run-underperformance-conversation

name	run-underperformance-conversation
description	Use when a manager first observes that a direct report's performance is declining or falling below expectations — to have an early, direct, non-punitive conversation that names the gap and opens a path to correction before the situation requires formal process.
source	Scott "Radical Candor" (St. Martin's Press, 2017) — the "challenging directly" component; Hill "Becoming a Manager" (HBS Press, 1992, updated 2003); SHRM "Early Performance Intervention" best practice guide; Grenny et al. "Crucial Conversations" (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed. 2012)
tags	["underperformance","performance","difficult-conversation","manager","early-intervention","feedback","accountability","correction"]

Run Underperformance Conversation

Have an early, direct conversation the first time a performance gap appears — naming the specific gap, exploring causes without assuming, and agreeing on a clear path to correction — before the pattern hardens and requires formal process.

Why This Is Best Practice

Adopted by: Kim Scott's "Radical Candor" framework — used at Google, Dropbox, Apple, and most major tech companies as a management training standard — defines "challenging directly" as the non-negotiable second half of caring management; Linda Hill's research (100 new managers over one year, "Becoming a Manager") found that failure to address underperformance early was the single most common management failure among new managers, and that delay consistently made the situation worse; SHRM's early performance intervention framework is the HR industry standard for preventing PIPs through proactive management Impact: SHRM research found that managers who addressed underperformance within the first 30 days of observing it resolved the issue (returned the employee to expected performance) 70% of the time; managers who waited more than 90 days resolved it only 25% of the time; Gallup's 2022 research found that only 29% of employees "strongly agree" that their manager discusses their performance clearly — meaning 71% of employees are not getting early performance signal they need to course-correct; Kim Scott's framework identifies manager silence as "ruinous empathy" — the most common management failure, where concern for the employee's feelings causes the manager to withhold feedback that would actually help them Why best: Early underperformance conversations feel uncomfortable to managers — they require naming a gap to someone who may not see it, react defensively, or feel demoralized; managers avoid them through rationalization ("it's just a phase," "they're going through something personal," "it'll get better on its own"); this avoidance is the primary cause of formal PIP processes — by the time a PIP is needed, the gap has been growing for months while the manager said nothing; a single direct conversation at the first sign of decline is almost always easier for both parties than a formal documented process six months later

Sources: Scott "Radical Candor" (St. Martin's Press, 2017); Hill "Becoming a Manager" (HBS Press, 2003); SHRM "Performance Improvement Planning"; Grenny, Patterson, McMillan & Switzler "Crucial Conversations" (McGraw-Hill, 2012)

Steps

1. Verify the gap is real and your expectations are clear

Before holding the conversation, confirm two things:

Is the gap real?

• Is this a pattern (multiple instances over 2–4 weeks) or a single incident?
• Do you have specific observable evidence, or is it a general impression?
• Is the standard the employee is not meeting one they were actually informed of?

Single incidents warrant immediate situational feedback (see give-developmental-feedback). A pattern — the same type of gap appearing repeatedly, or a general sustained decline — warrants this conversation.

Are your expectations clear? Ask yourself: "If I asked this employee to describe what excellent performance in their role looks like, would their answer match mine?"

If the answer is "probably not," the first cause of the underperformance to explore is expectation misalignment, not capability or motivation. Before holding a performance conversation, verify your expectations have been communicated explicitly — not assumed.

2. Create a private, low-stakes setting

Do not hold this conversation in a scheduled one-on-one where the employee has no warning — they will be caught off guard and defensive. Do not announce it as a "serious conversation" — that creates anxiety before they know what it's about.

A useful framing when scheduling:

"I'd like to find 20–30 minutes to talk about your work on [area]. 
Nothing urgent — I just want to check in directly on a few things. 
Does [time] work?"

Private setting, sufficient time (not squeezed between meetings), no other people present.

3. Name the gap specifically and early

Open the conversation by naming the gap directly — not after 10 minutes of rapport-building that the employee spends wondering what's coming. Delay creates dread.

Name the pattern, not the character:

"I want to talk directly about something I've observed over the last few weeks. 
I've noticed [specific, observable pattern — not "your attitude" but "the last 
three project status updates were missing key stakeholder context and came in 
late"]. That's a gap from what I need from you in this role."

The gap statement has three components:

• What you observed: specific, behavioral, time-bounded
• How it compares to expectations: explicitly name the standard
• Why it matters: the impact on the team, the project, or the customer

Do NOT soften the opening to the point where the employee doesn't register that this is a performance conversation. "I just wanted to chat about a few things" — followed by a performance concern — is heard as an ambush and produces more defensiveness than a direct opening.

4. Ask before assuming the cause

After naming the gap, ask — don't diagnose:

"I wanted to name that directly because I think you can do better here, 
and I want to understand what's happening. What's been going on 
from your perspective?"

Then listen. The cause of underperformance is almost never what the manager assumed, and almost always falls into one of four categories:

Cause	What it looks like	Right response
Clarity gap	Employee didn't know the expectation	Clarify expectations; this is partly the manager's accountability
Skill gap	Employee lacks ability for this specific task	Coaching, training, or task reassignment
Motivation gap	Employee is disengaged, burned out, or checked out	Diagnose root cause (see apply-intrinsic-motivation, prevent-employee-burnout)
Personal circumstances	External stress impacting focus	Short-term accommodation; HR support if relevant

Diagnosing before listening produces the wrong response. A manager who delivers a performance plan to an employee with a clarity gap wastes everyone's time and damages trust.

5. Agree on a specific change and a check-in date

Do not end the conversation without a specific agreement on what changes and when you'll assess it.

"Based on what you've described, here's what I'd like to see change: 
[specific behavioral change — not "do better" but "by next Friday, 
all project updates include a stakeholder summary section and are 
submitted by 3pm on the agreed date"].

I'll check in with you at our one-on-one in two weeks. 
Is that clear? Do you have what you need to make this change?"

The agreement must be:

• Behavioral (observable, not attitudinal)
• Time-bounded (specific deadline or check-in date)
• Owned by the employee (they agree it's achievable)

Get explicit confirmation: "Does this make sense? Do you agree that's what you'll do?"

6. Document the conversation briefly

After the conversation, send a brief written summary — not a formal letter, but a record:

Hi [Name],
Following up on our conversation today. To summarize what we discussed:
- I raised a concern about [specific gap]
- You mentioned [their explanation — be accurate and fair]
- We agreed that you'll [specific behavior change] by [date]
- We'll check in at our [date] one-on-one

Let me know if I've missed anything or if you see it differently.

This documentation serves two purposes: it ensures shared understanding (the employee may have heard something different), and it creates a record if the issue requires escalation to formal process later. A PIP with no prior documented conversations is legally and practically weaker than one with a documented history of informal intervention.

7. Follow through on the check-in

At the agreed check-in, assess explicitly:

If improved: Name it specifically and directly — "I've seen a clear change in [specific behavior] and I want to acknowledge that. That's what I needed."

If not improved: Move to a more formal conversation: "We agreed on [specific change] and I'm still seeing [gap]. At this point I need to be direct: if this doesn't change, this will become a formal performance issue. Let's talk about what support you need."

If the pattern persists after a documented informal conversation, escalate to HR consultation and, if appropriate, formal performance management (see run-performance-improvement-plan).

Rules

• Name the gap early — one pattern is the trigger for a conversation; 6 months of pattern is the trigger for a formal process; do not let the informal stage last more than 4 weeks
• Name the gap specifically, not generally — "I've noticed X pattern" not "your performance has been off"; specific behavioral gaps are actionable, general impressions are not
• Ask before diagnosing — the cause of underperformance almost never matches the manager's assumption; listen before prescribing
• Document the conversation in writing — a brief summary email creates shared understanding and a record; this is not a formal warning, it is a professional communication
• Follow through at the agreed check-in — ignoring the agreed check-in signals that the issue wasn't serious; the follow-through is what makes the conversation meaningful

Common Mistakes

• Waiting months before saying anything: rationalization ("it'll get better") is the primary driver of PIPs; early direct conversation almost always resolves faster and with less damage to the relationship.
• Addressing character instead of behavior: "you've been disorganized" has no path to change; "the last three deliverables were missing X" has a clear correction.
• Sandwich feedback: opening and closing with positives softens the message to the point where the employee doesn't register it as a performance concern; name the gap directly.
• No agreement on change: a conversation without a specific behavioral agreement produces shared awareness but no accountability; always close with "what specifically will change, by when."
• No documentation: verbal-only performance conversations are easy for either party to misremember; a brief written summary within 24 hours aligns understanding and creates a record.

When NOT to Use

• For a single incident that does not constitute a pattern — a one-time miss warrants immediate feedback (see give-developmental-feedback), not a formal underperformance conversation.
• When the performance issue is caused by a manager failure (unclear expectations, inadequate resources, conflicting priorities) — address the root cause first; a performance conversation where the cause is managerial is received as blame and damages trust.
• When the issue rises immediately to gross misconduct or policy violation — these go directly to HR, not through informal coaching.