Let’s talk about team performance and how we often tip-toe around performance issues, meaning that when the time comes to actually deal with it, it’s 10x worse and may be past the point of no return.
In particular, I want to talk about the kind of performance issue that isn’t “terrible” i.e. someone isn’t performing so badly that it’s obvious that you need to make a change. But they aren’t doing well either. They’re in that messy grey area in the middle where they’re definitely not doing their best work, but they’re also not making it easy for you to deal with because it’s obviously bad work.
The knock-on effect of this which we often don’t notice until it’s too late, is the effect on you. Either as the founder of the agency or as someone’s manager. Over time, someone who isn’t performing will have a compounding effect on your own performance and happiness.
Then when your own performance and happiness drops, guess what happens?
The rest of the team start to notice and may start to struggle as well. If you’re not at your best because you’re distracted by an individual performance issue that’s taking lots of time and headspace, people around you feel it.
The working-around pattern (and why you’re probably doing it)
Performance issues rarely show up as someone doing less actual work. They show up as *you* doing more. This is particularly true at smaller to mid-size agencies – up to ~25-30 people.
You start doing a bunch of things to “help” such as:
- You start taking certain client calls yourself.
- You redo work that doesn’t quite meet the standard.
- You avoid delegating particular clients to specific people because you know it won’t go well.
- You check in more frequently than you should need to.
- You create little workarounds in your head for who can handle what.
All of this feels easier (and quicker) than having the hard conversation with the low performer. Again, if their performance is painfully bad, it’s relatively easy to have the hard conversation – but sometimes, this isn’t the case.
You’re working around the performance issue. Not leaning into it and dealing with it.
I saw this recently with an agency where a manager was excellent in meetings. Gave all the right answers, projected confidence, made the founder feel assured that things were handled. But when you looked at what actually got done, the gap was significant.
As a founder or senior leader, this can sometimes be hard to spot because we’re not always close to the day-to-day work of the team. So we need to (rightly) trust that things are being followed up on and done well.
But when we do spot them, particularly when they are things that feel easy to us, we often just dive back in and support the team.
This feels like the right thing to do, yet in the long-run, we’re working around a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
The capacity illusion (when the problem looks like a workload problem)
Here’s where it can get tricky. Performance issues often get framed as capacity problems. You’ll hear someone say things such as:
- “I’m overwhelmed.”
- “I don’t have enough time.”
- “There’s too much on my plate.”
As a founder or senior leader, you want to believe this explanation because it feels fixable. It’s not personal. You can redistribute work, hire support, adjust timelines.
But here’s the diagnostic question: if you gave them half the workload, would the quality improve? Would the performance issues that you’re seeing disappear? Or would they just fill the time differently?
The truth is that many of us tend to fill the time we’re given with whatever is on our to-do list – whether that to-do list has 10 things on it or a 100.
Sidenote: this is why (in my opinion) time tracking can be so useful because it can give you insights into how someone is spending their time, allowing you to diagnose problems more easily and shift things around.
Yes, occasionally a performance issue may be caused by a lack of time but in my experience, this is usually more true for either:
- Top performers who simply take on (or get given) too much work.
- Pinch points around annual leave that aren’t managed appropriately.
Other than that, I would always want to dig deeper when a performance issue is attributed to a lack of time and see whether that is really the case or not.
The compounding cost of delaying action
Every day you work around a performance issue instead of addressing it, three things happen.
First, client delivery suffers in ways you’re constantly catching and fixing.
Materials that should be with clients weeks ago still aren’t sent. Teams aren’t following up. Momentum is lost across accounts, not just the ones that are already in trouble. The day-to-day account management you hired people to do is still draining your time despite having Account Managers in place.
Second, your high performers notice.
The brilliant people on your team, the ones you over-rely on because they actually get things done, see that they’re treated the same as the people who push every problem upwards. They’re picking up the slack. They’re being asked to cover for underperformance without it being named as such.
You risk burning them out or losing them entirely. And if they leave, you’re left with the people who couldn’t do the work.
Third, the person in question often gets worse, not better.
When there are no consequences, why would behaviour change? At best, the problems stay at the same level but it’s more likely that they’ll get worse. They also start to effect those around them.
When feedback is heard, but not actioned
There’s a pattern I see repeatedly and have felt myself over the years of managing people: “receptive to feedback but no change.”
The person listens. They don’t get defensive. They agree with your points. They seem to take it on board. Then nothing changes.
This can be harder to address than defensiveness because you can’t point to active resistance. The receptiveness is almost passive. It makes giving feedback harder, not easier, because you’re waiting for the change that never comes.
You leave the conversation feeling better because it actually went well – the person listened, agreed and seemed to take everything on board.
I’ve seen this with founders who’ve had multiple conversations about the same issues. The team member nods, agrees, commits to change. Performance is good for a week or two, then reverts.
The issue isn’t that they don’t understand. The issue is that soft feedback doesn’t create the stakes needed for sustained behaviour change.
What actually moved the needle in one agency was brutal honesty: structured weekly one-to-ones that were almost too tactical, where the team member had to report back on specific progress on specific clients. Not a discussion. A report. With evidence.
It felt pedantic to the founder, almost like micromanagement – and I agreed. It’s not meant to be a long-term fix.
But performance improved because there was structure, visibility and accountability.
The team performs when there’s clear expectation and follow-through. They don’t perform when there’s just “support” without stakes.
A framework for figuring out what’s actually going on
Not every performance issue is a firing issue. Some people are genuinely on a learning curve and need a bit more time.
The question is: how do you know which one you’re dealing with?
Here’s a framework that can help you.
Is this an intent problem, a capability problem, or a fit problem?
Intent problems are the rarest and usually the easiest. Someone simply doesn’t care. You have a hard conversation, they either step up or they leave.
Capability problems are solvable with time, training and structure, as long as the person has the intent to improve. You’ll see effort even if the results lag and take a bit longer to see.
Fit problems are the hardest because the person often has good intent and capability, just not for this specific role at this specific stage of the agency. Someone who was excellent at five people gets left behind at 25 people. It’s not personal. It’s structural.
The timeline question: if nothing changes in six weeks, what will you do?
WIth the agencies who I coach, I really like to push them on timelines to see changes. I often say that “we don’t want to be sat here in three or six months having the same conversation again.”
If your answer to the question above is “have another conversation,” you’re delaying the inevitable. Set a deadline. Not publicly, but for yourself. At the end of May, if X hasn’t improved, we make a change.
Having a deadline forces you to stop hoping it resolves itself.
Overall, this isn’t about being harsh or unsympathetic. It’s about recognising that the kindest thing you can do, for your agency, your high performers, your clients and even for the person struggling, is to stop working around the problem and address it directly.
The performance issue you’re working around isn’t going away. Every day you delay, you’re choosing to keep doing the work yourself, burning out your best people and letting your clients get less than they’re paying for.
The question isn’t whether to address it. The question is: what’s it costing you to wait another week?