On almost every team, high performers raise the bar, steady performers deliver reliably, and some individuals fall below the role’s demands. That range is normal. Avoiding it is not leadership.
Low performance is not defined by a single missed deadline or a rough quarter. It is a consistent gap between what the role requires and what the individual is delivering. Over time, that gap affects more than results. It affects morale. High performers notice. Standards begin to blur. Energy shifts.
The leadership responsibility is not to react emotionally. It is to diagnose accurately. Claire Hughes Johnson makes a critical point: low performance should never be a surprise. When leaders wait too long, what could have been coaching becomes crisis. And when performance becomes a crisis, managers tend to get reactive — which is exactly when they need to be most disciplined.
The first question is simple but essential: is this a skill issue or a will issue? Is the person capable but not motivated? Motivated but under-skilled? Or are they simply in the wrong role?
Patterns rarely announce themselves dramatically. One missed commitment becomes two. Feedback that once corrected behavior no longer sticks. You find yourself having the same conversation again. That is the moment to pause and form a hypothesis. Something has shifted. At that point, the work unfolds in phases:
Phase One: Align on the Gap. Share your observations about the pattern, clearly name that expectations are not being met, and document the conversation. Improvement cannot begin without shared clarity.
Here are some scripts you can use that are both direct and human:
· “I’ve noticed you’ve missed several deadlines recently. We’ve talked about the importance of delivery, and I’m starting to see a pattern. I’m concerned you may not be meeting the expectations of this role.”
· If you observe it might be a sensitive personal issue, you might say, I noticed you seem a little down and distracted. I do not want to pry into anything private, but I want to understand anything that’s going on outside of work that might be impacting your work. Can I help?
· My impression is that the team is not communicating well right now and deadlines are being missed as a result, do you agree or is it something else?
From there, you listen. There are typically three responses.
1. Sometimes they own it. There is relief in the clarity. They acknowledge they’ve been slipping and commit to doing better. In those moments, accountability is already beginning. Your role is to reinforce the standard, agree on specific changes, and set a follow-up cadence.
2. Other times, they provide context you didn’t have. A dependency breakdown, unclear priorities, or a struggling team member. The gap may still be real, but the cause is more complex. Your responsibility is to understand the system dynamics without diluting responsibility. Explanation does not eliminate accountability. You might say, Let me dig into this and set up some time to continue the conversation next week. You gather information, understand the context, and reset expectations without diluting responsibility.
3. And sometimes, they dispute the facts. They reinterpret events or push back on your assessment. You can give them more examples of the behavior (I’m talking about the missed deadline 2 days ago and then one from last week on project x. It is also clear that your team is failing to deliver on promises, based on what they wrote in their peer review.) If they are still not grasping the situation, shift from debate to impact: “Even if you see it differently, the outcomes and perception are real. Let’s look at what’s happening and how we correct it.” You are not arguing personality. You are reinforcing standards.
Phase Two: Agree on Next Steps. Within one or two follow-up conversations, define what must change and how you'll measure progress. Send a written recap so expectations are documented and aligned. Clarity prevents drift.
· For example: “Thanks again for the conversation; here are my notes so we can have the discussion captured in one place. As discussed, your analytical work on Projects X and Y is not meeting the bar. I’ll connect you with Bob and share training resources. You’ll complete the analysis for Project Z within two weeks, and we’ll review the quality together.” People rarely improve without a plan. Ambiguity is the enemy of change.
Phase Three: Assess trajectory. Over the next one to three months, you monitor whether the gap is closing. At this stage, the outcomes become clearer: performance improves, the role shifts, the individual transitions to a better-fit position, or the process moves toward a formal PIP.
One of the hardest moments comes when someone asks, “Do you think I can succeed here?” Honesty matters. You might respond, “I believe it’s going to be difficult given the current gap. I’m here to help, and I want to be transparent about my concerns.” That is not cruelty. It is clarity.
Managing performance is not about catching someone failing. It is about protecting the health of the team. The longer you tolerate a consistent gap, the more it signals that standards are negotiable. And high performers are always watching.
Question of the Day: If your strongest performer observed how you’re handling a low performer, what would they conclude about your standards? Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you.
Quote of the Day: “Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.” — Brené Brown
As an Executive Coach, I partner with leadership teams to help them performance manage with both excellence and compassion. If you’d like to strengthen how your leaders hold standards and develop people, let’s connect.
The next blog in this series 6/7 will focus on the Performance Improvement Plan.
What’s the challenge?