Summary Underperformance is often treated as a motivation problem when the real issue may be a lack of clarity, capability or confidence. Effective leaders resist the temptation to jump to conclusions and instead focus on understanding what's driving performance. By diagnosing before prescribing, asking better questions and creating clear expectations, leaders can prevent many performance issues before they occur. Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 230 of the Leadership Today Podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we explore four areas that will help you to diagnose likely performance issues before they become a problem. When someone in our team starts underperforming, it's remarkable how quickly we jump to conclusions. We see missed deadlines, lower quality work, reduced initiative or declining engagement and often assume we already know what's going on. They must have lost motivation. They've become complacent. They don't care as much as they used to. Before long, we've developed a story about the cause of the problem, often with very little evidence. One of the biggest mistakes leaders make when managing performance is assuming they know why someone is underperforming. We observe behaviour and immediately start interpreting it. The challenge is that while behaviour is visible, the causes behind that behaviour are often hidden. Two people can display exactly the same performance issue for completely different reasons. I was recently facilitating a workshop on managing underperformance and asked participants to think about someone in their team whose performance wasn't where they wanted it to be. The leaders could easily describe what they were seeing. They talked about missed deadlines, lower quality work, avoidance of difficult tasks, reduced initiative and a general drop in engagement. What was much harder was identifying why those behaviours were occurring. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that most leaders were highly confident about the symptoms but far less certain about the causes. A useful way to think about performance is through four questions. Does the person know what good performance looks like? Can they do it? Do they believe they can do it? And do they want to do it? These questions point us towards four common drivers of performance: clarity, capability, confidence and motivation. Understanding which of these is getting in the way is often the difference between solving a problem and making it worse. For example, someone may avoid a task because they weren't aware it was important. Another might avoid it because they genuinely don't have the skills or experience to complete it effectively. Another person may avoid exactly the same task because they're worried they'll fail or look incompetent. Another person may avoid it because they simply don't see personal value in the task and have disengaged from the outcome. From the outside, all three situations can look identical. We see avoidance, hesitation or procrastination. What we don't immediately see is the reason behind it. This is why curiosity is such an important leadership skill. Rather than asking, "What's wrong with this person?", effective leaders ask, "What's getting in the way of this person's success?" That subtle shift moves us away from judgement and towards understanding. It encourages us to gather information before reaching conclusions and significantly improves our chances of providing the support people actually need. Research provides some useful insights here. Self-Determination Theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, suggests that people are more likely to be motivated when three psychological needs are met: competence, autonomy and relatedness. Competence is the feeling that we can do something well. Autonomy is having some choice and control over our work. Relatedness is feeling connected to others and to a broader purpose. What's particularly interesting is that competence sits at the foundation. When people don't feel capable, motivation often suffers as a result. Think about a time when you were asked to do something that felt completely outside your comfort zone. Perhaps you were asked to present to a large audience, lead a major project or take responsibility for something you'd never done before. Chances are you didn't immediately feel highly motivated. You may have procrastinated, delayed getting started or looked for reasons to avoid the task. Someone observing your behaviour might have concluded that you lacked motivation. In reality, the issue may have been capability, confidence or both. The same thing happens in our teams. Leaders often assume a motivation problem when the real issue is capability or confidence. The reverse can happen as well. Sometimes leaders invest heavily in training and development when the real issue is that someone no longer feels connected to the purpose of their work. Without understanding the cause, we're simply guessing. Another contributor to underperformance that often gets overlooked is clarity. Many performance issues begin long before performance actually declines. They start when expectations are vague, inconsistent or poorly communicated. I've worked with leaders who were frustrated that team members weren't demonstrating enough initiative, only to discover that nobody had clearly defined what initiative actually looked like. Different leaders had different expectations, making it almost impossible for people to consistently succeed. It's difficult to hit a target you can't clearly see. People are far more likely to perform well when they understand what success looks like, how their work contributes to broader goals and what standards are expected of them. Sometimes what appears to be an accountability issue is really an expectations issue. The conversation that needs to happen isn't about performance correction. It's about performance clarity. So what can we do as leaders? First, diagnose before you decide. When you notice a performance issue, resist the temptation to immediately label it as a motivation problem. Consider whether the issue might relate to clarity, capability, confidence or motivation. Gather information before reaching conclusions. Second, ask better questions. Questions such as "What's been most challenging about this?" or "What support would help you succeed?" often reveal far more than assumptions ever will. The quality of our diagnosis depends heavily on the quality of our questions. Third, focus on prevention rather than correction. The best underperformance conversation is often the one you never need to have because expectations were clear from the beginning. Invest time upfront defining success, checking understanding and providing regular feedback before problems emerge. Managing underperformance can be one of the most challenging aspects of leadership, but it becomes much easier when we replace assumptions with curiosity. Most people don't come to work intending to underperform. More often, something is getting in the way of their success. Our role as leaders is to understand what that obstacle is and help remove it. This week, think about someone whose performance isn't where you'd like it to be and ask yourself four questions: Do they know what good looks like? Can they do it? Do they believe they can do it? Do they want to do it? Your answers may completely change the conversation you need to have.
