Wondering what to do with an underperforming employee? Ando Chong on the workload excuse, what tolerating it teaches your best people, and the honest fix.
Every owner has one. The team member who is not performing, has not performed for a year, and everybody knows it. When I ask an owner why that person is still there, I get the same answer almost every time. But who will pick up the workload?
I want to be direct with you about that sentence, because I have said it myself and I know what it really means. It is not a resourcing analysis. It is an excuse to avoid a hard conversation. If you are wondering what to do with an underperforming employee, start by being honest about why you have not done anything yet.
Not the salary. That is the visible cost and it is the smallest one. The real bill is being paid by your best people.
They see it, long before you think they do. They watch someone deliver half the output for the same pay, watch you tolerate it, and they draw the only available conclusion. Performance here is optional. Then one of two things happens. Your best people lower their effort to match, or they leave and take their standards somewhere they are noticed. Either way, the performer you were afraid to lose costs you the performers you could not afford to lose.
And the workload argument collapses the moment you look at it. A poor performer does not just produce less. They generate rework, complaints and cleanup that your good people absorb quietly. Owners who finally act almost always tell me the same thing a month later. The workload got lighter.
Before anything else, be fair. Ask whether they ever had a real chance to succeed. Do they know, in writing, what good looks like? Were they trained? Are they a good person sitting in the wrong seat? Right people in the right seats cuts both ways. Sometimes the fix is a move, not an exit, and I have seen a struggling employee become a strong one two desks away.
But if the seat is right, the expectations are clear and the performance still is not there, then you already know. You have known for a while.
Have the honest conversation you have been avoiding. Sit down privately and name it plainly. Here is the standard, here is where you are against it, here is exactly what needs to change. Play the ball, not the man. It is about the work, never the person's character.
Then give a real chance to respond, with a defined period, support and check ins along the way. Some people lift, and when they do it is a genuine win for everyone. Document as you go, and talk to an employment adviser before you act, not after. In Australia the process matters as much as the reason, and a fair decision run badly still becomes an unfair dismissal claim.
And if nothing changes, act. Respectfully, cleanly, without dragging it out. The kindest thing you can do for someone failing in a role is to be honest about it. The cruellest is to let them fail slowly in front of their colleagues for another year.
You are not protecting the team by keeping a poor performer. You are taxing them. The workload fear is real for about two weeks, and then the team reorganises around competence and things get lighter, faster and calmer.
If someone came to mind in the first paragraph, that is your answer. Book the conversation this week.
Long enough to be fair, short enough to be honest. A defined improvement period with clear written expectations, support and regular check ins is standard. If nothing moves inside that window, more time rarely changes the outcome.
Being liked and being effective are different questions. Keep the conversation about the work, not the character. Likeable underperformers are the ones teams resent most over time, because everyone carries their load while pretending not to notice.
In the short term the team shares it, usually for less time than owners fear. Poor performers generate rework and cleanup that disappears with them, so the true gap is smaller than the headcount suggests. Most owners report the workload feels lighter within a month.
Sometimes, yes. If the person has the right attitude but the wrong seat, a move can transform their performance. If the attitude itself is the problem, a new seat just relocates it.
Anderson Chong, Founder of iQuest Consulting and Business by Design.
From a quick conversation to transforming the business.
Book a 15 minute chat.
