Talking to Employees About Performance Issues: A Collaborative Approach

By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article provides guidelines for managers on conducting effective performance discussions with employees who are failing to meet expectations. Drawing on an extensive body of academic research, it outlines best practices for planning, framing, and conducting performance conversations in a collaborative manner focused on employee development rather than punishment. The article explains how taking a coaching approach, focusing on objective performance data, understanding multiple perspectives, and jointly creating solutions leads to more constructive dialogues and sustainable performance improvement. Specific recommendations are offered around preparation, framing discussions factually yet supportively, and follow-up. An example scenario brings these strategies to life. The article argues that performance management handles as caring, collaborative processes create the conditions for open communication and real, lasting change.

As human resource and talent management consultants, we are often asked to provide guidance on how to address performance issues with employees. All too often, these conversations are dreaded, avoided, or handled in unconstructive ways by managers that further damage the employee relationship and do little to change or improve performance. However, research and best practices offer a better approach - one that is caring, solution-focused, and aimed at development rather than punishment.

Today we will explore the research foundation for effective performance conversations and offer specific guidance and examples for talking to employees who are not meeting expectations.

The Research Foundation for Productive Performance Discussions

An extensive body of research has explored what makes for successful employee performance management and coaching (Greguras & Robie, 1998; London & Smither, 2002; McDowall & York, 2017). Some key findings that inform best practices include:

• Focus on behavior, not character. Discussing specific performance gaps, not global judgments of the employee as a person, allows for constructive problem-solving versus defensiveness (Ilgen, 1980; Smither et al., 2005).

• Use objective performance data. Having clear metrics and examples of where standards are not being met builds credibility and avoids perceived subjectivity (Jermier & Kerr, 1997; Keeping & Levy, 2000).

• Take a coaching, not disciplinary, stance. Coming from a place of customer service and employee development, not enforcement, cultivates openness and commitment to change (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; London & Beatty, 1993).

• Involve the employee. Getting their perspective and having a collaborative dialogue around solutions respects their autonomy and increases voluntary effort and follow-through (Cawley et al., 1998; Erdogan, 2002).

With this research in mind, the following sections will offer practical guidance for managers on framing and conducting effective performance discussions.

Planning and Framing the Performance Discussion

Before meeting with an underperforming employee, it is important for managers to do their due diligence in planning and framing the conversation appropriately. Some key steps and considerations include:

• Review documentation. Ensure you have clear records of where expectations have not been met, including dates, metrics, samples of work, etc. This provides an objective basis for the discussion (Keeping & Levy, 2000).

• Assess causes. Reflect on whether issues seem to stem more from lack of skills/resources or low effort/motivation. This impacts how you approach development versus discipline needs (Brassard & Ritter, 2007; DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006).

• Set discussion goals. Determine if the focus is correcting specific problems, creating a performance improvement plan, or another outcome like transitioning roles. Be clear on objectives but open-minded about solutions (Bracken et al., 2001; Smither et al., 2005).

• Choose timing and setting. Select a private, distraction-free time and location that puts the employee at ease. Avoid publicly calling them out or rushing the exchange (Butterfield et al., 1996; Steelman & Rutkowski, 2004).

Framing discussions this way establishes credibility, transparency and willingness to partner with employees - crucial for open dialogue versus defensiveness. Managers at a mid-sized accounting firm we worked with found planning in this detail led to much more constructive talks.

During the Performance Discussion

With preparation complete, the following approaches maximize the potential for productive discussions and commitment to follow-through:

• Describe Performance Gaps Factually - Start by sharing objective examples and data showing where standards have not been achieved, avoiding subjective criticism. Use "I" statements reflecting your observations versus accusations (Bracken, 2004; Ilgen 1980).

• Understand Perspectives - Invite the employee's viewpoint on causes and allow venting of any frustrations they may have in a respectful back-and-forth. This increases psychological safety for candor (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008; Steelman & Rutkowski, 2004).

• Discuss Development Needs - Collaborate to diagnose the true barriers versus immediately concluding personal shortcomings. Talk through skills, resources or other help they need to succeed versus assuming a lack of effort or motivation (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Pichler, 2012).

• Partner on Solutions - Have the employee propose as well as simply react to solutions. Jointly agree on a step-by-step improvement plan they are committed to versus feeling imposed on (Cawley et al., 1998; Erdogan, 2002).

• Express Support - Affirm strengths and potential while committing resources and check-ins towards their goals. Come from a place of coaching not criticism (Butterfield et al., 1996; London & Beatty, 1993).

Taking these interpersonal approaches creates the relational conditions for open self-reflection versus reactionary defensiveness. At one retail chain we worked with, managers noticed dramatically improved follow-through after incorporating these best practices.

Follow-Up and Continuous Performance Management

To maximize performance turnarounds, follow-up on commitments is critical. Here are sound practices supported by research:

• Schedule regular check-ins to discuss progress, provide feedback and problem-solve roadblocks together (Butterfield et al., 1996; Smither et al., 2005).

• Document outcomes objectively to fairly assess improvement versus backsliding over time (DeNisi & Pritchard, 2006; Grainger & Nankervis, 2001).

• Adjust plans as needed through ongoing two-way communication and adaptation to support success (Bracken et al., 2001; Erdogan, 2002).

• Celebrate achievements to reward effort and follow-through whenever milestones are reached along the way (Greguras & Robie, 1998; Steelman & Rutkowski, 2004).

• Express ongoing caring and accountability. Maintain approachability, empathy and partnership in employee development outside of formal assessments (London & Beatty, 1993; Pichler, 2012).

Treating performance management as an iterative coaching process versus single event demands ongoing manager involvement but pays off in employee engagement and performance sustainability in the long run.

Best Practices in Action - An Industry Example

To bring these collaborative best practices to life, consider how Maria, a manager at a growing tech startup, handled discussion with Elena, a software engineer whose code quality began slipping below standards.

After reviewing documentation and talking with Elena's peers, Maria realized increased workload alone wasn't the root cause. She planned a private meeting to collectively understand barriers and solutions.

Maria started by sharing examples of code needing fixes, avoiding judgments. When Elena felt attacked, Maria invited her perspective, putting her at ease. Elena admitted being overwhelmed by new methods and processes introduced amid rapid scaling.

Together they diagnosed Elena's specific learning needs versus assuming laziness. Maria committed to arranging shadowing and pair programming to help Elena upskill efficiently.

With Maria expressing ongoing belief in Elena’s abilities, Elena proposed a realistic plan including accountability check-ins and stepping back from additional duties temporarily to focus solely on improvement. Maria agreed to adjustments as needed while celebrating coming milestones.

Approaching the discussion collaboratively empowered problem-solving ownership from Elena and sustained commitment. Within months, the partnership restored her code quality to standards and beyond through continuous performance management.

Conclusion: The Value of Caring, Collaborative Conversations

Addressing underperformance requires empathy, patience and partnership from managers - not criticism or commands. Research consistently shows taking a coaching stance and involving employees in open-minded dialogue leads to sustainable performance turnarounds versus temporary corrections or damaged relationships. When managers authentically care about employee development and success, they cultivate the psychological safety, understanding and commitment necessary for real change. Though demanding preparatory effort, conducting performance discussions as caring, collaborative conversations delivers lasting value for both individual careers and organizational effectiveness as a whole. Managers neglecting these best practices do themselves, their people, and their company a disservice in the long run.

References

• Brassard, M. R., & Ritter, D. (2007). Principles of effective performance feedback. The Consultant's Manual, 165-176.

• Bracken, D. W., Allen, J. K., & Dean, D. L. (2001). Performance measurement and feedback in large group interventions: Focus on individual improvement, not rank ordering. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886301372003

• Bracken, D. W. (2004, August). Giving feedback: Real tools for real managers. Harvard Management Update, 9(7), 3–5.

• Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (1996). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 4(4), 475-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410000400404

• Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615

• DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00042.x

• Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Review, 12(4), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00068-1

• Grainger, R. J., & Nankervis, A. R. (2001). Performance appraisal satisfactions, stress and motivation. Australian Journal of Management, 26(2), 173-188.

• Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014068

• Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 960-968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.960

• Ilgen, D. R. (1980). The performance appraisal process: A model, with implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 301-336.

• Jermier, J. M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement—Contextual recollections and current operationalizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90018-7

• Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708

• London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 32(2-3), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930320306

• London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2

• McDowall, A., & York, J. (2017). Individual-level predictors of perceived organizational support, engagement, and performance following feedback. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(6), 839-852. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1375250

• Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta‐analysis. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 709-732. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21499

• Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta‐analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x

• Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 198-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701457958

• Steelman, L. A., & Rutkowski, K. A. (2004). Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410512930

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Talking to Employees About Performance Issues: A Collaborative Approach. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(4). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.4.4