How to Handle Poor Performers and Missed Deadlines

The problem with Performance Improvement Plans is that they are too slow. They often become a 30- or 90-day limbo that is uncomfortable for both the manager and the employee, and that usually prolongs a situation already unsatisfactory for both.

I’m not saying that you should not use PIPs. They have a place, documenting a formal process and creating a shared written record. Instead, I’m saying that you shouldn’t stop at agreeing on where the employee’s performance must be in 90 days. You should also ask yourself: for them to be there in 90 days, where should they be by day 30? And to be there by day 30, where should they be by day 7? And for them to be there by day 7, where should they be tomorrow?

The answer to this last question will probably be a small improvement, but it will be something tangible that you can already demand and validate the following day. That has enormous advantages.

If that improvement is there, great. It means that the employee took the PIP seriously and is on track for improvement. Continue with another expectation for day 7, then one for day 30, and so on, carefully checking progress toward them on at least a weekly schedule.

Conversely, if the small improvement you agreed on at day 0 for day 1 is not there the following day, it means you have a problem.

It may be that you haven’t been clear, or that they didn’t take you seriously. In that case, clarify the demand and the stakes on day 1, and set the same objective for day 2.

Or it may be that they didn’t know where to begin. In that case, clarify that, give them a clear next step, and set an expectation for day 2.

Or perhaps you asked too much of them, in which case you can give them a smaller expectation for day 2, though it should still be small but not trivial. After all, they have somewhere to be by day 90.

In any of the three cases above, you achieved something: by day 2, or day 3 at worst, both you and the employee will have a very good idea of whether the PIP is likely to work.

In the best-case scenario, the progress is there, and the PIP is likely to work. In the second-best scenario, it’s obvious to everyone that it won’t work, and either they resign on the spot or, more likely, you both spend the next few weeks moving toward the future. All of these scenarios are better than a 90-day limbo that is unlikely to work.

Generalizing to performance management

What we have discussed in the context of Performance Improvement Plans are general principles that apply even outside of PIPs.

When you delegate tasks, set performance expectations, or give negative feedback, do not wait until the next formal performance review to assess progress. Instead, check the next day whether they took you seriously and whether they are ready to change. That usually tells you a lot about what the next weeks and months will look like, and helps you prevent limbo situations that are uncomfortable for everyone involved.

However, most managers do not do this and wait weeks instead. They do so because of the following four mistakes.

Mistake 1: Assessing the person, not the task

Saying that an employee “is underperforming,” “lacks ownership,” or “has a problem with attention to detail” is generic feedback that assesses a person rather than a task. This kind of feedback has a place in a year-end review, a promotion discussion, or similar situations, but not in a conversation whose purpose is to give feedback and stimulate improvement. For that, it’s better to assess specific tasks. Doing so will force you to be more concrete, which makes your feedback more objective, easier to accept, and easier to act upon.

For each piece of work you delegate, define what bad, good, and great look like. This gives the employee a concrete target before they start, and gives you something specific to reference when performance falls short. This bad/good/great framework works for soft skills too, not just deliverables.

Mistake 2: Adversarial rather than collaborative feedback

Most feedback is implicitly adversarial, even when delivered politely. It implies that you were wrong and I was right, and that you should switch from your way of doing things to mine. This framing triggers defensiveness.

A better alternative is to frame feedback as collaborative: not as “me vs. you,” but as “you and me vs. the problem.” Instead of “your report was unclear,” try: “Our stakeholders need to act on this immediately. What would make it easier for them to read?” The second version identifies an external threat, the risk of stakeholders reacting slowly, and invites collaboration. Read more on adversarial vs. collaborative feedback.

Mistake 3: No track record of usefulness

Your feedback will not land if you have not built a track record of being helpful. If past feedback created more problems than it solved, or pointed to issues without offering a path forward, people stop listening.

So make sure your feedback is useful, not merely correct. Here are three tips:

1. Be concise. Repeating three times that they made a mistake or taking minutes to explain what could take seconds is a perfect recipe to ensure that the next time you give them feedback, they mentally disconnect.
2. Only provide value-adding negative feedback. Positive feedback, you can give as much as you want. But negative feedback: try to filter out that which is formally correct, but doesn’t move the needle.
3. Make your feedback actionable. You don’t have to spell out all the steps, and doing so may feel like micromanagement, but you should double-check that they feel like what you ask for is doable and that they have a next step in mind. If not, spend a couple of minutes discussing what obstacles they see, and either help them overcome them or at least provide a few pointers. You shouldn’t do their homework for them, but you should ensure that the homework feels clear and doable.

Mistake 4: No follow-up after the feedback

The fourth mistake is not following through. After giving feedback, most managers wait weeks to see if anything has changed. That wait is the problem, for two reasons. First, it implies that your feedback wasn’t important. After all, if it were truly important, wouldn’t you have followed up to ensure it was acted upon? Second, if your feedback wasn’t taken seriously, you won’t know until weeks have passed, and probably after more subpar work has been done. That is bad both for the company and for the employee, who kept pouring effort into work that could not produce results he could get rewarded for.

So, within one day of giving feedback, make a quick check-in. The goal is not to evaluate results or finished work; these may take time. Rather, it’s to evaluate whether the feedback was registered. Did they act on it, formulate an actionable and specific plan to act on it, or at least acknowledge that something needed to change?

If you’re afraid this may seem meddling, do not frame it as “I wanted to check whether you listened to me,” which puts them on the spot. Instead, frame it as “I wanted to ensure I had been clear enough and hadn’t forgotten anything,” which puts you on the spot.

Taking feedback seriously

Giving feedback once is not enough. Standards do not enforce themselves.

Whenever you give a piece of feedback, and they do not apply it, and you let that pass, employees learn the lesson that your feedback is not to be taken seriously.

This does not mean that you should turn into a controlling dictator; that would be bad. Nor does it mean that you should stubbornly insist on your feedback being followed, even when it’s wrong, or there’s a better way. Instead, it means that if your feedback isn’t followed, you should ask why, with an open mind. If there’s a good reason for not having followed it, or if they found a better way forward than the one you suggested, no problem. The problem would be if there were no good reason, and you didn’t notice that your feedback wasn’t followed, because that would have signaled that your feedback is not to be taken seriously.

It’s not about insisting on your way of doing things. It’s about not letting a lack of care pass.

---

If you want to implement this kind of performance management discipline across your leadership team, I work with business leaders and their organizations on exactly this. Get in touch.

For more on making feedback land, see my posts on adversarial vs. collaborative feedback and why people don’t listen to your feedback.