One of the persistent frustrations I hear from senior managers is that poor performance is not dealt with effectively by line managers, reducing organisation effectiveness and productivity. Poor performance that lingers for too long deteriorates positive working cultures, including demotivating your top performers if they see inaction on poor performers. “Why didn’t the manager deal with this earlier?”
However, line managers’ reluctance to have tough performance conversations is rarely a personal failing. We often solely label it is a lack of practice or confidence. Yet, it is far more often the product of organisational culture, systems and capability gaps that make avoidance the rational choice. If senior leaders genuinely want a healthy, sustainable culture where poor performance is addressed early and fairly, they must understand both:
1) why managers avoid these conversations, and
2) what conditions enable them to happen regularly.
So, what are the key reasons why line managers avoid having those challenging conversations?
1) The organisation’s culture discourages it
In many organisations, managers do not feel safe addressing poor performance. They see examples where managers who raise issues of poor performance with colleagues are drawn into complaints, grievances or protracted HR processes, while those who tolerate underperformance face little consequence from senior line managers.
Senior leaders may say they want accountability, but then their own role modelling of behaviour often sends mixed signals. Poor performers are sometimes protected because they are long-serving, technically strong, or politically connected.
When that happens, managers quickly learn a lesson: it is safer to avoid discomfort than to confront it. I have also encountered that more often in leadership development, the modern perception of psychological safety between colleagues also plays a role. In some cultures, “being a supportive line manager” has quietly come to mean “avoiding difficult conversations that could cause emotional distress to one party or more”. Managers fear being perceived as harsh, biased or unsympathetic, even when their concerns are legitimate.
2) The organisations processes can make early intervention feel risky
Time and time again I see well-intentioned line managers being thwarted by the systems and processes around them. This can be either that performance expectations may be vague or inconsistently applied, leaving managers without a solid footing for challenge, or that performance is defined as behavioural based as well as KPI based, making it hard to specifically define poor performance. In addition, performance management cycles are frequently annual, encouraging delay rather than early correction, even if regular one-to-ones are promoted.
In addition, formal performance processes can feel bureaucratic, time-consuming and irreversible. Once a manager “starts something”, it can feel as though there is no way back. And then during a formal process, HR advice, though well-meaning, can lean towards risk avoidance, reinforcing the idea that it is better not to begin and waste energy on this at all. And this is all in the backdrop of increasingly heavy workloads and a lack of time for people leadership. Therefore it is hardly surprising that performance conversations slip down the priority list for line managers.
3) Line managers lack the skills, confidence and capability
Many line managers are promoted because they are the most technically competent in the team, not their ability to manage people and performance. They may struggle to diagnose whether an issue is about skill, motivation, role fit or external pressures without development in people leadership. Without that clarity, starting a conversation feels like they are out of their depth.
There is also the simple human factor: most people dislike confrontation, especially if they used to be a member of the team who was promoted to the team line manager. Managers worry about emotional reactions, damaging relationships, or saying the wrong thing. Feedback skills are often underdeveloped (both giving and receiving), and solely classroom-based training or e-learning courses rarely provide enough practice or reinforcement to change behaviour.
Faced with uncertainty and discomfort, managers do what humans do best: they rationalise inaction.
The ironic situation
When poor performance is not addressed early, the consequences are cumulative. High performers carry the load. Standards drift and trust in leadership erodes. Over time, the culture adapts to the lowest common denominator.
Therefore, ironically, the longer issues are left, the less humane the eventual outcome tends to be. Late intervention can result in dismissal as there is “too much water under the bridge”. Early, clear challenging conversations about sub-standard performance allow people to improve, reset expectations or make informed decisions about their future. Avoidance removes those options.
The challenge for senior leaders is therefore not to demand more courage from managers, but to create the environment where regular performance-rectifying conversations are normal, supported and expected.
So, what are those conditions that can create more frequent healthy performance conversations?
1) Make performance conversations explicitly part of the job
And I don’t mean to just “write it in their job description”. Senior managers need to devote a significant proportion of their dealing with line managers to talk about the people behaviour element and coach the line manager in how to effectively deal with the first signs of poor performance. (Indeed, this usually exposes some senior leader’s own shortfalls in competence in having these conversations). Senior managers actively encouraging frequent one-to-ones on performance is more effective than any process or procedure.
2) Lower the personal risk for the line manager
Senior leaders must visibly stand behind managers who address underperformance early and fairly. This includes backing them when conversations cause discomfort or lead to challenge. Nothing undermines accountability faster than managers feeling exposed when they do what the organisation says it wants.
3) Be explicit about what “good” looks like
Clear, role-specific performance standards turn difficult conversations from personal judgement into factual discussion. When expectations are observable and shared, managers have something concrete to refer to. It is about the “what” and the “how”. I am working with more organisations to identify the behaviours that build the right actions, outcomes and culture.
4) Separate early intervention from the formal process
Managers intervene earlier when they believe conversations are about coaching and resetting expectations, not triggering disciplinary pathways. Organisations that provide a clear, informal route for early correction prevent issues from escalating unnecessarily. Managers do not respond to scripts or lengthy models. They need simple, practical frameworks they can use consistently: what was expected, what has been observed, why it matters, and what needs to change. Simplicity drives usage.
5) Hold managers accountable for addressing underperformance
And this especially means that HR professionals do not pick up ER issues from line managers who are not dealing with poor performance. This just increases HR workload and let’s the line manager “off the hook”. And organisations get what they deserve. If manager effectiveness is assessed only on delivery and results, people leadership will always be secondary.
In summary
Healthy, sustainable performance cultures are not built on avoiding discomfort. They are built on honesty, clarity and fairness that is applied early and consistently. Line managers sit at the sharp end of this work, but senior leaders shape the environment in which they operate. When organisations normalise performance conversations, reduce risk, clarify standards and reinforce accountability, managers do not need to be persuaded to act. They simply do what the system makes sensible. And that is when performance management stops being a problem and starts becoming a source of trust, fairness and sustainability.
