How to manage poor performance fairly

Define the performance gap using the actual role

Start with the work the role requires and the standard the employee already had reason to understand. Identify specific outputs, behaviours or deadlines that are not being met and the evidence behind that view. “Not proactive enough” is too vague to improve. “Three client updates missed the agreed Friday deadline in six weeks” gives you something to discuss.

Check that the standard is relevant, consistent and still achievable. A role, system, workload or priority may have changed without the expectation changing with it. Compare like with like and look for evidence that may challenge your first view, not only examples that support it.

Speak with the employee before choosing an outcome. Share the concern and examples, ask for their account and correct any factual gaps. The first useful result may be a clearer expectation rather than a formal process.

Find the cause before choosing a process

Ask what has changed. The cause may be unclear priorities, workload, training, equipment, supervision, a broken process, a health condition, disability, conflict or expectations that were never made clear. More than one factor can be true.

Separate three routes:

• Capability: the person is trying but cannot currently meet the standard.
• Conduct: the person could comply but may have chosen not to.
• Health or attendance: illness or disability affects work or availability and may need health evidence, support or adjustments.

Use the disciplinary guide for alleged misconduct and the sickness-absence guide for absence or health-led attendance concerns. Do not make the employee move between processes because the employer has not decided what the problem is.

Agree an informal improvement plan

For an ordinary performance gap, begin with a direct conversation and a short plan. State the expected result, what evidence will show progress, what support each person will provide, and when you will review it. Tell the employee what happens if enough improvement is not made.

There is no universal 30, 60 or 90-day improvement period. Choose a period long enough for the work cycle and support to make a fair difference. A weekly task can be reviewed sooner than a quarterly responsibility. Build in check-ins so neither side waits until the last day to discover the plan was off course.

Keep the plan manageable. Three important measures usually tell you more than a long scorecard of everything the role contains. Share notes after each check-in and invite corrections.

Provide training, resources and reasonable adjustments

The employer should provide adequate resources and relevant training before concluding that the person cannot do the job. That may mean clearer priorities, practice, coaching, different supervision, working equipment or time to learn a changed process. Record what was offered and whether it happened.

Ask sensitively whether health or disability may be affecting the work. Do not demand a diagnosis to take a disclosed barrier seriously. Discuss possible reasonable adjustments and, where useful and agreed, obtain focused occupational-health or medical advice about work rather than seeking a complete medical history.

In Great Britain, Acas explains how to adjust capability and performance management. Northern Ireland uses separate disability-discrimination law and the Equality Commission's employer guidance. The practical task is the same: identify the barrier, consider reasonable changes, give them a proper chance to work and keep the decision under review.

Adjust the process as well as the role where needed. Extra preparation time, accessible information, a different meeting format or adjusted measures may be as important as equipment or changed duties.

Review progress against shared evidence

At each review, compare the same agreed standard with current evidence. Discuss what improved, what did not, whether support arrived and whether circumstances changed. Do not move targets halfway through and then judge the employee against the new version without a fair opportunity.

Finish each meeting with a written summary: evidence considered, employee's response, support completed, adjustments, progress, next steps and review date. A fresh manager should be able to understand the sequence without reconstructing it from private messages.

Move to a formal capability process if needed

Formal action may be reasonable when a material gap remains after clear expectations, support and enough time to improve. Follow the organisation's procedure and the law that applies where the employee works. Explain the concern and possible consequences in writing, share relevant evidence, hold a meeting and let the employee respond and be accompanied where the applicable procedure provides for it.

In Great Britain, a fair process should align with the Acas Code and current capability guidance. Northern Ireland has a separate statutory framework; nidirect describes the written notification, meeting, decision and appeal stages.

A warning should say what improvement is required, how it will be measured, the support available, the review period, how long the warning remains live and what may happen if performance does not improve. Avoid a prewritten outcome or a plan designed to be impossible.

Decide the outcome and offer an appeal

Possible outcomes include enough improvement, a revised support plan, changed duties by agreement, another suitable role where one exists, a warning, or dismissal. Consider the evidence, improvement, support, adjustments, alternatives and the employee's explanation together.

Dismissal for capability should be a last resort. Acas says the employer should have evidence of poor performance and the steps taken to support improvement, and should consider changed duties or another role where possible. Check notice and contractual terms before any dismissal.

Confirm the decision and reasons in writing. Explain any warning, next review or termination arrangements and offer an appeal. Where reasonably possible, use someone who was not responsible for the original decision. The appeal is a real check on facts, procedure and reasonableness, not a repeat meeting held to preserve the same answer.