How to deal with under-performers?

This is a question coming up many times in coaching sessions and during many workshops regarding coaching, leadership skills or performance management. It seems that many managers do not have the guts or tools to talk to people about under-performance. But there is more to this issue than guts or communication skills because managers could start by thinking about the various factors that can come into play about under-performance.

First: it starts with the definition of under-performance? How is that measured and compared? If no Critical Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators have been set and agreed upon, how then does the ”culprit” know where he stands? And how does the manager know?

Furthermore, what are the factors or reasons for under-performance? Does the staff know what is expected of her? Does she have the tools and instruments she needs to achieve what she is supposed to do? How well is that person integrated into the team? Does he have the right job, i.e. are his talents and strengths matched with the job requirements? Frequently under-performance is the result simply of a miss-match between job and person. Is it too far fetched to say that in many cases the under-performance is a direct result of a substandard selection process?

Next, after all this has been considered and still there is no answer to why she is under-performing, why not talking to her? Big problem! Who likes to confront someone to give him that feedback? Not many managers like it, even less are doing it. How can an under-performer really improve if nobody is giving him a helping hand by first telling him, then working out with him what he could do and then, last but not least, agreeing about a timeframe in which to improve. This could support him to get the necessary self-confidence to manage his job.

It always takes time to change behavior and performance, so it would be good to sit together with that person on a regular basis for short reviews of his development and performance. This way, there is a growing mutual getting to know each other and becoming aware as to what is really needed. Performance could improve on both sides as also the boss learns to manage her people.

How many employees don’t dare (don’t trust) to talk to their mangers about problems they might have. And here is another source of under-performance: individual, private issues, not openly discussed, not admitted, not seen. Trying to find out what burden might be on the shoulder of the “under- performer” could lead to a good way to find a solution.

Last but not least: if the under-performance is not disappearing, everything has been tried, nothing works, yes, then a career talk would be an appropriate thing to do. If she is not the right person for that job because she does not have what is needed, then she might have something else she is good at and could move within the company to another area or field. And if he was a good performer but now is not, because he was promoted to a position which is not his “ real thing” (for example from an engineer to a manager position) why then torturing him with that job. He might be a lot better being again an engineer than leading a group of people.

A number of staff are just being kept in the workplace and company because nobody dares to take action. And by doing nothing you waste money, your time and especially the precious time of the under-performer – she could have been moved out a lot earlier, thus giving her a chance of re-orienting or going into a different job, or a different environment where she could evolve and become a good performer again. To wait for years before taking action is a complete lose- lose situation for everyone involved.