Skill Gaps vs. Values Gaps: Mark O’Donnell’s Framework for Employee Decisions

In a recent LinkedIn post, Mark O’Donnell offers a nuanced perspective on a common and often difficult leadership challenge: when to terminate an employee. O’Donnell, a business advisor, frames the decision not as an immediate reaction to performance issues, but as a diagnostic process to distinguish between trainable skill deficits and unchangeable character or values gaps.

The core of O’Donnell’s advice centers on a crucial question leaders should ask themselves before letting someone go: “Is this who they are, or just what they haven’t learned yet?” He suggests that many situations perceived as performance problems are, in reality, a lack of adequate training or coaching.

“What looks like a performance problem is usually just a training one.”

O’Donnell emphasizes that only two factors truly matter when evaluating an employee’s potential for improvement: their coachability and their alignment with the company’s core values. He argues that other performance metrics become secondary if these foundational elements are not present.

Distinguishing Trainable Skills from Inherent Values

The post breaks down common workplace scenarios, differentiating between issues that can be addressed through training and those that signal a need for separation. For instance, O’Donnell highlights several situations where training is the recommended approach.

Scenarios Favoring Training and Coaching

• Chronic Lateness: O’Donnell points out that punctuality is a skill that can be taught. “Most people don’t realize being on time is a skill. Teach it before you judge it,” he advises.
• Missed Deadlines with Solutions: Employees who consistently miss deadlines but proactively offer solutions are seen by O’Donnell as valuable. “That’s someone worth investing in,” he states, suggesting that their problem-solving ability outweighs the timeliness issue, which can likely be coached.
• Process Deviations with High Performance: When an employee bypasses established processes but achieves superior results, O’Donnell suggests coaching them while also critically examining the existing process. “There’s a good chance their way is better than yours, and your process needs the update,” he notes.
• Unmet Targets: For employees failing to hit targets, O’Donnell advocates for training. However, he also posits that the manager might require training if they haven’t established accountability structures.

When Separation Becomes Necessary

Conversely, O’Donnell outlines specific circumstances where letting an employee go is the more appropriate action, primarily when core values or fundamental behavioral issues are at play.

Situations Warranting Termination

• Negative Impact on Morale: A top performer who consistently degrades team morale is a critical concern. O’Donnell warns, “Some are coachable. Most aren’t. Left alone, they become a cancer that spreads through the whole organization.”
• Repeated Public Disagreement: While acknowledging that dissent can sometimes be valid, O’Donnell identifies repeated public disagreements as a potential values issue. He suggests initial coaching on workplace norms, but if the behavior persists, it often indicates a fundamental misalignment that necessitates termination.

The underlying pattern, as O’Donnell articulates, is clear: “Skill gaps are trainable. Values gaps are not.” He concludes that investing in employees who share core values but need skill development is wise, whereas individuals whose issues stem from their fundamental character are unlikely to change through coaching. Delaying such decisions, he cautions, incurs significant costs to the rest of the team.

“If someone shares your core values and just needs to get better, you train them. If the issue is who they are rather than what they know, no amount of coaching fixes that.”

O’Donnell prompts leaders to consider what signs indicate an employee is coachable, encouraging a more thoughtful and less reactive approach to personnel decisions.