Managing underperformers: Why good managers diagnose before they decide

You might know the feeling: There's someone on your team who isn't delivering the way they should. Maybe they're missing deadlines. Maybe the quality of their work has slipped. Maybe their attitude in meetings is affecting the whole team. You've noticed it, your colleagues have noticed it – and yet, somehow, the conversation hasn't happened yet.

‍

Managing underperforming employees is an uncomfortable responsibility that comes with leading people. And it's also very consequential. Left unaddressed, underperformance doesn't stay contained. It erodes team morale, frustrates your strongest performers and quietly chips away at your credibility as a leader.

‍

So yes: underperformance is real. It needs to be named, and it needs to be addressed.

‍

But here's where many managers get stuck. The moment we decide someone is "an underperformer," we often stop asking questions and start looking for solutions. We either move quickly by putting them on a plan and beginning the process of managing them out, or we stall, hoping the situation resolves itself. Both instincts are understandable; but it pays off to take a step back first and reflect.

‍

The problem isn't identifying underperformance. It's when the label becomes a verdict – one that closes down curiosity before the real investigation has even begun.

‍

This guide is for leaders who want to take underperformance seriously enough to fix it. That means understanding what's driving it before deciding what to do about it. It means asking harder questions – of the situation and of yourself. And it means knowing the difference between a problem you can solve and one that has run its course.

‍

Underperformance is costly – but so is mishandling it

There’s a clear business case for acting: Gallup's research consistently shows that actively disengaged employees – those who are checked out, going through the motions, or actively undermining the team around them – cost organisations enormous amounts in lost productivity. According to their State of the Global Workplace 2026 report, low engagement cost the world economy approximately $10 trillion per year.

‍

But the cost of underperformance isn't just about output. It's about what happens to the rest of your team when they watch it go unaddressed: High performers notice. They're usually the first to see a performance problem clearly. What they rarely do, however, is to wait around for it to be resolved. They quietly recalibrate, ask themselves why they're working hard when standards appear to be optional, and some start looking for the door.

‍

There's also the question of your credibility as a manager. Your team is watching and how you respond to a performance problem shapes what they believe about you as a leader. Ignore it, and accountability becomes negotiable. Act rashly, without first understanding what's going on, and you risk losing the trust of the people you need most. Neither is the message you want to send.

‍

So how can you act in a way that’s both effective and fair – to the individual and to the team around them?

‍

From verdict to question: reframing how you think about underperformance

When managers decide someone is underperforming, the next question is almost always the same: "What do I do with this person?" It's a natural place to land, but it's also where the thinking tends to stop.

‍

A more useful first question is: "What is getting in the way of this person performing?"

That shift might sound subtle, but it changes everything about the conversation that follows. 

‍

Consider an employee who has been missing deadlines. The verdict response is: "This person isn't reliable." The diagnostic question is: "What has changed in the last three months that might be affecting their output?" Same situation, completely different conversation.

‍

Underperformance is often a symptom of something else: unclear expectations, a skill gap, a role that no longer fits or pressures the manager isn't fully aware of. Treating the symptom without understanding the cause doesn't fix the problem.

‍

Before you diagnose them, audit yourself

Before turning your attention fully to the team member, it's worth pausing to examine your own role in the situation. 

‍

Ask yourself honestly:

• Have I made expectations genuinely clear, or just implied them?
• Have I given direct feedback, or only hints?
• Have I given this person the tools, support or context they need to succeed?
• Is this a performance problem or a relationship problem between us?
• Am I avoiding this conversation because it's uncomfortable?

‍

If any of these questions give you pause, that's useful information. It doesn't let the other person off the hook, but it means the picture is more complex than it first appeared, and that's worth knowing before you act.

‍

And if that last question resonates: don't wait. The longer a performance problem goes unnamed, the harder it becomes to address for both of you.

‍

Four causes of underperformance worth investigating before you decide anything

‍

Once you've reflected on your own role, it's time to look at the situation more closely. But before diving into root causes, there's a more fundamental question to answer: Does the employee actually know there's a problem?

‍

It sounds basic, but if the person on your team believes they're doing a good job, any conversation about underperformance will feel like it's coming from nowhere. That potential disconnect needs to be addressed first, before anything else.

‍

Once you've established a shared understanding that a gap exists, the next step is to understand why. Most underperforming employees share one of four root causes for their struggles:

‍

1. Unclear expectations or shifting priorities

Does the person know what "good" looks like in their role – right now, not six months ago? In fast-moving organisations, priorities shift, roles evolve and what was expected last quarter may no longer apply. 

‍

A useful framework comes from Sam Schillace, former SVP of Engineering at Box. His "rubric" approach is built on the idea that expectations need to be documented, specific and visible to everyone. But what makes it particularly valuable is its scope: a well-designed rubric doesn't just capture what someone needs to deliver. It also defines how they're expected to show up – their communication style, collaboration, decision-making and behaviour within the team.

‍

This matters because underperformance often isn't just about missed targets. It can be about attitude in meetings, how someone handles conflict or whether they take ownership when things go wrong. Without a shared reference point that covers both dimensions, those conversations become subjective and hard to have. 

‍

2. Skill gap vs. will gap 

A capability problem and a motivation problem can look identical on the surface, but they require completely different responses. Someone who doesn't know how to do what's being asked needs development and support. Someone who knows but isn't doing it needs a different kind of conversation. 

‍

3. Role-person misfit 

Sometimes, the problem is the match between the person and the role. Roles evolve, teams restructure, and what someone was hired to do may no longer reflect what the job actually demands. This is a structural problem, not a personal failing, and it deserves to be treated as one.

‍

4. Environmental or structural barriers 

Workload, team dynamics, unclear priorities, lack of resources or even the manager's own behaviour can all contribute to underperformance in ways that have nothing to do with the individual's attitude or ability. It's worth asking: are there conditions in place that would make it hard for anyone to perform well in this role?

‍

What genuinely supporting an underperforming employee looks like

Identifying the root cause is the diagnostic work. What comes next is the harder part: doing something about it, consistently, over time.

‍

For many managers, this is where good intentions start to fade. A conversation happens, some feedback is given and then the day-to-day takes over. But good performance management requires a sustained commitment to follow-through.

‍

In practice, that means:

‍

• Documenting expectations clearly – in writing, with timelines, so there's a shared reference point for both sides
  
  

• Having structured conversations regularly – not just when things go wrong, but as an ongoing rhythm that tracks progress and surfaces obstacles early
  
  

• Offering genuine development support – coaching, training, mentoring, or adjusted responsibilities, depending on what the root cause actually calls for
  
  

• Checking in meaningfully – not just "how's it going?" but specific, evidence-based conversations about what's changing and what isn't

‍

👉 If you're looking for practical tools to structure these conversations, our Feedback Essentials Toolkit is a good place to start. And if feedback has been given but nothing seems to be shifting, our article “From feedback to follow-through” explores exactly that situation.

‍

When you've genuinely tried everything

Sometimes, even with the right diagnosis, genuine support and consistent follow-through, things don't change. A values misfit runs too deep, the will simply isn't there or the structural barriers can't be resolved. At that point, continuing to invest isn't kindness, it's avoidance. And it's rarely fair to the rest of the team.

‍

Parting ways, when it comes to that, doesn't have to be a failure. Done with care, transparency and respect, it can be the most honest outcome for both sides. What matters is that you reach that point having genuinely tried – not having used it as a shortcut to avoid the harder work of understanding what went wrong.

‍

One last thought

The next time you find yourself frustrated by someone’s performance, try sitting with this question before you act: What do I actually know about what's getting in the way?

‍

Not what you suspect. Not what it looks like from the outside. What you actually know. That pause is often the difference between a manager who resolves performance problems and one who simply moves them on.

‍

If you'd like support navigating a performance challenge on your team or setting up a performance management framework, we're happy to help.