The Real Cost of Avoiding Difficult Decisions in the Workplace
- Grant Wilkinson
- Jun 15
- 4 min read
In over a decade of advising organisations, I’ve come to a consistent — and uncomfortable — conclusion:
Most labour law problems are not caused by wrong decisions. They are caused by decisions that were made too late.
It’s rarely a case of employers not knowing what to do.
More often, they hesitate on when to do it.
The Pattern: Delay, Drift, and Escalation
The pattern is familiar across industries:
A manager notices declining performance
A team member becomes increasingly disruptive
Misconduct occurs, but is “handled informally”
HR is aware — but waits for “more evidence”
Leadership hopes the issue will resolve itself
And for a while, it seems manageable. Until it isn’t.
By the time formal steps are taken:
The conduct has worsened
The workplace is already impacted
Emotions are entrenched
And critically, the employer’s own conduct has become inconsistent
At that point, the legal risk has already crystallised.
Why Delay Becomes a Legal Problem
South African labour law does not penalise employers for taking action.
It penalises employers for failing to act fairly, consistently, and timeously.
The Code of Good Practice: Dismissal (Schedule 8 to the LRA) sets the tone:
Employers must act promptly when misconduct occurs;
Discipline must be applied consistently;
Sanctions must be progressive and proportionate.
Delay undermines all three.
Delay weakens evidence
Witness recollection fades. Documentation becomes patchy. Events become harder to reconstruct.
At arbitration, this translates into: Reduced credibility > Contradictions > Doubt, which is usually resolved in favour of the employee
Delay creates inconsistency
Perhaps the most significant risk. If an employer is aware of misconduct but:
Takes no action initially
Tolerates the behaviour
Only later imposes discipline
The inevitable question at the CCMA becomes: “Why now?”
That question is often fatal to the employer’s case.
Case law has consistently confirmed: An employer who tolerates misconduct may be seen to have waived the right to discipline or at least weakened its position.
Delay distorts the nature of the problem
What starts as:
A performance issue
Can evolve into:
A misconduct charge
Or vice versa. This creates legal misalignment.
For example:
Poor performance (incapacity) requires counselling, guidance, and opportunity to improve
Misconduct requires proof of breach of a rule and culpability
When employers delay, they often misclassify the issue, choosing the wrong legal pathway.
And this is one of the most common reasons dismissals fail.
The Hidden Business Cost of Avoidance
Beyond legal risk, there is a deeper cost that executives need to consider.
Cultural erosion
Employees are acutely aware of inaction.
When poor behaviour or performance is tolerated:
Standards drop
Accountability weakens
High performers disengage
Leadership credibility is undermined
Leaders who avoid difficult decisions send a clear message:
“We don’t act when it matters.”
Once that perception takes hold, it is difficult to reverse.
Problems compound — not resolve
Issues rarely self-correct.
They escalate:
Interpersonal conflict grows
Operational impact increases
Teams become divided
By the time action is taken, the intervention required is often far more severe than it needed to be.
What the Best Organisations Do Differently
The most effective organisations I work with do not avoid difficult decisions.
They structure it for them.
They equip line managers to act early:
Clear policies
Practical training (not just theory)
Confidence in handling conversations
They differentiate clearly:
Misconduct vs incapacity
Negligence vs poor performance
Once-off vs repeated behaviour
They act proportionately — but timeously:
Early intervention
Documented processes
Fair, but decisive action
A Practical Framework for Leaders
Before delaying action, ask:
What is the issue — really?
Conduct or capability?
What does fairness require?
Have we addressed this early enough?
What precedent are we setting?
If we don’t act now, can we act later?
Would this decision withstand CCMA scrutiny
Not just legally, but factually and consistently
Final Reflection
South African labour law is often viewed as restrictive.
In reality, it is structurally fair to both the employer and the employee.
It allows for decisive action. But it requires that action to be the following: fair, consistent, and importantly, timely.
The real risk is not making a difficult decision.
The real risk is waiting until it is too late to make it properly.
Question for Leaders
What is the one issue in your organisation right now that you already know requires intervention — but has been left unaddressed?
Because in labour law — and in leadership — delay is rarely neutral. It is usually costly.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on protected disclosures, employment practices, or compliance obligations, consult a qualified labour law practitioner.
© 2026 Global Business Solutions (GBS). All rights reserved.
If you’re looking for a practical way to build AI capability this year, the AI Compass Capacitation Programme offers a structured 6-month learning journey for professionals across business functions. Running from July 2026 to January 2027, the programme covers AI foundations, prompting, practical AI tools, Microsoft Copilot, process thinking, automation, bot building, and AI law and governance, with a strong focus on real-world application. Learn more about Intake 2 and how to register here.
View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events and Qualifications, like AI Compass Intake 2, B-BBEE: SED: From Charity to Change, Double-Barrel Webinar: Two Laws. One Morning. Everything You Need to Know, and Disciplinary Enquiry & Arbitration Master Class (Live: JHB, PE/Gq & CT; Virtual).
*All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.
Comments