Are You Paying the Avoidance Tax? 

Hard conversations don’t come naturally to me. They never have. It’s something I’ve had to learn how to do, practice, and get better at over years—not a strength I started with. 

I know exactly why it doesn’t come naturally: I’m a high D, high I on the DISC assessment. The D in me wants the problem gone, fast—no lingering, no half-measures. The I in me wants everyone to still like me afterward. A hard conversation means picking one of those, not both, and I’ve spent more weeks than I’d like trying to find a third option that doesn’t exist. 

I’m Stephanie Everett. I run Lawyerist Lab, and I hear this exact hesitation from owners constantly. I’ve been there myself: I let a performance problem run four months longer than I should have, because having the conversation felt harder than living with the problem. By the time I finally dealt with it, the only option left was letting the person go—someone who, with an earlier conversation, might have fixed whatever was actually wrong. Might have. That’s the tax. 

If any of this sounds familiar, congratulations: you already know what needs to happen. You’re just waiting for permission. 

We call this the Avoidance Tax, and it isn’t unique to firing decisions—a hard conversation, a boundary, a phone call you’ve been putting off all pay the same tax. Every day you delay, you pay a little more: in energy, in credibility, in options that were open a month ago. Not anymore. 

Feedback Has a Limit 

Sometimes one conversation is all that’s needed. The person hears you, adjusts, and that’s the end of the matter. 

Sometimes that’s not enough. Performance improves for a couple of weeks and slides back, you have the conversation again, and you get the same result. 

If you’ve had essentially the same talk more than twice without anything sticking, you’re not dealing with a communication gap anymore. You’re dealing with a fit problem, and no amount of additional feedback closes that. 

Ending things doesn’t mean you gave up too early. It means you finally believed what the pattern was already telling you. 

The Real Cost of Waiting 

Think about whoever on your team is covering for the person you haven’t dealt with yet. It’s not the extra work that wears them down—it’s watching nothing change while they do it. Five or six hours a week, easily, on top of their own job, and nobody officially asked them to take any of it on. 

At first they say something. Then they stop, not because it stopped bothering them, but because they’ve decided they don’t want to be the one who’s always complaining. 

They’re keeping score too, noticing exactly who gets held to the standard and who doesn’t. 

That’s before anyone resigns. When they do, you lose more than staffing—you lose what they knew, the relationships they’d built, and months while someone new gets up to speed. Waiting isn’t the cautious move here. Waiting is the costly one. 

The Kindness Trap 

Most owners don’t avoid this decision because they’re careless. Delaying feels kind: one more chance, a little more patience, a little more time to see if things turn around. 

I understand the impulse, but kindness isn’t really what’s driving it. Delaying is easier, and less scary. It’s the professional equivalent of leaving a note under someone’s windshield wiper instead of knocking on their door: technically you said something, but you also made sure you wouldn’t have to watch their face while you delivered the news. 

Delaying doesn’t make the cost disappear. The cost just moves somewhere else. The person doesn’t get the clarity to go find a role where they’d actually succeed, your team doesn’t get the relief of watching the standard hold, and you don’t get to be the leader who handled the problem early, while the problem was still small. 

The kindest thing you can do is tell them clearly, while there’s still time and dignity in how the conversation happens. Waiting doesn’t make the moment easier on them. Waiting only delays the moment, with less goodwill left by the time that moment arrives. 

Handling the Exit Well 

By this point, the decision’s usually already made. There’s a four-step path we walk through in our book, Be a Next Level Leader: The Four Cornerstones of Law Firm Leadership: 

1. A direct conversation 

2. A follow-up conversation if the first one didn’t stick 

3. A formal written plan with a real review period 

4. If none of that produces change, an exit. 

If you’ve genuinely done the first three, what’s left is executing well, and that means a real transition plan, honest communication with the rest of the team, and treating the person with respect on the way out, even now. 

Executing well also means not confusing “this is hard” with “this is wrong.” Ending a relationship that isn’t working is rarely comfortable, and that discomfort is usually just what the right call feels like when you’ve delayed the decision for a while. 

What to Do This Week 

The Avoidance Tax compounds the same way whether the delay is a firing decision, a rate increase, or a policy you won’t enforce. 

Name the problem you’ve been sitting on. Out loud, to yourself, in specific terms—not “things are a little off,” but “I’ve had this conversation twice, nothing’s changed, and I’m still hoping the third time is different.” 

Then ask what that problem is actually costing you: not in dollars necessarily, but in the redone work, the attention you spend every time their name comes up on your calendar, and what somebody else on your team is absorbing so you don’t have to. 

How do I know if this is a real performance problem or just a rough patch? 

Look at the pattern, not the moment. A bad week is an exception inside an otherwise solid track record; a performance problem is a line that keeps landing in the same place, conversation after conversation. 

What if I haven’t given clear feedback yet? 

Then that’s your next step, not termination. You can’t fairly hold someone to a standard they were never clearly told about. 

What’s the risk of letting someone go without a long paper trail? 

Skipping the earlier steps is the real risk. A direct conversation, a follow-up, and a written plan protect both sides and make the eventual call defensible. 

What if this person is genuinely well-liked on the team? 

That’s often exactly why owners wait too long. Your team is watching how you handle this more closely than you’d think, and an unaddressed gap costs you more credibility with your best people than a fair, well-handled exit ever will. 

How do I tell if I’m being too harsh instead of appropriately decisive? 

Ask whether you’ve given real feedback, real time, and real support. If the answer is yes and nothing’s changed, holding the line is fair—to the person, to the team, and to you. 

What if letting them go leaves a gap I can’t fill right away? 

A staffing gap is temporary and solvable. An unaddressed performance issue is a permanent drag on everyone nearby, and short-term coverage is almost always cheaper than the long-term erosion of leaving the problem alone. 

Can Lawyerist Lab help me think through a decision like this? 

Yes. Your Lawyerist Lab business strategist can help you map out the conversations you need to have before you get to this point, and talk through the decision itself once you’re already here, so you’re not making the call alone.