Why Managing Difficult Employees Is So Hard
The management challenge that most consistently causes capable managers to underperform their leadership potential: the avoidance of the difficult conversations about employee performance and behaviour that most managers find the most uncomfortable aspect of their role. The natural human preference for harmony, the discomfort of delivering negative feedback, the concern about damaging the working relationship, and the uncertainty about how the employee will respond are all psychologically real barriers that prevent many managers from having the conversations that the employee’s situation requires as promptly as the situation warrants. The delay that avoidance produces is not neutral — the performance problem that is not addressed promptly typically deteriorates rather than resolving itself, the team that witnesses the problem going unaddressed draws its own conclusions about what the organisation tolerates, and the intervention that eventually becomes necessary is more difficult and more disruptive than the earlier conversation would have been.
The difficult employee situation misdiagnosis that most commonly produces the wrong intervention: the attribution of poor performance to attitude or motivation when the actual root cause is clarity, capability, or circumstance. The employee who is performing below standard may not know specifically what standard is expected, may not have the specific skill or knowledge that the standard requires, may be dealing with a personal circumstance outside work that is affecting their concentration, or may be struggling with a system, process, or resource constraint that the manager has not addressed. The manager who assumes the performance problem is motivational and responds with increasingly direct demands for improvement has not investigated the specific root cause and may be applying the wrong intervention to a problem whose resolution requires something entirely different.
Diagnosing the Root Cause
The performance problem diagnosis framework that most reliably identifies the specific root cause rather than the symptom: the sequence of questions that examines clarity first (does the employee know specifically what is expected, in what form, to what standard, and by when?), then capability (does the employee have the specific knowledge and skill to perform the expected standard if they tried their hardest?), then motivation (does the employee understand why the expected standard matters and have the desire to achieve it?), and then context (are there systems, processes, resources, or circumstances outside the employee’s control that are preventing the expected performance even when clarity, capability, and motivation are all adequate?). The performance problem whose root cause is clarity requires a conversation about expectations; the one whose root cause is capability requires a development intervention; the one whose root cause is motivation requires a very different conversation; and the one whose root cause is context requires a change in the environment rather than a change in the employee.
The behaviour problem diagnosis that most clearly distinguishes the situation that requires a performance improvement approach from the one that requires a disciplinary approach: the distinction between the employee who does not know that the behaviour is problematic or does not understand why it matters, and the one who knows and understands but chooses the behaviour anyway. The employee who is unaware that their communication style is perceived as aggressive by colleagues has a different situation than the one who has been told this multiple times and continues the behaviour; the first requires feedback and coaching, the second requires the consequences that the disciplinary process provides.
Having the Difficult Conversation
The difficult conversation structure that most effectively communicates the performance or behaviour concern while maintaining the dignity and the working relationship that the conversation is intended to preserve: the specific observation (the description of the specific behaviour or performance gap that has been observed, without generalisation or character judgment — the factual account of what happened rather than the character attribution of what kind of person does this), the impact (the specific consequence of the behaviour or performance gap for the team, the business, the customer, or the employee themselves), the expectation (the specific standard that is required, in specific enough terms that the employee knows exactly what meeting expectations looks like), and the support (the specific help the manager is offering to enable the employee to meet the expectation — the coaching, the resources, the changed circumstance).
The difficult conversation timing and setting that most determine whether the conversation produces the intended outcome: the private, focused setting that provides the employee with the dignity that a public or distracted conversation denies, and the timing that is close enough to the specific incident that the details are fresh but distant enough from the emotional heat of the incident that both manager and employee can engage rationally rather than defensively. The impromptu corrective conversation in a hallway, the feedback delivered in the presence of colleagues, and the performance discussion at the end of a meeting whose primary agenda was something else are all settings that compromise the conversation’s effectiveness and the employee’s dignity.
Performance Improvement Plans
The performance improvement plan (PIP) structure that most effectively serves its intended purpose — either producing the genuine performance improvement that allows the employment to continue, or documenting the performance gap and the support provided in a way that supports the employment decision if improvement does not occur: the specific, measurable performance standard that the PIP requires (not the vague requirement to improve performance generally, but the specific behaviour or output that must change, to what specific measurable standard, by what specific date), the specific support that the organisation is providing to enable the improvement (the training, the coaching, the feedback cadence, the resource access), and the specific consequence that will follow if the standard is not met by the defined date.
The PIP implementation approach that most honestly serves both the employee’s interest and the organisation’s: the genuine commitment to the improvement support that the PIP promises, combined with the honest communication about the consequence if the standard is not met. The PIP that provides the development support with genuine intent to enable the improvement — and that the manager genuinely believes the employee can achieve — is a management tool for performance improvement. The PIP that is designed primarily to document the termination decision that has already been made is a documentation exercise rather than a genuine improvement opportunity — and the employee who receives the latter without realising it has been denied the transparency that genuine improvement support requires.
When Separation Becomes Necessary
The employment separation decision framework that most clearly identifies when continued employment is no longer in either party’s interest: the honest assessment of whether the employee has the specific capability the role requires and whether they can develop it within the timeline the business requires, whether the employee’s values and behaviours are compatible with the organisation’s culture and are unlikely to change with additional support, and whether the employee’s performance in the current role is affecting other team members, customers, or business outcomes in ways that continued accommodation would not serve. The separation decision that is reached through this honest assessment, after genuine support has been provided and documented, is the decision that is most defensible both legally and interpersonally.
The employment separation process that most effectively maintains professional dignity and legal compliance simultaneously: the clear, honest, and respectful communication about the specific reason for the separation, the specific effective date, the specific terms of the separation agreement, and the specific references and offboarding support the organisation will provide. The separation conversation that is ambiguous about the reason, rushed in its delivery, or legally precarious in its framing creates the uncertainty and resentment that the clear, respectful conversation prevents. The employee who is treated with dignity in the separation process — regardless of the circumstances that led to it — is significantly less likely to pursue legal action, to damage the organisation’s reputation, or to take actions that harm remaining colleagues than the one whose separation was handled disrespectfully or unprofessionally.