined Paul in explaining the new standard to the rep.
The agreement put the co-founders on record. At the next bonus cycle, they would either have to follow through or go back on what they had agreed to. Either way, Paul would learn whether he could truly count on their support.
Pay close attention to whether the leader makes a concrete commitment or avoids one. A clear commitment gives you something to act on, while deflection tells you the constraint is firmer than you hoped. If leadership follows through, use that support to hold the person to the agreed-upon standard. If it doesn’t, stop focusing on changing the person and start changing the system around them.
Redistribute control over critical work.
There are many ways to limit the negative impact of your protected team member, without starting a political fight you can’t win. I’ve found it effective to start by identifying where the authority that comes with their role gives them too much control: the decisions only they can make, the information only they can access, and the priorities they can set without input from others.
Then, use that information to reduce the organization’s dependence on them. The goal is to give more people a role in overseeing critical work and make sure the most important tasks get done, without hiding what the protected leader is failing to do. If a critical responsibility is not being met—a major campaign launch stalls or a key client goes unmanaged for weeks—involve others beyond the protected leader who have the knowledge and capacity to step in as backup or take on the work themselves if necessary. Resist the default urge to do it yourself, as it will pull you away from the leadership responsibilities only you can do. Instead, stay close without stepping in. Hold regular cross-functional check-ins where these project owners share progress, deadlines, and problems directly with the group, so the work runs through a shared forum rather than the protected leader alone.
I saw this strategy work with a client who I’ll call Andrew, a newly-hired chief operating officer. His direct report, who I’ll call John, was a long-tenured leader who had once overseen both business development and operations. John still carried significant influence with the CEO. Andrew couldn’t remove John, but he could change how operational priorities were evaluated. He created a cross-functional executive committee to weigh in on which projects to prioritize and where to invest resources. Running these decisions through the committee, rather than between the two of them, defused the power struggle.
Asking other team members to take on critical responsibilities can keep them from being neglected, but note that reassigning every gap can also overburden your team and be unsustainable. Even after you’ve distributed what your team can reasonably take on, some gaps will inevitably land on you. The question is whether you’re choosing what to take on or just picking up the pieces of what the protected team member leaves unresolved.
Decide what you’ll carry.
Not every gap that lands on you deserves your time, so before stepping in, get clear on which ones do. Some issues carry real financial, legal, reputational, or operational consequences. The exact risk will depend on your role or industry, but might look like losing a client, missing a compliance deadline, or letting a major deal fall through. Cases like these genuinely require your involvement, either because they’re too sensitive to hand off to other team members or because they can cause irreversible damage if left undone.
There’s a fine line, however, between necessary intervention and becoming a permanent safety net. Before stepping in, ask yourself whether not doing a given task creates real risk—lost revenue, a compliance miss, or reputational damage. If not, don’t step in, even if the task is familiar or enjoyable. The business doesn’t need you there.
When you do decide to step in, put limits around your involvement and be clear with your own manager, ideally in writing. Tell them what you plan to own, what risk you’re protecting against, how long you’ll stay involved, and what outcome will tell you it’s time to step back. You should also mention what you’re deprioritizing in your current workload to cover these gaps. That transparency will keep the protected team member’s shortfalls from becoming a permanent part of your job. It also protects you. If the same issue keeps resurfacing, you’ll have a clear record that your intervention isn’t a one-time favor, but a pattern the organization needs to address.
To see what this looks like in practice, let’s return to Alex. She found herself stepping in to fill Jerry’s gaps to keep revenue and customer issues on track. Some of that intervention was necessary. Yet after reflection, she realized she had taken too much on herself. Her reliability had become a liability because it made his underperformance easier for Anjali to tolerate.
For Alex, the shift was not, “I won’t step in anymore.” It was, “I will be clear about why I’m stepping in, how long I’m doing it, and what I’m no longer willing to carry.” She still protected the business from anything irreversible, but stopped covering Jerry’s routine misses. When Anjali asked why the pipeline wasn’t converting to revenue as forecasted and why the most experienced reps were frustrated, Alec let Jerry answer for himself, rather than filtering it through her. Eventually, Jerry was moved into an individual contributor role, with the same pay and title as a legacy benefit, but in a position where he could do little damage.
Hold the line.
Once you decide what you will carry, address it with your team directly—Don’t let them guess why the rules seem to bend for one person. When standards are applied inconsistently from the top, people may eventually start asking: “Why should I uphold expectations that are not applied fairly?”
Don’t try to convince them the situation is fair. You can’t. But fair process matters more than a fair outcome—people are often more willing to accept a decision they dislike when the process around it is transparent. Raise it during an existing forum where expectations are discussed, such as a quarterly business review, rather than scheduling a separate meeting, so you’re not putting more spotlight on the exception. Then, acknowledge what your team can already see, before it becomes something they discuss without you: “I understand why this feels frustrating. I can’t discuss another person’s situation, but I can be clear about what I expect from this team.”
The protected leader may be the exception, but your job is to ensure the exception doesn’t become the rule. Show people what strong ownership and follow-through look like, and make a point of publicly praising the behaviors you want to see repeated.
While Jerry was in the role, Alex made sure to hold everyone else accountable for meeting expectations. This included raising concerns early in one-on-ones and recognizing those who were delivering in front of the entire team.
. . .
The hardest part of leadership is accepting that a problem may not be fully yours to solve, even though the consequences are still yours to manage. If you’re managing a protected team member, they may never become the leader you need. What you can do is this: Make the trade-offs visible, decide what you will take on, and make sure the exception doesn’t become the rule for everyone else.