Need to exit or performance-manage someone safely? Start here
Most employment tribunal claims don’t start with bad intent.
They start with leaders who know something isn’t working, feel pressure to act, and don’t quite know how much risk is sitting underneath the decision.
If you’re facing a potential dismissal, capability process, or exit conversation and feeling uneasy, that instinct is usually right.
This is the messy middle — and it’s where outcomes are decided.
Why this stage is more dangerous than people realise
At this point, organisations often tell themselves:
“It’s just performance.”
“We’ve been patient.”
“Everyone agrees it’s not working.”
“We’ll handle it carefully.”
But this is exactly where risk quietly builds.
Common danger zones include:
long-term or intermittent sickness absence
capability drift without formal structure
protected characteristics in the background
informal conversations that haven’t been documented
managers saying different things to the same person
Individually, none of these feel catastrophic.
Together, they form the basis of many tribunal claims.
This is where reactive HR advice falls short
Traditional HR support often focuses on:
the next step in the process
the wording of a letter
whether you can dismiss
What gets missed is the bigger picture:
Should you proceed at all?
What are the weak points in your evidence?
How will this look six months from now, not just next week?
Are managers equipped to handle the conversations without creating new risk?
Most HR reacts. I design decisions that stand up later.
That difference matters most before legal action starts.
What “safe” actually means in practice
Exiting or performance-managing someone safely doesn’t mean being slow or indecisive.
It means being:
clear on the objective
proportionate in your response
consistent in treatment
disciplined with evidence
confident in manager behaviour
When those elements are in place, many situations resolve without escalation.
When they aren’t, even reasonable decisions can unravel quickly.
How I work at this stage
When I’m brought in before a dismissal or exit, my role is to help leaders pause, assess, and choose the safest route forward.
That usually starts with Risk Triage, where we:
clarify what the issue really is
identify where legal and reputational risk sits
stress-test the evidence you already have
look at alternative routes you may not have considered
decide whether to proceed, pause, or pivot
From there, I support:
decision design for capability or conduct routes
manager scripting for difficult conversations
evidence standards that hold up under scrutiny
controlled exits where settlement is the right option
This isn’t about dragging things out.
It’s about avoiding decisions that cost far more later.
Why getting this right protects more than one decision
Handled well, this stage:
protects you from future claims
protects managers from saying the wrong thing
protects culture from fear and inconsistency
protects leadership confidence
Handled badly, it often leads to:
grievances mid-process
stress-related absence
discrimination allegations
ACAS and tribunal escalation
The difference is rarely the employee.
It’s the quality of the decision-making around them.
If this is where you are right now
If you’re considering an exit, dismissal, or formal performance process and something feels high-stakes, rushed, or uncomfortable, this is the moment to slow things down.
Start with Risk Triage.
It gives you:
clarity before you act
confidence in the route you choose
a decision that stands up later
You don’t need to commit to a process yet.
You need to make sure you’re choosing the right one.
