What to Do When Your First Hire Is Not Working Out

Pause before you act

The instinct when a first hire is not working out is often to move quickly, either to fix the problem immediately or to end the arrangement before things get worse. Both instincts are understandable but risky if acted on without first working out what is actually going wrong. A genuinely poor fit and a role that was never properly defined can look identical from the outside — missed deadlines, unclear output, a founder feeling like they are managing more, not less — but they call for completely different responses.

Before deciding anything, take a step back and honestly review three things: what was actually communicated to this person about expectations, what support and feedback they have genuinely received so far, and whether the standard you are measuring them against was ever written down anywhere they could see it. This is not about excusing poor performance; it is about making sure any decision you take next is based on a fair and accurate diagnosis rather than frustration.

Diagnosing the real problem

A surprising number of 'poor first hire' situations trace back to gaps that sit with the business rather than the individual: a role that was never clearly defined, so the person has been guessing at priorities; onboarding that skipped structured training, so gaps in ability are really gaps in what they were taught; or a founder who has been too busy to give regular feedback, so small issues went unaddressed until they became large ones. None of these mean the person was a poor hire; they mean the conditions for success were not in place.

To check this, look honestly at your own side of the arrangement first. Was there a written role brief with clear success measures? Did onboarding follow a real plan, or was it improvised? Have you given specific, timely feedback on the actual problems, or has frustration built silently until now? If the honest answer to most of these is no, the fair next step is usually to fix these gaps and give a proper, supported chance to improve, before concluding the person themselves is the problem.

• Was the role clearly defined in writing, with observable success measures?
• Did onboarding follow a real, structured plan rather than being improvised?
• Has specific, timely feedback been given on the actual issues, rather than left to build up silently?
• Have they had genuine support and a fair opportunity to improve once problems were raised?
• Is the standard being applied consistent with what was actually communicated to them, not a standard only in your head?

If the gaps are fixable: give a genuine opportunity to improve

If the diagnosis points to fixable gaps, address them directly and give the person a genuine, time-bound opportunity to improve. This means a specific conversation naming the actual issues, a written note of what was discussed so there is a record for both sides, clear and achievable expectations for a defined period ahead, and the support needed to meet them, whether that is closer supervision, further training, or simply clearer written guidance on what is expected.

This process protects everyone. It gives the individual a fair chance, which is both the right thing to do and a legal expectation in most performance-related situations. It also protects you: if the situation does not improve despite a genuine opportunity, you will have a clear, documented record showing that the process was fair, which matters considerably if the situation later needs to progress to a formal process or ends in dismissal.

1. Name the specific issues clearly and factually in a direct conversation.
2. Follow up in writing with a brief summary of what was discussed and agreed.
3. Set clear, achievable expectations for a defined improvement period.
4. Provide the support needed to meet those expectations, not just the expectation itself.
5. Review formally at the end of the period, with a written record of the outcome.

If it is genuinely not the right fit

Sometimes, even with a properly defined role, good onboarding and honest feedback, the fit is genuinely not right. This happens, and it is not a moral failure on anyone's part. What matters at this point is following a fair and correctly documented process for ending the employment, because how you handle this stage carries real legal weight, regardless of the size of your business.

If the employee is still within their probation period, ending the employment is generally more straightforward, though you should still check the notice period set out in the contract and confirm the reason is genuinely performance or fit related rather than anything that could be construed as discriminatory. Even during probation, employees generally retain some basic statutory rights, so it is worth checking current Acas guidance on ending employment during probation before acting, rather than assuming probation means no process is required at all.

Probation makes the process simpler, not exempt. Follow it properly, in writing, every time.

After probation: capability and conduct processes

Once probation has passed, dismissing someone for performance reasons requires following a fair capability process, and dismissing for behaviour reasons requires a fair conduct or disciplinary process. Both generally involve clear communication of the problem, a genuine opportunity to respond and improve, written warnings where appropriate, and a right for the employee to be accompanied at formal meetings. Skipping these steps, even with a genuinely poor performer, significantly increases the risk of a successful unfair dismissal claim, and length of service can affect which specific protections apply, so this is an area worth checking against current Acas guidance or taking direct professional advice on before acting, particularly for a first-time employer with no HR support to fall back on.

This is also the point where getting proper advice, whether from an employment solicitor, a HR consultant familiar with small businesses, or your accountant if they have relevant experience, is genuinely worth the cost. The financial and time cost of a badly handled dismissal, including a possible tribunal claim, is very often far higher than the cost of an hour of professional advice beforehand.

Documenting as you go

Whatever stage you are at, keep a simple written record as things happen: dates of conversations, what was discussed, what was agreed, and any follow-up. This should not feel like building a legal case against someone; it is simply an accurate account of what actually happened, which protects both parties if memories differ later or if the situation escalates. Founders who only start documenting once they have already decided to dismiss someone tend to have a much weaker, more obviously reconstructed record than those who documented honestly throughout.

What to change before your next hire

Once the immediate situation is resolved, it is worth a genuinely honest review of what happened and why, separate from any emotional relief or frustration at the time. If the role was undefined, fix that before advertising again. If onboarding was rushed or improvised, build a proper plan next time. If feedback was infrequent, build in a regular check-in cadence from day one of the next hire. A poor first hire experience, looked at honestly, is one of the most useful pieces of management information a founder can get, and it is far better used to improve the next hire than treated as proof that hiring itself does not work for your business.