A clear, step-by-step approach to managing underperformance — setting expectations, having the right conversations, providing support and keeping good records.
General guidance only. This article explains a fair approach to performance management in plain language, to help you understand the process. It is not legal advice and does not replace advice tailored to your situation. Where formal legal advice is required, we can work alongside appropriately qualified legal advisors.
The first step is to be clear about what you are actually dealing with. Underperformance is when someone is not meeting the standards of the role — quality, output, behaviour or capability. Misconduct is deliberate wrongdoing, such as dishonesty, safety breaches or harassment.
The two are handled differently. Underperformance is usually managed through support, coaching and a fair improvement process. Misconduct is generally addressed through a disciplinary process. Treating one as the other is a common and costly mistake.
You cannot fairly manage performance against a standard the person did not know about. Before raising concerns, make sure expectations are clear and reasonable — ideally set out in a position description, policies or agreed goals. Most performance problems become much easier to address when expectations were clear from the start.
Many performance issues can be resolved early, without a formal process. Have a direct, respectful conversation: describe the specific concern, listen to the employee’s perspective, and agree on what good performance looks like and how you will support them to get there. Often there is a reason behind the issue — unclear priorities, a skills gap, a process problem or something happening outside work.
If informal steps do not lead to improvement, a more formal process may be appropriate — often a performance improvement plan (PIP). A fair PIP usually sets out:
A PIP works best when it is framed as a genuine opportunity to improve, with real support behind it — not as a box-ticking step on the way to dismissal.
If performance still does not improve, warnings may form part of the process. Warnings should be specific about the concern, what is expected, and the possible consequences of continued underperformance. They should be communicated clearly, confirmed in writing, and given in a way that still leaves a genuine opportunity to improve.
Fair process matters as much as the substance. In practice this means letting the employee know the concerns clearly, giving them a real chance to respond before decisions are made, and considering their explanation genuinely. For formal meetings, the employee should generally be offered the opportunity to bring a support person.
Keep clear, factual records as you go — what was discussed, what was agreed, the support provided and the outcomes of each review. Good documentation is not about building a case against someone; it is about being able to show the process was fair, consistent and reasonable. Records made at the time are far more reliable than memory after the fact.
Performance management can be stressful for everyone involved. Done poorly — unclear expectations, harsh delivery, drawn-out uncertainty or a lack of support — it can itself become a psychosocial hazard. Manage performance respectfully, keep expectations and timeframes reasonable, and stay alert to signs of distress so the process improves performance without causing harm.
If performance does not improve despite a fair process, termination may eventually be considered. This is the point of highest risk, and the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant. A sound process — clear expectations, genuine support, a real opportunity to improve and proper records — is what makes a difficult decision defensible. Because termination carries legal risk, this is an area where it is wise to work alongside appropriately qualified legal advisors before acting.
If you are managing an underperformance issue and want to handle it fairly and properly, Robust HR can guide you through each step.