Leadership performance issues can derail entire teams if not addressed quickly and strategically. This article draws on expert guidance to outline fourteen practical approaches that help managers identify problems, provide effective support, and create accountability without micromanagement. These methods focus on measurable outcomes, honest communication, and building systems that turn performance gaps into opportunities for meaningful growth.
- Flag Shortfalls Early Establish Simple Routines
- Align Standards Then Reduce Distractions
- Coach Instead of Control
- Define Decisions to Unlock Autonomy
- Lead With Metrics Not Emotion
- Build Trust Through Work Redesign
- Address Issues Promptly With Structured Support
- Treat Gaps as Growth Opportunities
- Give Candid Future Focused Feedback
- Hold Results Above Intentions
- Set Firm Targets Act Fast
- Demand Immediate Root Cause
- Tailor Roles Around Core Strengths
- Use OKRs to Uncover Friction
Flag Shortfalls Early Establish Simple Routines
My approach is to surface the gap early, frame it in terms of the behaviors the business needs, and create a path forward that is both direct and supportive. It starts with a candid conversation based on observable actions and their impact, removing ambiguity while making it clear that the goal is improvement, not blame. In one case, during a major transformation, a leader was struggling with alignment and follow-up. Together, we reset expectations, established a simple weekly routine for deliverables, and ensured progress was visible to fellow leaders. Within weeks, the leader’s delivery, consistency, and leadership presence improved significantly, reinforcing my approach: when leaders receive timely, specific feedback and a clear structure for success, most rise to the expectation.
Align Standards Then Reduce Distractions
I handle performance issues in my leadership team through three lenses: my own management, the individual leader and the environment around them.
I start with myself and ask whether expectations are clear, standards are realistic for the role and autonomy is set at the right level. From there, I sit down privately with the leader, walk through concrete examples of missed outcomes and invite their view instead of assuming I already know the cause. Together we map the root causes and design a short performance plan with specific outcomes, support and a clear time frame.
For example, I had a senior manager who kept missing campaign launch dates and reworking assets at the last minute, which strained the rest of the team. Rather than label him as lazy, I pulled his workload, clarified the standard for that role and asked him to walk me through a typical week. It turned out my expectations around stakeholder updates and slide polish were higher than the job actually required, and he was spending hours there instead of unblocking the team. We reset the priorities, removed a few nonessential tasks, added a weekly check-in for the next month, and his delivery reliability recovered without harming quality.
Coach Instead of Control
My approach to managing performance issues within a leadership team is rooted in transparency, empathy, and accountability. I believe concerns should be addressed early and directly, but always with the goal of enabling growth rather than assigning blame.
One example comes from my time as the Business Intelligence global lead, when I received feedback from engineers that a manager in India was creating significant stress within the team. He was constantly looking over their shoulders, questioning every detail, and his micro-management style left engineers nervous and disengaged.
I decided to investigate and had a candid conversation with him. It was difficult because he was a brilliant technical leader who understood the product better than anyone else, but his inability to delegate and his tendency to dive into excruciating detail were undermining his effectiveness. I gave him clear instructions to stop micro-managing and to trust his team and then began weekly one-on-one coaching sessions. We focused on time management, delegation, and shifting his perspective toward higher-level strategic problems. He quickly picked up these practices, especially after observing my own style of delegating tasks while holding people accountable for agreed deliverables.
The results were transformative. Within six months, he had become a much stronger manager, earned a promotion, and continued to grow into a respected leader. The change was lasting — so much so that when I moved to a different team, I was able to recommend him as my successor.
This experience reinforced my belief that managing performance issues requires a balance of candor and compassion: addressing concerns head-on while equipping leaders with the tools and support they need to succeed.
Define Decisions to Unlock Autonomy
My approach to performance management focuses on preventing issues through clarity and autonomy rather than fixing them after they emerge. Most leadership performance problems stem from misaligned expectations or unclear decision-making authority. When a leader doesn’t know where their responsibility starts and ends, or when approval chains create ambiguity about who owns what, performance suffers not because of capability but because of confusion. The fix isn’t better performance reviews — it’s clearer boundaries and genuine authority.
Here’s what works for distributed technical teams: define decision domains explicitly. Instead of saying “you’re responsible for product,” specify what decisions they can make autonomously, what requires input, and what needs approval. For example, our Automations Lead owns technical architecture decisions for client implementations without needing my sign-off. Our Product Managers control feature prioritization and client communication. When everyone knows their decision-making scope, performance issues become obvious quickly — either someone’s making decisions they shouldn’t, or they’re not making decisions they should. Both are easier to address when authority is clearly defined upfront.
The constructive approach means focusing on systems, not people. If a leader isn’t performing, ask first whether the problem is capability or context. Are they unclear about priorities? Do they lack information others have? Are they waiting for approval that should be theirs to give? Most “performance issues” I’ve seen are actually organizational design problems disguised as individual problems. When we shifted from, “Check with Ed on everything,” to, “Here’s your authority, use it,” team velocity doubled because leaders could actually lead. The performance conversation became simple: you have clear authority and clear goals — if you’re not hitting them, let’s figure out what’s blocking you. That removes defensiveness because you’re solving problems together rather than assigning blame.
Lead With Metrics Not Emotion
My approach to managing performance issues, especially within a leadership team, is to anchor the conversation in clarity, not emotion. In a startup, ambiguity is what hurts performance the most. So when something isn’t working, I don’t start with, “Why didn’t this happen?” I start with, “Let’s look at the metric we own, what story is it telling us?”
By making the conversation about the work and the data, not the person, you remove defensiveness. You get to problem-solving faster, and the conversation becomes collaborative instead of confrontational.
A constructive example: there was a period where one area of the business consistently missed experiment deadlines. Instead of assuming it was a motivation issue, we pulled up the workflow together and immediately saw the real problem: too many priorities and unclear ownership across teams. It wasn’t a performance issue; it was a structural one.
We simplified responsibilities, narrowed focus, and gave that leader fewer, higher-impact goals. Within weeks, execution sped up and the team’s energy changed completely.
The lesson for me was clear: most “performance issues” aren’t actually about the person. They’re about unclear expectations, overloaded systems, or missing support. Address those first, and 90% of the time the performance fixes itself.
Build Trust Through Work Redesign
I had a director who consistently generated high-quality results with campaigns he manages, yet he creates major bottlenecks in terms of workflow by unwillingly delegating anything to other employees that is directly client-related. His direct reports are significantly underutilized. He works 70 hours per week and misses deadlines for his own work; he believes the only way to ensure quality standards are maintained is if he personally handles all aspects of each account.
The typical response from most senior leaders would be to either provide time management training to the Director, or hire more people so he can continue to handle the majority of the workload. However, the true problem is one of trust and control.
I assigned him a hybrid role where he manages our three largest accounts and mentors two entry-level strategists working on smaller clients. In this new hybrid role, he can see the impact of delegating the responsibilities to the younger strategists in real-time and correct any mistakes they make immediately. After approximately six months, the two entry-level strategists have taken over managing mid-size clients independently, and he now has a workload that is at a manageable level without any client complaints.
Typically performance problems within a leadership position are related to skill deficits in non-quantifiable areas such as giving up control and developing others, not necessarily because of a lack of effort or competence in their primary role. The conversation about success was centered around what success looks like for him, as an individual, and how it aligns with the company’s need for growth. By reframing his role as creating the ability to develop others instead of having to do everything himself, I helped create alignment between his strengths and the company’s needs.
Address Issues Promptly With Structured Support
When it comes to managing performance issues in the leadership team, my approach is always direct, respectful, and focused on solutions, not blame. I’ve found that the earlier you address an issue, the easier it is to fix—and the longer you wait, the more it affects the whole team.
For example, we had a situation where one of our leaders was consistently missing deadlines for cross-functional initiatives. It wasn’t that they weren’t capable — they were juggling too many priorities and struggling to communicate effectively. I scheduled a one-on-one, shared the specific instances where expectations weren’t met, and asked what support they needed to succeed. Together, we identified bottlenecks, reprioritized tasks, and set clear weekly checkpoints to track progress.
Within a few weeks, performance improved noticeably. What made it successful was treating it as a collaboration problem, not a personal failing. The leader felt supported rather than attacked, and the team regained momentum. My takeaway is that when addressing performance issues at the leadership level, it’s less about criticism and more about clarity, accountability, and structured support.
Treat Gaps as Growth Opportunities
Confronting performance issues within a leadership team is viewed as an opportunity for growth rather than a setback. The philosophy centers on transparency, clarity of expectations, and supportive accountability.
When performance concerns surface, begin with a one-on-one conversation to clarify expectations and understand underlying obstacles. If the gap persists, offer actionable support — whether through mentoring, adjusted goals, or resources — while defining a clear timeline for improvement.
A couple of years ago, a senior leader was struggling with delivery timelines during a period of high client demand. After a private discussion, the individual admitted a lack of clarity over shifting priorities. A revised plan was drawn: weekly alignment check-ins, better delegation of non-core tasks, and pairing with a peer for time-management coaching. Within three months, not only did performance improve, but team morale also strengthened — culminating in timely project delivery and enhanced client satisfaction.
That experience reinforced a key belief: performance issues often stem from misalignment — not lack of talent. Addressing them with empathy, structure, and mutual buy-in yields stronger leadership.
Give Candid Future Focused Feedback
As general guidance, performance feedback should be timely, direct, compassionate, and forward-looking. When you let something fester, you deny the person the opportunity to adapt their behavior earlier. When you beat around the bush, the message can get easily lost. As Brene Brown says, “Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.” You need to demonstrate that you care about the person, even when delivering a tough message. This often requires a foundation of trust having been built in your relationship up to that point. And you ultimately want them to be doing something different in the future, so you need to make sure they understand that and don’t dwell on what’s happened in the past.
As an example, I once worked with someone who was coming across to his team as overly blunt. It was counter-cultural for our organization, and people were often taken aback by his comments, even though they were made with the intent of helping his team get better and deliver on their objectives. Our discussion focused on the impact his words were having, and how they weren’t aligned with how I knew he wanted to be seen by his team. We talked about the importance of bringing the team on the journey and being more patient with them, as many of them were new to their roles. I then asked him to play back what he would do differently, both to confirm understanding and to bring a future orientation to our discussion.
Hold Results Above Intentions
Timely, sincere, and individual attention to performance-based problems helps minimize impact on team morale and results. Leaders should not shy away from addressing performance problems. Performance-based discussions must be focused on measured results and the consequences of those results, not on how well people intend to perform. The mere fact that an employee is well-intended does not indicate successful performance.
One situation where I encountered a senior-level leader whose direct reports were struggling to achieve deadlines, even though they were working hard. Rather than request an explanation from the employee about their lack of effort, I instead worked with the senior level leader on reviewing date-related information and then asked him to consider what decisions he had consciously made that were causing delays for the team.
After this discussion, the two of us looked at the data and recognized that the leader was an impediment to his team’s ability to produce results, due to his continued involvement and therefore he needed to change how he viewed delegation and the ownership of decisions. I began working with both him and his team weekly, to check on their progress, and not to micromanage them. As a result of this discussion, the team made great progress towards meeting their deadlines, and the relationships developing between the leader and his team were more positive as they communicated and supported each other in clearly defined ways, rather than blaming each other.
Set Firm Targets Act Fast
To manage performance issues within my leadership team, I set clear expectations and give guidance based on context. I never include random opinions in my feedback. It is always data-driven and focuses on end results. If an issue comes up, I prefer to discuss it with the concerned leader without losing any time. This discussion helps me identify the reasons for the problem. Then I can help them find ways to address it.
For example, a team leader was often missing key deadlines. However, I didn’t micromanage him. Nor did I escalate the issue without first discussing it with him. During our chat, I realised his team had low bandwidth and delegation gaps. So, we restructured responsibilities after reviewing the priorities. We set measurable goals and agreed to meet up weekly to discuss the progress. Due to this approach, I saw an improvement in his performance within a few weeks!
Demand Immediate Root Cause
First, there is no time for ambiguity. Performance issues must be addressed immediately and privately, with the directness of a cross-examination. The goal is to get to the truth of the problem — whether it is burnout, lack of skill, or lack of will — without aggressive confrontation but with absolute clarity. A specific example of this is the “Root Cause” intervention. If a leader drops the ball on a critical task, the senior leader pulls them into a private office immediately — not a week later at a review — and asks, “What specific obstacle stopped this from getting done?” By isolating the exact barrier right when the error happens, the leader forces immediate accountability and prevents the issue from becoming a pattern.
Tailor Roles Around Core Strengths
My approach to managing performance issues is to put people squarely in the responsibilities that align with their core strengths and to reassign or supplement the areas that do not. This might involve adjusting job descriptions, reallocating responsibilities, or hiring support for specific functions. It is essentially tailoring roles, in small ways, to the individual so they can be successful sustainably.
Often we end up performing tasks that were not originally part of our roles. Workflows evolve, problems emerge, and people take on responsibilities because they need to be done. Over time, this can pull team members away from their core responsibilities and strengths. Performance issues often show up when someone is spending energy on the wrong work, not because they lack capability or commitment.
I meet with my leadership team regularly to identify the tasks and activities that drain them, frustrate them, or pull them off course. These are early signals that something needs to be delegated, removed, automated, or supported. It helps us see where responsibilities have accumulated in an unplanned way or where work is misaligned with skill sets.
In my experience, the places where performance breaks down are often functions that the person should not be performing. We can put too much focus on improving performance in areas that are not someone’s natural strength, instead of slightly modifying the role so they can focus on the work they are uniquely good at.
This approach amplifies the leadership team’s effectiveness, protects their energy, and produces better organizational outcomes. It also reduces the need to criticize people for things they are not naturally good at when we instead structure work so that talent can actually perform.
Use OKRs to Uncover Friction
I use a structured performance management system built on OKRs, fortnightly progress meetings, and peer review-based measurements. This framework helped us uncover a hidden collaboration issue within the leadership group. We resolved it by aligning objectives and discussing candid peer feedback, which led to measurable productivity improvements.
