Poor performance rarely improves, you know, because a manager spends another fortnight worrying about how to even raise it. And yes, I see managers spend an extraordinary amount of energy preparing to have such a conversation, and a lot of the time they'll just keep postponing it. They're concerned about upsetting someone or losing a valued employee, or they're worrying about causing an argument or damaging a relationship.
And whilst the manager delays, everyone else is learning that the standards are negotiable. What we should do is find out what is causing the manager to go into avoidance. Don't they know the facts? Are they uncertain about the standards? Are they anxious because the employee might become defensive? Are they worried that the employee will resign?
Are they hoping that the issue will solve itself? These are all different problems requiring different solutions. A manager who lacks evidence might need to be helped about how to go about collecting it. One who can't explain the expected standard might need to focus on that.
One who understands both but just can't bring themselves to speak may need a bit of practice, a rehearsal, and a definite deadline. A useful performance conversation isn't a character judgment. Imagine saying, "We agreed the customer reports would be completed by Thursday, but the last three didn't arrive till Monday, and that causes the next team to lose their preparation time.
Help me understand what is happening." Notice what is absent. There is no speech here about attitude. We've got no invented motive. There's no dramatic accusation. It's just a clear expectation, observable evidence, a degree of explanation about the impact, and a request for the employee's side of things or their account.
The manager then listens, tests the explanation, and agrees on the next action. That is manageable, even if it's uncomfortable. Don't let a well-run conversation become the end of the process. Record what has been agreed, when you will check it, and what will happen if the gap continues.
Support the manager through carrying out the follow-up, not by taking the employee away from them. If managers repeatedly conduct every difficult conversation on a manager's behalf, they teach that manager that discomfort is an excellent reason for them escalating the conversation upwards. The objective is not to turn people managers into aggressive disciplinarians.
It's to make a direct, fair, timely conversation an ordinary part of a manager's job. Delaying it usually serves nobody.
And whilst the manager delays, everyone else is learning that the standards are negotiable. What we should do is find out what is causing the manager to go into avoidance. Don't they know the facts? Are they uncertain about the standards? Are they anxious because the employee might become defensive? Are they worried that the employee will resign?
Are they hoping that the issue will solve itself? These are all different problems requiring different solutions. A manager who lacks evidence might need to be helped about how to go about collecting it. One who can't explain the expected standard might need to focus on that.
One who understands both but just can't bring themselves to speak may need a bit of practice, a rehearsal, and a definite deadline. A useful performance conversation isn't a character judgment. Imagine saying, "We agreed the customer reports would be completed by Thursday, but the last three didn't arrive till Monday, and that causes the next team to lose their preparation time.
Help me understand what is happening." Notice what is absent. There is no speech here about attitude. We've got no invented motive. There's no dramatic accusation. It's just a clear expectation, observable evidence, a degree of explanation about the impact, and a request for the employee's side of things or their account.
The manager then listens, tests the explanation, and agrees on the next action. That is manageable, even if it's uncomfortable. Don't let a well-run conversation become the end of the process. Record what has been agreed, when you will check it, and what will happen if the gap continues.
Support the manager through carrying out the follow-up, not by taking the employee away from them. If managers repeatedly conduct every difficult conversation on a manager's behalf, they teach that manager that discomfort is an excellent reason for them escalating the conversation upwards. The objective is not to turn people managers into aggressive disciplinarians.
It's to make a direct, fair, timely conversation an ordinary part of a manager's job. Delaying it usually serves nobody.
