Updated October 25, 2026.
You hired someone who looked right for the role. The interviews were encouraging, the experience seemed relevant and everyone wanted to get started. Now the work is not coming together, and you are asking the uncomfortable question: did we make the wrong hire?
Before answering, be specific about what is going wrong. A missed deadline, weak technical judgment, an unclear assignment and a difficult working relationship are different problems. Treating all four as a bad hire can send you toward the wrong solution.
Start with the gap between the assignment and the results
Write down what the person was expected to deliver, what has actually happened and the effect on the business. Use examples that someone outside the situation could understand. “They are not senior enough” is an impression. “The quarterly reporting package required repeated corrections and the review was not completed on the agreed date” gives you something to discuss.
Then check the original hiring brief. Did the firm need a specialist, a manager or someone to build a function? Did that requirement change after the person arrived? A fund controller hired to oversee an administrator may need different support if the employer subsequently brings substantial accounting work in-house. That change should be acknowledged before judging the appointment.
Check what the employer has put around the hire
A strong professional still needs access, information, decision authority and a clear understanding of priorities. Ask whether the person has received the systems access, introductions and background needed to do the work. Establish who reviews their decisions and where they can go when priorities conflict.
This is particularly important in a smaller investment firm, where colleagues may assume that everyone knows how the business operates. A new employee will not necessarily know which partner must approve an expense, who owns an investor request or when outside counsel should be involved. Leaving those relationships unexplained creates avoidable friction.
Have the conversation before frustration becomes the narrative
Tell the employee which outcomes are falling short and why they matter. Ask how they understand the assignment and what is getting in the way. You may learn that they lack a required capability. You may also discover a conflicting instruction, a resource problem or an assumption that was never made explicit.
Neither side benefits from vague reassurance. Agree on the next piece of work, the standard it must meet, the support available and when you will review it. Follow the firm’s performance process and involve the appropriate manager or HR professional. The aim is a fair assessment based on observable work.
Distinguish a learning curve from a fundamental mismatch
Someone can need time to learn a new investment strategy or reporting system while already showing sound judgment and taking feedback well. That is different from repeatedly making the same material error without recognizing it. Look for evidence of progress, not simply the passage of time.
For example, consider a hypothetical finance hire who is new to the firm’s administrator. Early delays may improve once responsibilities and review points are clarified. If the person cannot evaluate the output or identify significant issues after appropriate instruction and support, the concern is more fundamental. The same missed deadline can therefore require different responses.
Avoid an arbitrary deadline for every situation
There is no single number of days that makes a performance decision correct. The work, the seriousness of the gap and the consequences of waiting all matter. A concern involving judgment, controls or conduct may need prompt escalation through the firm’s established channels. A manageable development need may justify a defined period of coaching.
Be clear about who owns the decision. Colleagues covering the work need direction, and the employee needs to know what improvement would look like. Waiting without a plan can turn one person’s performance problem into uncertainty for the wider team.
If the role needs to change, address that openly
Sometimes the individual is capable but the job was designed badly. The employer may have combined responsibilities that require different experience, or recruited for a title without agreeing on the work underneath it. A revised remit or different allocation of responsibilities can be worth considering when it fits the business and the people involved.
Sometimes the mismatch remains. Any employment decision should follow the firm’s policies and appropriate HR and legal guidance. From a hiring perspective, the next step is to understand what the search needs to do differently. Replacing the person against the same unclear brief can repeat the problem.
What Ramax would want to understand before restarting the search
We would begin with what the business needed, what the previous process tested and what became clear only after the hire. Which responsibilities were understated? Which assumptions about resources or authority proved wrong? Which interview questions produced useful evidence, and which merely confirmed that everyone liked the candidate?
Those answers can improve the next role description, interview plan and onboarding process. Our article on defining the work before making a senior hire explores that starting point. You can also review resources for financial services hiring managers and how Ramax approaches a search.
If you are unsure whether the issue is the person, the role or the expectations around it, start a conversation with Ramax. A clearer brief is useful whether you improve the current arrangement or decide another search is needed.
