growing businesses manage poor performance

Poor performance should be managed early, clearly and consistently, with expectations tied to the role rather than personality or intent.

Poor performance is one of the most common issues growing businesses struggle with, and one of the easiest to mishandle. For businesses under 100 employees, the risk is rarely acting too quickly. It’s waiting too long, tolerating too much, and then reacting when frustration peaks. That’s when performance issues turn into legal and cultural problems.

Why poor performance becomes harder as businesses grow

In very small teams, underperformance is obvious and dealt with informally.

As businesses grow:

  • founders step back from day-to-day oversight
  • managers lead teams for the first time
  • expectations vary between individuals
  • feedback becomes inconsistent

Performance issues don’t disappear.
They just become harder to articulate and address.

This is where many businesses stall.

What “poor performance” actually means in practice

Poor performance is not about effort or attitude.
It’s about outcomes against expectations.

In practice, this includes:

  • missed deadlines
  • work requiring repeated correction
  • inability to meet role requirements
  • failure to follow reasonable directions

Performance becomes difficult to manage when expectations were never clearly defined.

This is why clarity beats intensity every time.

The biggest mistake businesses make

The most common mistake is delay.

Businesses often:

  • hope performance will improve on its own
  • avoid uncomfortable conversations
  • tolerate issues longer than they should
  • then attempt to “fix everything” at once

By the time formal action is taken:

  • frustration is high
  • trust is low
  • documentation is thin

This makes fair management much harder.

Why early conversations matter more than formal process

Most performance issues can be corrected early.

Early conversations:

  • reduce defensiveness
  • allow course correction
  • create shared understanding
  • protect future decisions

They don’t need to be formal or threatening.
They just need to be clear.

Waiting for certainty often removes the chance to improve outcomes.

What effective performance management looks like

Good performance management is:

  • structured but human
  • clear but proportionate
  • consistent across employees

In practice, it usually involves:

  • setting clear expectations
  • documenting key conversations
  • giving the employee an opportunity to respond
  • allowing reasonable time for improvement

It does not require corporate frameworks or endless paperwork.

Do you always need warnings?

No, but warnings are often useful.

Warnings help when:

  • expectations were unclear
  • the role is complex
  • improvement is genuinely possible

They hurt when:

  • the decision is already made
  • they are used to “tick a box”
  • managers do not believe improvement will occur

Warnings should support improvement, not justify termination after the fact.

How long should you give someone to improve?

There is no fixed timeframe.

Reasonableness depends on:

  • the role
  • the impact of the underperformance
  • how long the issue has existed
  • whether expectations were clear

Dragging performance management out to feel “safer” often increases risk rather than reducing it.

Clarity and decisiveness matter more than duration.

The role of documentation (without overdoing it)

Documentation protects decisions when it reflects reality.

Effective documentation:

  • is factual
  • is timely
  • reflects actual conversations
  • aligns with actions taken

Poor documentation:

  • is written after the decision
  • exaggerates issues
  • contradicts earlier feedback

More documents do not equal more protection.

Consistency does.

When performance management should stop

Performance management should stop when:

  • expectations are met, or
  • it becomes clear improvement is unlikely

Continuing process when the outcome is obvious:

  • wastes time
  • undermines credibility
  • increases legal risk

Knowing when to stop is just as important as knowing when to start.

How poor performance links to termination risk

Most unfair dismissal claims involving performance are not about the employee’s capability.

They are about:

  • surprise
  • lack of clarity
  • inconsistent treatment
  • delayed action

Good performance management makes termination easier, cleaner and safer if it becomes necessary.

Where HR support adds the most value

HR support is most valuable when it:

  • helps frame expectations
  • sense-checks timing
  • advises whether formal steps are needed
  • supports managers through conversations

This prevents drift and protects decisions.

For growing businesses, this support often avoids escalation altogether.

FAQs

No. They require different processes and responses.

No. A PIP is a tool, not a legal requirement.

Yes, if expectations were clear and the process was reasonable.

Effort does not override outcomes if expectations are clear.

No. Support reduces risk and inconsistency.

Before performance becomes a problem

Poor performance is easiest to manage when it is addressed early, calmly and clearly.

If you’re unsure whether to coach, formalise or move towards termination, that uncertainty is usually the cue to pause and get advice before the situation hardens.

👉 Get free initial HR advice