Every organisation encounters employees who do not meet performance expectations. How these situations are handled determines organisational performance and culture. Leaders who avoid difficult conversations enable poor performance to continue; leaders who address it effectively transform both the employee and the organisation.
The goal of performance management is not punishment—it is getting a good outcome. Sometimes that outcome is improved performance; sometimes it is clean separation. Either way, avoiding the conversation serves no one.
Before addressing underperformance, understand what creates it. The cause determines the solution—very different approaches address different causes.
Some underperformance stems from capability gaps. The employee wants to perform but lacks the skills, knowledge, or ability. These employees are often unaware of the gaps and may believe they are performing adequately.
Identifying capability issues requires honest assessment and feedback. What specifically is missing? Can it be developed? How quickly?
Some underperformance stems from motivation gaps. The employee has capability but does not apply it. This often manifests as doing the minimum to avoid consequences—meeting the absolute minimum expectations while showing no discretionary effort.
Identifying motivation issues requires observation over time. What is the employee’s pattern? Is this new or longstanding? What might be causing the motivation gap?
Some underperformance stems from role or cultural misfit. The employee might be capable and motivated but in the wrong role or environment. Someone who succeeds in one context may fail in another.
Identifying fit issues requires understanding what the employee needs to succeed. What role would suit their strengths? Is such a role available?
Some underperformance stems from personal circumstances—health, family, relationships. These often manifest as changes from previous performance. The employee who performed well and now underperforms may be facing personal challenges.
Identifying personal issues requires relationship and observation. What has changed? Is there context that explains the change?
Addressing underperformance requires conversation. Avoid both extremes—the conversation that avoids direct feedback and the conversation that attacks. Use a framework that addresses reality while respecting dignity.
Before the conversation, prepare specifics. What specific behaviors have you observed? What specific impact do they have? What outcomes would represent successful performance? What evidence supports your assessment?
Avoid vague feedback like “your performance is not good enough.” What specifically is not good enough? What would good enough look like?
Choose a private setting that enables honest conversation but is not so private that it feels like an interrogation. A private office works better than an open workspace.
Open the conversation with purpose. Be direct but not aggressive: “I want to discuss your performance on [specific project/area].”
Get their perspective. Ask: “How do you think that is going?” This often reveals whether they recognise the issue.
Present your view specifically. Avoid generalisations: “In [specific instance], the outcome was [specific result]. I expected [specific result].”
Explore their perspective. Ask: “What is getting in the way?” Listen fully before responding.
This exploration often reveals information you did not have. Perhaps they did not have important context. Perhaps they saw obstacles you did not recognise.
Distinguish between reasons and excuses. Explanations are not the same as justification. Hear the explanation, then evaluate.
Reach agreement on the gap and the path forward. What specifically will change? By when? What support do they need?
Document this agreement. Everyone should leave with clear understanding of what has been committed.
Schedule follow-up. Do not leave the conversation without knowing when you will reconvene.
Follow through on your commitments too. If you promised support, provide it. Broken commitments undermine your credibility.
Sometimes conversations do not lead to improvement. The employee may not agree with the assessment, may not have the capability to improve, or may choose not to change.
When improvement does not happen despite conversations and support, escalation may be needed.
Document the performance issues and conversations. Specific incidents, specific feedback, specific commitments. Documentation protects both parties and enables fair evaluation.
Consider what has been communicated versus what has been heard. Sometimes the gap is in communication.
Escalate when appropriate. Human resources or your manager may need to be involved. This is not tattling—it is appropriate governance.
Expect resistance. The employee may not agree with escalation. That does not mean it is wrong.
Sometimes separation is necessary. This is difficult but sometimes required—firing for cause or laying off due to performance.
Release should not be a surprise if previous conversations were handled well. The issue has been communicated, support provided, and opportunity given.
Release should be done with respect. You can hold someone to account while treating them with dignity.
The best solution is preventing underperformance through good hiring, clear expectations, and ongoing feedback.
People cannot meet expectations they do not know. Make expectations specific, written, and visible.
Review expectations regularly. What was clear six months ago may be confusing now.
Give feedback continuously—not just in formal reviews. Tell people how they are doing often.
Feedback should be specific and behavioural. “You did X” is more valuable than “you are good.”
Do not let issues accumulate. Address concerns quickly—before they become bigger problems.
Quick conversations are easier than difficult ones. Waiting makes them worse.
The discomfort of addressing underperformance is nothing compared to the cost of not addressing it. Your best performers are watching how you handle underperformers. Your organisation’s performance depends on addressing this reality directly.
Handle difficult performance conversations with expert guidance and support.
Paul brings over 25 years of experience leading high-stakes conversations with teams, executives, and organisations, having coached more than 100,000 people across 15 countries, spanning CEOs, Olympic athletes, scientists, entrepreneurs, and academics. Learn more about Paul.
