I don’t think OP is advocating for having no tolerance for low performance. He’s just saying that it’s the manager's job to do something about it when it occurs and can’t be resolved otherwise, else it negatively impacts the rest of the team. “Do something” could be training, coaching, shifting scope of responsibilities, whatever. Doesn’t necessarily mean firing people.
Mentoring and leading by example are great things to do, but they do nothing to solve the actual scenarios that Will gave as examples in the OP. There are some situations that you can’t resolve by being a good colleague, and the manager needs to step in.
> He’s just saying that it’s the manager's job to do something about it when it occurs and can’t be resolved otherwise, else it negatively impacts the rest of the team.
Managing peers is not their job - the author tried to spin the lack of action by manager as poor management, but what if the manager has more context and good reasons for maintaining the status quo? IMO, this is management equivalent of tech debt, and hr is demanding that it gets addressed immediately without caring about other consequences outside their own narrow window into the org.
Mentoring and leading by example are great things to do, but they do nothing to solve the actual scenarios that Will gave as examples in the OP. There are some situations that you can’t resolve by being a good colleague, and the manager needs to step in.