Signs of underperformance: what to look for before you act
Fix vs Fire, issue 2: Signs of underperformance, what to look for before you act
In Issue 1, I covered how to deal with an underperforming employee once the problem is clear. This issue focuses on something earlier: spotting the signs before the situation escalates.
Most performance situations don’t start that way. They start with small signals that are easy to rationalize away or put off until later and once you miss the early signals, you usually end up in one of two places:
months (sometimes years) of indecision because no one is sure what the “real” problem is
a reactive escalation because the situation finally became impossible to ignore
This issue is about spotting underperformance early, before the conversations get heavy and the options get limited.
Note: this is general guidance, not legal advice. Follow your organization’s policies and partner with HR and legal counsel as needed.
Why early signs matter
The earlier you identify underperformance, the more fair and effective you can be.
Expectations can be clarified before resentment builds.
Support can be real, not just performative.
Documentation can reflect a thoughtful process, not some late scramble to justify an exit.
The employee gets a clear chance to improve.
The goal is not to catch someone slipping up. The goal is to prevent a slow decline that hurts the team, the employee, and the organization. A clear early path gives the employee a real chance to turn it around, and it gives you confidence that you followed through on the agreed next steps.
A quick definition: what counts as a sign?
A sign of underperformance is not a personality preference, attitude, or how friendly someone is. It’s evidence you can point to that’s observable, specific, can be documented, and is tied to outcomes.
Most performance problems show up on the surface as missed deadlines, inconsistent output, or rework. But what’s underneath can be different: judgment, role fit, clarity, skill, or workload.
The goal here is to stay specific so you can “structure hard and manage easy”. I created that phrase from the notion of “hiring hard and managing easy” which seems quite fitting.
What underperformance looks like (and what’s really happening)
Quality of work drops
What you can point to:
repeated errors in numbers, details, or requirements
work that needs rework every time (edits, corrections, do-overs)
deliverables that don’t match the ask even after clarification
What it often shows up as:
delays (because rework takes time)
lower output (because work gets redone)
team friction (because others have to fix it)
What it may actually be:
skill gap, unclear expectations, overload, low attention to detail, or weak review habits
Timeliness slips
What you can point to:
deadlines missed without early warning
late handoffs that block others
“almost done” updates that repeat for days
What it often shows up as:
missed milestones, fire drills, escalations
What it may actually be:
judgment (wrong priorities), unrealistic workload, weak planning, avoidance, or role fit
Follow-through breaks down or becomes unreliable
What you can point to:
commitments made in meetings that don’t happen
tasks delivered partially (missing pieces, missing owners, missing next steps)
check-ins that require you to chase updates
What it often shows up as:
reliability concerns, stakeholder frustration, uneven output, missed deadlines
What it may actually be:
unclear ownership, low accountability, disorganization, or competing priorities
Judgment slips (this one is often misdiagnosed)
What you can point to:
repeatedly prioritizes the wrong work
escalates too late or to the wrong person
misses key risks or downstream impacts
brings problems without a recommendation
What it often shows up as:
timeliness slips (because the wrong thing was prioritized)
quality slips (because assumptions were off)
rework (because stakeholders weren’t aligned)
What it may actually be:
lack of role clarity, lack of context, missing decision criteria, or a capability gap at this level
Reliability drops
What you can point to:
you can’t count on them for deadlines, follow-through, or accuracy
patterns of “I thought…” “I didn’t realize…” “No one told me…”
consistent need for reminders to complete standard work
What it often shows up as:
you double-checking everything, increased management overhead and follow-up by you
What it may actually be:
weak systems, lack of ownership, overwhelm, or disengagement
Collaboration affects results
What you can point to:
handoffs repeatedly break down
others avoid partnering with them because it creates extra work
miscommunication that causes missed work or duplicated work
What it often shows up as:
team in-fighting, slower cycle times, morale issues
What it may actually be:
unclear roles, poor communication habits, interpersonal avoidance, or misalignment on standards
What I want you to take from this is that one-off moments will happen. We've all experienced them. The objective here is to recognize a pattern that’s calling for support and attention.
Here’s a simple test:
If you can name two to three specific examples from the last 30 days and describe the impact, you’re looking at a pattern worth addressing.
If the signs are clear and you’re ready to move from observation to action, the underperforming employee guide in Issue 1 walks through what to do next.
What to do when you notice the signs
This is where most leaders get stuck. They see the signs, but they don’t want to overreact, so they wait…and wait… and wait.
Instead of avoidance, a better approach is a short expectation clarity reset:
EXPECTATION CLARITY RESET
Step 1: Write the expectation in plain language
If you can’t write it in plain language, it’s likely you have not communicated it, modeled it, or managed it with any consistency.
What should be true when the work is done?
What does “good” look like?
How should support be requested?
What kind of support is available?
Step 2: Write the current reality with two specific examples
This part can get tricky but you need to write like a reporter who is simply reporting the facts. This is not a time to embellish, dramatize, infer, etc. No stories. Just facts. Two examples is usually enough to start.
Step 3: Name the impact
Be specific about what the gap is affecting:
quality
timeliness
output
follow-through
reliability
collaboration that affects results
Ask:
Who is paying for this?
What is it slowing down?
What is it risking?
Step 4: Set a short timeline and a checkpoint
Since you established what good looks like in step 1, set a short follow-up point to review progress. Not a threat, but a clear structure.
Many leaders delay important conversations because they’re not clear and confident about how to start the discussion or what to say, here’s one way to go:
I’ve noticed a shift in your work, and I want to address it quickly and clearly so you can get back on track. Let’s align on what good looks like, what needs to change, what support you need, and set a follow-up in two weeks to review progress.
If you’re the manager
Don’t wait until you’re angry and it starts feeling personal rather than performance-related. The earlier you address it, the calmer, more strategic, and solution-oriented you can be.
Bring:
two examples
one clear expectation
one next checkpoint date
If you’re HR
Your value is helping managers get specific. Most managers don’t need motivation, they need confident structure and language.
Coach them to:
separate style preferences from performance indicators
document early in a neutral tone
set a decision timeline so the situation doesn’t linger
When you know the situation is no longer suitable for informal handling, that may be the point to move toward a more structured option such as a performance turnaround protocol.
The simplest reason this works
There's a chance you've been on the receiving end of poor performance management. No one wants to be blindsided by an escalated performance issue that was never clearly addressed earlier.
Early and clear action reduces the emotional impact, claims of unfairness, and the likelihood it will become personal.
It gives the employee a real chance to improve.
And it protects the team from watching standards fall apart.
Structure hard. Manage easy.
If you want a second set of eyes on expectations, checkpoints, documentation, or the decision timeline, I offer practical advisory support for HR leaders and people managers handling underperformance. Request a conversation: https://www.bridgewellpro.com/performance-advisory
Next in the Fix vs Fire series
Issue 3: How to document poor performance without making it worse.
