5 mistakes leaders make when managing non performance – and what to do instead

Let’s be honest, managing non‑performance ain’t fun. We avoid it, soften it, delay it, or dress it up in so much kindness that the message disappears altogether.

But non‑performance left to languish is one of the fastest ways to drain energy, morale, and credibility from a team. And from you, for that matter.

Drawing on leadership research, organisational psychology, and the patterns I see repeatedly in my leadership work, here are the five most common mistakes leaders make when managing non‑performance. And what to do instead.

Mistake #1: Waiting too long and hoping it will fix itself

Most leaders don’t ignore non‑performance because they’re lazy. They ignore it because they’re hopeful.

We hope the person will self‑correct, that circumstances will change or that a quiet hint, a raised eyebrow, or a pointed question will do the job.

Research on performance management consistently shows us that delay amplifies problems. The longer underperformance goes unaddressed, the more entrenched it becomes. And when you do finally have the “Houston, we have a problem” conversation, its far more likely to be emotionally charged. I’ve done this. When I waited too long, I became too frustrated, disappointed, and carried a mental spreadsheet of grievances the other person never saw. 

Unsurprisingly, that encounter then didn’t go well when I did finally confront the issues. 

What to do instead? Address the issue early and lightly.

Early conversations are calmer, clearer, and far less threatening. You’re not accusing, you’re just noticing.

Name what you’re noticing, like I outline in this blog. Be specific and factual. And check your assumptions.

For example: “I’ve noticed the last three reports were late, and that’s not typical for you. What’s up?”

Early intervention isn’t harsh. In fact, it’s kind. 

Mistake #2: Being vague to avoid discomfort

Many leaders confuse kindness with vagueness. You might soften feedback so much that the message becomes impossible to hear:

• “Maybe just be a bit more proactive.”
• “I think there’s an opportunity to lift your game.”
• “Some people are feeling a little concerned.”

The research is clear here: clarity is kindness. Ambiguous feedback, soft soaping or “walking around the mulberry bush” with your feedback conversation increases anxiety, not safety. People can’t fix what they can’t see or understand!

When leaders are vague, employees often assume they’re doing fine, until suddenly they’re not.

What to do instead? Be clear, direct, and human.

Describe the behaviour. Explain the impact. State the expectation.

“When Friday’s deadline was missed, the team had to scramble to get it to the executive team in time. We need reports submitted by Friday, every week.” …followed by a coaching conversation with them to uncover the root cause and what they can do to meet the deadline in the future. 

NOTE: All feedback conversations should be paired with a coaching conversation IMHO.

You can be warm and clear. In fact, the best leaders always are.

Mistake #3: Making it about attitude instead of behaviour

One of the fastest ways to derail a performance conversation is to label the person rather than address the behaviour.

‘Blur’ words like unmotivated, negative, careless, or not committed will trigger defensiveness as quick as you can say “well, this escalated…”

Psychological research shows that people are far more open to change when feedback focuses on observable behaviours, not perceived character flaws. Once someone feels judged on a personal level, the conversation is over, even if they’re still sitting in the chair.

What to do instead? Stick to what can be seen, heard, or measured.

Describe actions and outcomes, not personality traits.

Instead of: “You’re disengaged.”
Try: “In the last two meetings, I noticed you didn’t contribute and folded your arms every time Mary spoke. I wondered what was going on for you…?”

Behaviour can be changed. Identity remarks feel like attacks.

Mistake #4: Taking full ownership of fixing the problem

Leaders often fall into this trap because they’re capable, conscientious, and caring.  I wrote about the tendency towards being a ‘rescue manager’ in this blog. 

You might find yourself rewriting one of your direct report’s work, chasing deadlines or providing endless reminders. This is lowering the bar quietly and it means you are taking on all of the burden. 

Research on accountability shows that over‑functioning by leaders leads to under‑functioning by employees. When you carry the responsibility, the other person doesn’t have to, leading to resentment.

What to do instead? Create shared ownership.

Your role is to be clear about expectations, provide support, and hold the line. Their role is to step up.

Ask questions that put responsibility back where it belongs:

“What’s your plan to get this back on track?”
“What support do you need and what will you do differently?”

Support doesn’t mean rescuing.

Mistake #5: Avoiding consequences until it’s too late

Some leaders believe that consequences are unkind. Others fear they’ll damage the relationship. But research into fair process shows just the opposite: predictable, proportionate consequences actually increase trust.

Trust isn’t destroyed by consequences; it’s destroyed when there’s inconsistency.  When poor performance is tolerated indefinitely, your high performers will certainly notice, and they won’t thank you for it!

What to do instead? Be transparent about what happens next.

If expectations aren’t met, say so and explain the consequences calmly and early.

“If this doesn’t improve over the next four weeks, we’ll need to move into a formal performance process. Let’s work together so we don’t have to go down that road.” (Once again, followed by a coaching conversation).

This isn’t a threat, it’s information. That helps them understand where they’re at and allows them to make informed choices.  

Handling non‑performance well isn’t about being tough or soft, but it does require timeliness, clarity and courage. When you tackle underperformance early and well, you increase trust and performance. Managing non‑performance isn’t the thing that makes you a bad leader. Avoiding it is.