> As you look at enough of these scenarios, you can back out a common pattern. The main character is trying to do their job effectively, but can’t due to the low performance of a peer. They escalate to the appropriate manager to address the issue, but that manager transforms the performance issue into a relationship issue: it’s not that the peer isn’t performing, it’s just that the two of you don’t like each other. Instead of being the manager’s responsibility to resolve the performance issue, it’s now the main character’s responsibility. By attempting to drive accountability in their peer, the main character has blocked their own progress (“they’re just hard to work with”) without accomplishing anything.
Emphasis mine.
The problem he's focused on is not the tolerance for the peer performing badly. It's the blowback for the main character who points it out.
This is not how I read it. You have to do your best as a manager to train your employees and live up to what Andy Grove said in High Output Management. You must set a high standard and it is your job to get your reports to that standard the best you possibly can.
But when your reports cannot or will not get to that standard despite a huge investment in training and clear direction, you have to move on.