How to speak to a low-performing engineer

Having to deal with a low performer who is not responding to positive reinforcement can bring out some of the worst instincts in a manager. Managers of a certain personality type will take the confrontational route: strong verbal feedback ranging from expressing disappointment to shaming the employee or even threatening them with benefit cuts, changes to responsibilities or even termination. Managers of a certain other personality type will take the avoidant route: afraid of hurting the employee’s feelings or triggering a confrontation, they will instead provide the vaguest of feedback, hoping that the employee will get the message. When the message invariably fails to get through, they will then tend to make the low performer someone else’s problem: either transferring them (effectively making them another manager’s burden) or reassigning critical work to other, high performing team members (effectively penalizing them for their coworker’s poor performance).

In the first scenario, the negative impact is obvious: except for the rare case of a highly self-aware low performer who uses the manager’s negative feedback as fuel to improve themselves, in most cases, the employee will develop various levels of toxicity. That toxicity will manifest in several ways: further lowering of performance, spreading water-cooler talk about how bad their manager is (which is not entirely inaccurate) and finally, being a detractor in the market if and when they quit (or are fired). Watching a low performing colleague not being supported by their manager can be devastating for a team’s morale. Even high performers may wonder: if my performance ever drops for some reason, will this happen to me too?

In the second scenario, the negative impact is less obvious but more dangerous in the long run: first, the manager inadvertently sends a message to the organization that low performers will be tolerated and that high performers will have to pick up their slack. Second, this particular low performer will continue to labor under the illusion that they are performing adequately, until one day when the manager is finally forced to take action. And since the manager has not conveyed any strong feedback earlier, this action will come as a surprise to the employee, who will now believe that they have been unfairly targeted by their manager. As in the first scenario, this too will result in water-cooler talk and loss of morale in the team.

If the feedback should neither be soft nor hard, then what should it be? The answer is simple: it should be objective. At every step of the performance process, the question a manager must ask themselves is: is this objective?

Let us see what this means with a simple example. Let us say several of your direct reports (and perhaps even one of your peers) have brought you a performance concern regarding your direct report X. “X is making too many mistakes” is the concern. Being objective at this juncture means establishing what the mistakes were, how many there were and how many would be expected of a team member that is performing well in that role. If you do not have this information, or are unable to acquire the information, you are not in a position to evaluate X’s performance. Spending time discussing specific incidents, pulling up past data and reviewing job responsibilities/instructions can be a time consuming process. On the surface, it might seem a lot more “efficient” to simply have a “quick chat” with X to express a vague concerns such as “I’ve received some concerns about…” or something to that effect. In some cases this does work, in that it makes the employee conscious of the existence of the problem, and will cause them to uncover and remedy it themselves. But in most cases, the employee is left scratching their head. In a few cases, they may think that the manager is being unfair (and sometimes they might even be right). So most of the time, such “quick chats” will prove ineffective.

Once you have the specifics, you are ready to have a more objective chat. There is a great deal of literature regarding constructive feedback that this article will not attempt to rehash. But for the purpose of the above scenario, you may describe to X the mistakes you noticed and ask what happened. In this scenario, we are considering a low performer who is not responding to positive reinforcement, so you can expect X to offer excuses. “The quality control team didn’t support me”, they might say. Here, too be objective. “Exactly what type of support did you expect in this specific instance, and what type of support did you actually get?” you might ask. You may also ask why X did not raise it with the relevant team member, their manager or you at the time. As you go through this process, it is important to take notes. As a manager you will likely forget key details as your brain fills up with everything you need to tackle on a daily basis.

Another thing you must consider is X’s personal life. Team members do not exist in a vacuum. They have families and friends outside of work, mortgages, health issues and various other things that weigh on them. As a manager, it is your duty to uncover whether such a thing is affecting your employee, without invading their privacy. Of course, there is not a lot you can do here if X does not want to discuss it. But if X does come forward with something, you will need to find the right balance between X’s welfare and the welfare of X’s teammates, who must bear the burden until whatever X is going through is over. This too, has been extensively written about, and may be the topic for another article.

Having eliminated all external causes (remember, in this particular example, X is an actual low performer), you will now need to make X aware of the harsh truth: that they are not performing well. Perhaps you have already hinted at this (especially if you are a non-confrontational manager), but clearly X has not received the message. So how do you do this without straying too far into the confrontational side?

Here too, remember objectivity. Since you have their job responsibilities, prior instructions and data about current performance at hand, you may matter-of-factly demonstrate that X is under-performing.

If you are a non-confrontational manager, you may find being fact-driven somewhat easier than your usual approach. However, if you are the confrontational type and are already annoyed with X for failing you repeatedly, here is an unusual way to keep yourself centered as you speak to them: assume that you will one day have to work with X again in a different capacity; perhaps they might even be your manager. But at the same time, do not let this prevent you from saying and doing what you are obligated to say and do in your capacity as manager. Say what must be said, but do so in a way that preserves X’s dignity. It also helps to remember another thing: every human being has a certain intrinsic value and deserves a baseline level of respect regardless of that person’s capabilities. There are no intrinsically poor performers; there are poor performers relative to the role in question. For example, even the worst engineer in your team may be better at working with computers than the majority of human beings. In fact, there may be other accomplished professionals (e.g. surgeons, writers) who may have much poorer computer literacy than your worst performing engineer. When you remember this fact, the tone of your conversation will change, and X will appreciate it.

So, to summarize: do not avoid difficult conversations or palm the responsibility off to others; do no berate or shame the low performer; be objective; invest the time necessary to discover the specifics regarding the performance gap; do not have quick, vague chats about performance; discuss the performance gap objectively, with examples and observations; be direct, but keep in mind that the person in front of you has intrinsic value as a human being and may just be a bad fit for the role you have assigned them; imagine how you would treat them if you knew they were going to be your manager one day.

Note: this article only covers the case of a team member who has not responded well to positive reinforcement and needs to be given direct feedback about performance gaps. It does not cover performance review processes, PIPs (performance improvement plans) or how to support employees through difficult times, which will have to be topics for future articles.