In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
WCM realized its intensely caring culture risked becoming too soft, potentially enabling underperformance. They consciously implemented a practice of 'truth-telling'—having direct, difficult conversations about performance—as a necessary counterbalance to maintain high standards and ensure accountability.
A three-step structure for feedback: state a neutral observation ("What"), explain its impact ("So What"), and suggest a collaborative next step ("Now What"). This focuses on the work, not the person, making the feedback more likely to be received well and acted upon.
An employee's performance drop is rarely due to a single cause. A manager should systematically investigate four distinct areas: Communication (do they know *what* to do?), Training (do they know *how*?), Motivation (do they *want* to?), and Circumstances (is something *blocking* them?).
Feedback often fails because its motivation is selfish (e.g., 'I want to be right,' 'I want to vent'). It only lands effectively when the giver's genuine intention is to help the other person become who *they* want to be. This caring mindset dictates the delivery and reception.
The belief that people fail due to lack of will leads to blame. Shifting to 'people do well if they can' reframes failure as a skill gap, not a will gap. This moves your role from enforcer to helper, focusing you on identifying and building missing skills.
Instead of aiming for vague outcomes like "empowerment," start by defining the specific, observable behaviors you want to see. For example, what does "being data-driven" actually look like day-to-day? This focus allows you to diagnose and remove concrete barriers related to competency, accessibility, or social reinforcement.
When giving feedback, structure it in three parts. "What" is the specific observation. "So what" explains its impact on you or the situation. "Now what" provides a clear, forward-looking suggestion for change. This framework ensures feedback is understood and actionable.
Use the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Way Forward) to structure coaching conversations. This simple set of question categories helps leaders guide their team members to find their own solutions, fostering independence and critical thinking without the leader needing to provide the answer directly.
Instead of offering unsolicited advice, first ask for permission. Frame the feedback around a shared goal (e.g., "I know you want to be the best leader possible") and then ask, "I spotted something that's getting in the way. Could I tell you about it?" This approach makes the recipient far more willing to listen and act.
Leaders who complain their team isn't as good as them are misplacing blame. They are the ones who hired and trained those individuals. The team's failure is ultimately the leader's failure in either talent selection, skill development, or both, demanding radical ownership.