How CTOs can replace underperforming developers?

Replacing an underperforming developer is rarely just an HR problem. It’s usually a systems problem showing up in one person’s output: unclear priorities, oversized tickets, noisy interruptions, slow feedback loops, weak developer experience, or a codebase that makes every change harder than it should be. If you “solve” it by firing fast, you might remove a symptom while keeping the causes.

A better CTO approach is: diagnose first, improve the system, set clear expectations, then decide whether to coach, reposition, or replace. The bonus: you end up with a healthier organization that produces value faster, not a revolving door.

Step 1: Define underperformance in terms of outcomes, not activity

Most teams get stuck because they measure the wrong things (tickets closed, story points, lines of code). Those can be gamed and often punish good engineering.

Start by aligning on what “good” looks like using a small set of outcome-oriented signals:

1. Business value - Does the work measurably improve business KPIs (revenue, conversion, cost savings, churn, customer satisfaction)?
2. Speed to market - How quickly do ideas turn into production impact?
3. Delivery reliability - Are changes stable, or do they create incidents and rework?
4. Team health - Is the pace sustainable without burnout and attrition?

If you don’t define outcomes clearly, you risk labeling someone “underperforming” when they’re actually blocked by process, tooling, or ambiguous goals.

Step 2: Check whether the system is setting developers up to fail

Before you focus on a person, audit the environment. A lot of performance issues are caused by information transfer and coordination problems, not laziness.

Run a quick diagnostic using three angles:

A) flow and interruptions

If people are working on too many things at once, performance collapses. Protect focus, reduce context switching, and limit work in progress.

B) state of the codebase

“The team is slow” can simply mean the codebase is old, complex, and integration-heavy. If small changes require large refactors or break easily, you’ll see “underperformance” everywhere. In that scenario, investing in modernization or targeted refactoring can be more effective than replacing individuals.

C) motivation and ownership

Motivation, frustration, and lack of ownership can dominate output differences. A developer who looks “slow” may be stuck in unclear requirements, weak feedback loops, or constant firefighting.

If your diagnostic shows systemic constraints (big batch sizes, unclear priorities, constant context switching, fragile CI/CD), fix those in parallel. Otherwise you’ll replace people and still be slow.

Step 3: Establish a fair baseline with a short performance snapshot

You need a baseline that is objective enough to have a respectful conversation.

A simple 2–3 week snapshot can include:

• lead time for changes and PR cycle time
• deployment frequency and stability signals (change failure rate, time to recover)
• planned vs completed work ratio
• code review responsiveness and rework rate

Important: do this at the team level first. Individual measurement should be used carefully and only after you’ve made the system reasonable.

Step 4: Have the conversation early, clearly, and with evidence

When you suspect underperformance, don’t wait three months and then explode. Schedule a direct 1:1 and keep it factual:

• what outcome is not being met
• concrete examples
• impact (delays, rework, incidents, team load)
• what “good” looks like in the next 2–4 weeks
• what support you’ll provide

Also ask what’s in their way. Performance improves quickly when blockers are removed and goals are clarified.

A good rule: if you can’t clearly explain what success looks like next week, your team likely has a planning and scope problem, not a people problem.

Step 5: Choose the right intervention: coach, reposition, or replace

In practice, underperformance usually falls into one of these buckets:

1. Skill gap
2. They haven’t done this level/type of work before. Intervention: structured upskilling, pairing, smaller scoped ownership, explicit feedback loops.
3. Role mismatch
4. They are strong, but in the wrong seat (a builder stuck doing support; a backend specialist forced into frontend; a senior engineer doing junior work and disengaging). Intervention: reposition into a better fit, change responsibilities, adjust expectations.
5. Low ownership / Low reliability
6. They consistently fail to deliver, avoid accountability, or create repeated incidents without learning.

Intervention: time-boxed improvement plan. If no change, replace.

The key is fairness and speed: be supportive, but don’t drag the process for months while the team suffers.

Step 6: Put a short improvement plan in place (2–6 weeks)

If you might replace someone, you need a fair process that also protects delivery. Keep it short and measurable.

A good improvement plan has:

• 2–3 clear outcomes tied to real work (not generic behavior goals)
• a definition of “done” and acceptance criteria
• weekly checkpoints
• a support plan (pairing, clearer tickets, reduced WIP)
• a decision date

This forces clarity. If you can’t define success in concrete terms, the issue is often your work breakdown, not the person.

Practical examples of measurable outcomes:

• deliver feature X to production with agreed acceptance criteria
• reduce rework on module Y by implementing tests and fixing top recurring defects
• improve PR turnaround (e.g., smaller PRs, fewer review cycles) on a defined area

Step 7: If you replace, do it in a way that reduces risk to delivery

Replacement can mean several things:

A) replace with a hire

Best for long-term stability, slower to execute.

B) replace with a contractor / staff augmentation

Best when you need speed and a trial period. You can validate output quickly and reduce hiring risk. If your roadmap is blocked and you need experienced people who can integrate into your process, staff augmentation can be the fastest safe move.

C) replace by restructuring work

Sometimes you don’t need a new person; you need fewer projects, smaller batch sizes, or better platform tooling.|

Also consider a “hybrid” approach: keep hiring for the long term, but bridge the gap with an outsourcing partner so delivery doesn’t stall. If you need a partner to take ownership of a bounded scope (modules, integrations, subsystems), this is typically handled through a structured outsourcing engagement.

Step 8: Prevent the next underperformer by fixing the root causes

Replacing someone should leave the organization better than before. Otherwise you’ll repeat the cycle.

High-leverage prevention moves:

• reduce interruptions and context switching
• keep work small and well-defined
• strengthen CI/CD and feedback loops
• invest in the “state of code” so changes stay cheap
• align incentives with outcomes, not activity
• make ownership explicit (who owns what, and what “done” means)

A simple but powerful preventive habit: after every delivery miss, ask “which part of the system made it hard to succeed?” If the answer is always “the person,” you’re probably missing the real constraints.

A simple decision rule for CTOs

• if performance improves after you clarify outcomes and remove blockers, it was a system issue or skill gap
• if performance doesn’t improve with clear outcomes, support, and a time-boxed plan, replace

This is fair to the developer and responsible to the business.

Conclusion

CTOs don’t replace underperforming developers to punish people. They replace when the cost of waiting exceeds the cost of change, and when coaching or repositioning has failed. The best CTOs use the moment to improve the system: clearer outcomes, better flow, less friction, and measurement that reflects value.

If you’re currently dealing with delivery slowdowns, hiring constraints, or a growing backlog, you can also explore real delivery patterns and team scaling examples in our portfolio.