Handling Underperformance Early

Kim Scott had a problem.

One of the people on her team, whom she calls Bob in Radical Candor, was doing work that simply wasn't good enough. Scott liked Bob. He was funny, kind, and well-liked by the team. She cared about him and didn't want to hurt his feelings, so instead of telling him directly that his performance was falling short, she softened her feedback.

She corrected some of his work. She compensated for his weaknesses. She gave him hints and hoped he would figure things out. When he produced something that wasn't good enough, she sometimes fixed it herself rather than having the uncomfortable conversation she knew she needed to have.

Eventually, the situation became impossible to ignore, and Scott had to tell Bob that his performance wasn't meeting expectations. His response changed the way she thought about management.

Why hadn't she told him?

From Bob's perspective, he had been coming to work believing things were basically fine. Meanwhile, his manager and other people around him knew they weren't. By trying to spare his feelings, Scott had actually denied him the opportunity to improve.

She later gave this behavior a name: ruinous empathy.

It's a useful phrase because it describes something good managers do with surprisingly good intentions. They care about someone, so they avoid saying something that might hurt. They hope another week will solve the problem. They casually mention the issue instead of addressing it directly. They compensate for poor performance, move work to stronger employees, or lower expectations without ever admitting that's what they're doing.

It feels compassionate in the moment.

Months later, it rarely feels compassionate to anyone.
​

The Conversation Doesn't Get Easier While You Wait

Underperformance is one of the most uncomfortable parts of management because most managers don't enjoy confrontation. They don't wake up excited to tell someone their work isn't good enough. When the employee is someone they genuinely like, the conversation becomes even harder.

So they wait.

The problem is that waiting changes the conversation. What could have been a small coaching conversation in week two becomes a serious performance discussion in month four. The employee has repeated the behavior dozens of times. Coworkers have begun compensating for it. Customers may have experienced it. The manager is increasingly frustrated, and the employee may still have no idea how serious the problem has become.

A difficult conversation doesn't become easier because you wait. It usually becomes more consequential.

That is why the kindest time to address underperformance is often when it first becomes visible, while the problem is still small enough to fix.

If an employee mishandles a customer interaction, talk about it while both of you remember the conversation. If deadlines are beginning to slip, don't wait until six have been missed. If someone's work quality has changed, get curious before assuming they're lazy, careless, or disengaged.

Early conversations can still sound like coaching.

Late conversations often sound like consequences.

People Deserve to Know Where They Stand

Jack Welch was known for having very strong opinions about performance management during his years leading General Electric. Some of his practices, particularly forced ranking, remain controversial and aren't something every organization should copy. But one principle behind his management philosophy is worth considering: people deserve to know where they stand.

Think about how unfair the opposite situation is.

An employee goes through an entire year believing they're doing reasonably well. Their manager occasionally says things like, "We need to tighten this up," or "Let's try to be a little more responsive," but nothing communicates that their performance is seriously below expectations.

Then the annual review arrives.

Suddenly they're told they're underperforming.

Imagine sitting in that chair.

You'd probably wonder why nobody told you six months ago, when you could have done something about it.

Gallup's research on performance management has repeatedly emphasized the value of frequent, meaningful feedback rather than relying primarily on annual reviews. That makes intuitive sense. Feedback is most useful when it's close enough to the behavior that the employee can understand it, adjust, and try again.

We would never coach an athlete in August about something they repeatedly did wrong in February and expect that to be effective.

Yet workplaces do the equivalent all the time.

Before You Correct Performance, Diagnose It

Addressing underperformance early doesn't mean immediately assuming the employee is the problem.

This is where good management requires judgment.

Suppose someone who used to perform well suddenly begins missing deadlines. You could tell them they need to work harder, but that assumes effort is the issue. Maybe the workload has doubled. Maybe priorities aren't clear. Maybe another department is consistently late delivering something they need. Maybe they were given responsibilities they haven't been trained to handle. Maybe they're spending half their day in meetings you scheduled.

Or maybe they're simply not doing what is expected.

Your job is to find out.

Before deciding what needs to happen next, I think managers should answer four questions:

• Do they know exactly what's expected? What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to them.
• Do they know they're falling short? Hints, frustrated sighs, and vague comments don't count as feedback.
• Do they have the skills, tools, training, and resources to succeed? A capability problem requires a different response than an effort problem.
• Are they willing to do what's required? Once expectations and support are clear, willingness eventually becomes an accountability question.

That diagnosis matters because not every performance gap should be treated the same way.

A person who doesn't know how needs coaching.

A person who doesn't understand needs clarity.

A person who lacks resources needs support.

A person who understands, has the ability and resources, and repeatedly chooses not to meet the expectation has an accountability problem.

Good managers learn the difference.

Talk About the Gap, Not the Person

Another reason managers avoid performance conversations is that they don't know how to begin them without making the conversation feel personal.

The easiest way is to talk about the gap.

Consider the difference between telling someone:

"You're just not responsive enough."

and saying:

"Our expectation is that customer emails receive a response within one business day. Over the past three weeks, we've had seven responses take longer than two days. I'd like to understand what's getting in the way."

The first statement evaluates the person.

The second describes reality.

Now you have something you can discuss together. There is an expectation. There is observable performance. There is a gap between the two. And there is an invitation for the employee to explain what is contributing to it.

Perhaps you discover something you didn't know.

Perhaps you don't.

Either way, everyone leaves the conversation understanding the issue.

That's what good performance management should accomplish. The employee should never have to walk back to their desk wondering, "Was that serious?"

Clarity is a form of respect.

Your Best Employees Are Watching Too

There is another reason managers need to address underperformance early that has very little to do with the employee who is struggling.

Everyone else can see it.

If one employee repeatedly misses deadlines and coworkers have to finish the work, they know.

If someone consistently arrives late while everyone else arrives on time, they know.

If poor-quality work gets passed to another employee to fix, they definitely know.

Managers sometimes believe they're being gracious by giving an underperforming employee more time. Meanwhile, their strongest employees are quietly paying the bill.

They're doing more work.

They're fixing more mistakes.

They're covering more shifts.

They're dealing with frustrated customers.

And eventually, they're asking a perfectly reasonable question:

"Why am I working this hard if the standard doesn't actually matter?"

This is where an individual performance problem becomes a culture problem.

Your team learns what the real standards are by watching what you tolerate.

If you say excellence matters but routinely accept poor work, the poor work becomes the standard. If you say accountability matters but consistently avoid difficult conversations, employees learn that accountability is optional.

Handling underperformance isn't only about helping one person improve.

It's also about protecting the people who are already meeting the standard.

Care Personally and Challenge Directly

This is where Kim Scott's larger idea in Radical Candor becomes so useful.

Her framework asks leaders to do two things at the same time: care personally and challenge directly.

Managers sometimes behave as though they have to choose.

They can be kind or they can be direct.

They can support someone or hold them accountable.

They can care about the person or care about performance.

Great managers learn to do both.

You can genuinely care about an employee and say, "This isn't meeting the standard."

You can believe in someone's potential and tell them their current performance needs to change.

You can offer coaching, resources, patience, and support while still establishing a clear expectation and a deadline for improvement.

In fact, I would argue that's what caring leadership actually looks like.

Avoiding an uncomfortable truth because you don't want someone to be upset may feel kind today. But imagine how that person feels six months later when they're told the problem has become serious enough to threaten their job.

They deserved the truth earlier.

Netflix Took Clarity to an Extreme

Reed Hastings and Netflix became famous for an unusually direct approach to talent management. One of its best-known ideas is the "Keeper Test," which essentially asks managers whether they would fight to keep an employee if that person were considering leaving.

Netflix's culture isn't right for every organization, and I wouldn't suggest blindly adopting it. But there is something useful underneath the philosophy: performance questions shouldn't linger indefinitely simply because managers are uncomfortable addressing them.

The opposite extreme is surprisingly common. Managers tolerate mediocre performance for months or years, reorganizing everyone else's work around the problem. Eventually, the situation becomes so frustrating that the only options seem drastic.

There is a much healthier middle.

Clarity early. Coaching early. Support early. Accountability early.

Give people a genuine opportunity to succeed before the situation becomes a crisis.

What Happens After the Conversation Matters Most

Giving feedback isn't the end of performance management.

It's the beginning.

If you tell someone they need to improve, they should leave knowing what improvement actually looks like. The manager and employee should agree on the expectation, what needs to change, what support will be provided, and when they'll talk again.

Then follow up.

Don't have the difficult conversation on Monday and disappear for six weeks.

Notice progress.

Coach setbacks.

Recognize improvement.

Keep the conversation alive.

Some employees will respond remarkably well. The conversation they were dreading may become the moment that changes their trajectory. Clear expectations combined with good coaching can unlock performance that both the employee and manager knew was possible.

Others won't improve.

That's part of leadership too.

There are situations where a manager clarifies expectations, provides coaching, offers resources, establishes milestones, follows up consistently, and the employee still doesn't meet the standard.

At that point, the conversation changes.

But if that day comes, the employee should never be surprised.

They should be able to look back and know they were given something every employee deserves: clear expectations, honest feedback, meaningful support, time to respond, and a manager who didn't give up on them at the first sign of trouble.

Have the Conversation While It Can Still Help

There is probably a conversation you're putting off right now.

Maybe someone's performance has slipped.

Maybe you've noticed a pattern.

Maybe you keep fixing someone's mistakes because explaining the problem feels harder than doing the work yourself.

Maybe you've convinced yourself you'll address it if it happens one more time.

Don't wait for one more time.

Talk to them.

Not angrily. Not dramatically. Not with a folder from HR sitting ominously on the table.

Talk to them as a manager who wants them to succeed.

Explain what you've observed. Clarify the expectation. Ask what's getting in the way. Listen carefully to the answer. Decide together what needs to change, and make a plan to follow up.

The goal isn't to catch someone failing.

The goal is to catch the problem early enough that they still have every opportunity to succeed.

That's what Kim Scott wished she had done with Bob.

And it's one of the hardest lessons managers eventually learn:

Sometimes the conversation you're avoiding is the very conversation your employee needs you to have.

Managers: Become a premium Boundless member to build your leadership with coaching, peers, and proven tools. Check it out here:

​https://onboarding.leadwithboundless.com​

Business owners and executives: Enroll your managers in Boundless.

​https://pages.leadwithboundless.com/book-my-discovery-call​

Onward.
​
The Boundless Team