Before You Manage the Performance Problem, Diagnose It

An employee is not meeting expectations.

Deadlines are being missed. The quality of work has dropped. Targets are not being achieved. Managers are becoming frustrated, and the conversation quickly turns to one conclusion:

“They’re just not performing.”

But is that really the problem?

Poor performance is often treated as though it has one simple cause: the employee is unwilling or unable to do the job. In reality, performance problems can have many different causes, and responding to all of them in exactly the same way is one of the biggest mistakes managers can make.

An employee who has not been properly trained requires a different intervention from an employee who has unclear expectations. Someone who does not have the necessary resources may struggle for entirely different reasons from someone who has received little feedback or management support.

Before moving into formal performance management, disciplinary processes or performance improvement plans, organisations should pause and ask one critical question:

Why is this employee struggling to perform?

Because the right solution depends on identifying the real problem.

 

Performance Problems Are Often Symptoms, Not the Root Cause

When performance starts to decline, managers naturally focus on the visible outcome.

  • Sales targets are missed.
  • Work contains errors.
  • Projects are delayed.
  • Productivity decreases.
  • Customers complain.
  • Standards are not being met.

These are all performance outcomes.

But they do not necessarily explain why the employee is struggling.

Treating the outcome without investigating the cause can lead to ineffective interventions, frustrated employees and managers, and performance processes that fail to produce meaningful improvement.

A more effective approach is to work backwards.

Performance Problem → Why is this happening? → What needs to change?

Before deciding that an employee is simply a poor performer, consider the following possible causes.

 

1. Has the Employee Been Properly Trained?

Sometimes the issue is not unwillingness.

It is capability.

Employees cannot reasonably be expected to perform a task to the required standard if they have not received the knowledge, training or practical experience needed to do it.

This is particularly important when:

  • An employee has recently started in a new role.
  • Responsibilities have changed.
  • New systems or technology have been introduced.
  • Processes have been updated.
  • Performance expectations have increased.
  • The employee has been promoted into a position with new responsibilities.

A common mistake is assuming that because a job description exists, an employee automatically knows how to perform every aspect of the role.

Training should not simply be viewed as an onboarding exercise. Capability needs to be continually assessed as roles, systems and business requirements evolve.

Ask:

Does the employee know what to do — and how to do it?

If the answer is no, additional performance pressure alone is unlikely to solve the problem.

 

2. Were Expectations Clearly Communicated?

Another common cause of performance problems is a lack of clarity.

Managers may believe that expectations are obvious.

The employee may have an entirely different understanding.

Consider the difference between telling someone:

“Improve your performance.”

And saying:

“Your monthly target is 20 completed client reports. Reports must meet the agreed quality standards and be submitted by the final working day of each month.”

The first instruction is vague.

The second creates a measurable expectation.

Employees should understand:

  • What is expected of them.
  • What good performance looks like.
  • Which standards apply.
  • Which targets they are expected to achieve.
  • How their performance will be measured.
  • When performance will be reviewed.

If expectations are unclear, it becomes difficult for employees to know whether they are succeeding — and equally difficult for managers to address performance fairly.

Ask:

Could the employee clearly explain what successful performance in their role looks like?

If not, the problem may begin with clarity rather than commitment.

 

3. Does the Employee Have the Resources to Perform?

Performance does not happen in a vacuum.

Even highly capable and motivated employees can struggle when they do not have the tools, information, systems or support required to do their jobs effectively.

Examples may include:

  • Outdated or unreliable equipment.
  • Insufficient staff or capacity.
  • Limited access to information.
  • Inefficient systems.
  • Unrealistic workloads.
  • Conflicting priorities.
  • Poorly designed processes.

Imagine holding an employee accountable for meeting a deadline while the system they need is regularly unavailable.

Or expecting high-quality customer service while staffing levels make it impossible to respond to customers within a reasonable timeframe.

In these situations, the employee may be experiencing a performance problem created by the working environment.

Ask:

Are we holding the employee accountable for something they do not have the capacity or resources to achieve?

Good performance management requires organisations to examine the environment around the employee — not only the employee themselves.

 

4. Has the Employee Received Meaningful Feedback?

Employees cannot correct problems they do not know exist.

Yet many performance issues are only addressed when they become serious.

A manager may notice declining performance for months without having a meaningful conversation. By the time the issue is formally raised, the employee may be surprised that their work has been considered problematic.

Effective feedback should not be reserved for annual performance reviews.

It should be:

  • Timely.
  • Specific.
  • Constructive.
  • Relevant.
  • Focused on improvement.

Instead of saying:

“Your work hasn't been good enough lately.”

A manager could say:

“I've noticed that three of the last five reports required significant corrections before submission. Let's look at where the errors are happening and what support you need to improve the quality of future reports.”

The second approach identifies the issue, creates an opportunity for discussion and focuses on improvement.

Ask:

Has the employee been made aware of the specific performance concerns and given meaningful feedback?

If the answer is no, the first intervention may need to be a conversation — not a formal warning.

 

5. Is the Manager Providing Enough Support?

Performance management is often seen as something that managers do to employees.

But effective performance management is a shared process.

Managers play a critical role in creating the conditions for performance by providing:

  • Direction.
  • Priorities.
  • Feedback.
  • Coaching.
  • Support.
  • Problem-solving assistance.
  • Regular communication.

An employee may technically know what is expected but still struggle because they have limited access to their manager, conflicting instructions or no support when problems arise.

Managers should therefore be willing to ask an uncomfortable question:

“Is there anything in the way I am managing this employee that may be contributing to the problem?”

This is not about removing employee accountability.

It is about recognising that performance is influenced by both the individual and the environment in which they work.

 

A Better Way to Diagnose Performance Problems

Before deciding what action to take, managers can use a simple diagnostic approach.

Step 1: Identify the Specific Performance Gap

Avoid vague statements such as:

“Your performance is poor.”

Instead, identify exactly what is not meeting expectations.

For example:

  • Target: 20 client reports per month.
  • Actual: 12 client reports per month.

Or:

  • Required standard: Reports should be submitted with minimal errors.
  • Actual: A significant percentage require correction before submission.

The clearer the performance gap, the easier it becomes to investigate the cause.

 

Step 2: Ask Why

Once the gap has been identified, investigate what may be contributing to it.

Consider:

Training
Does the employee have the necessary skills and knowledge?

Expectations
Does the employee clearly understand what is required?

Resources
Do they have the tools, time and support needed to perform?

Feedback
Have concerns been communicated clearly and timeously?

Management
Is the employee receiving appropriate direction and support?

The goal is not to make excuses for poor performance.

The goal is to identify the factors that need to be addressed.

 

Step 3: Match the Intervention to the Problem

This is where many organisations get it wrong.

Different problems require different solutions.

If the problem is...

The intervention may involve...

Lack of skills

Training, coaching or mentoring

Unclear expectations

Clear objectives, standards and KPIs

Lack of resources

Removing operational barriers or providing necessary tools

Insufficient feedback

Regular check-ins and structured feedback

Lack of support

Increased management involvement and guidance

Ongoing inability or unwillingness to meet reasonable expectations

A structured performance management process

A performance improvement plan cannot compensate for poor training.

A disciplinary approach cannot fix unclear expectations.

And simply telling someone to “try harder” will not solve a resource problem.

The intervention should fit the cause.

 

Performance Management Should Be About Improvement — Not Just Documentation

One of the risks in poorly managed performance processes is that they become focused primarily on creating a paper trail.

Meetings are held.

Documents are signed.

Warnings are issued.

But the central question is sometimes forgotten:

What are we doing to create a genuine opportunity for improvement?

Effective performance management should help employees understand:

  • What needs to improve.
  • Why it needs to improve.
  • What acceptable performance looks like.
  • What support will be available.
  • How progress will be measured.
  • What timeframe applies.

This does not mean that organisations must tolerate poor performance indefinitely.

Employees remain responsible for meeting reasonable and clearly communicated expectations.

However, a fair and effective process requires more than simply identifying that someone is not performing.

It requires understanding why.

 

The HR Consult Hot Seat Question

The next time someone says:

“This employee is underperforming.”

Don't stop there.

Ask:

What is actually causing the performance problem?

Is it a skills issue?

An expectations issue?

A resource issue?

A feedback issue?

A management issue?

Or is the employee genuinely unable or unwilling to meet reasonable performance requirements despite having the necessary clarity, capability and support?

The answer matters.

Because when organisations treat every performance problem the same way, they risk applying the wrong solution — and then wondering why nothing improves.

 

Look Closer Before You Label

Poor performance should never be ignored.

But neither should it automatically be assumed that the problem lies entirely with the employee.

The most effective organisations do not simply react to performance problems.

They diagnose them.

They create clarity before demanding accountability. They identify capability gaps before assuming unwillingness. They remove unnecessary barriers before measuring results. And they give employees meaningful feedback and a reasonable opportunity to improve.

The result is not only a fairer performance management process.

It is a smarter one.

Because the question is not simply:

“Is this employee performing?”

The better question is:

“What is preventing this employee from performing — and what is the right response?”

 

🔥 Put Your Performance Management Process in the Hot Seat

Are your managers equipped to identify the real cause of a performance problem — or are they applying the same response every time?

HR Consult can help your organisation strengthen its approach to performance management, equip managers with practical tools and guidance, and create processes that focus on clarity, fairness and meaningful improvement.