An employee whose performance is slipping isn't a lost cause. It's a situation that needs to be understood before taking action.

Yet two similar mistakes keep recurring in practice: reacting too quickly based on a hunch, or letting the situation drag on for months due to a lack of structure.

The problem isn't the diagnosis. It's what we do with it. Labeling someone a "low performer" without analyzing the causes is like treating a symptom without looking for the root of the problem.

This article provides a comprehensive 5-step approach: objectively assess the facts, identify the root cause, develop a performance improvement plan, evaluate progress based on evidence, and, if necessary, formalize a separation within a clear framework. By the end of this article, you’ll know exactly what to do when an employee’s performance begins to decline.

What is an underperforming employee?

An underperforming employee is an employee whose observable performance consistently falls short of the formal expectations for their position.

This definition calls for two important clarifications.

First, the gap must be measurable and documented, not merely perceived. An employee who “lacks commitment” does not constitute evidence of underperformance. An employee who achieves 60% of their goal for two consecutive quarters, however, does.

Second, underperformance encompasses two distinct situations that must be addressed separately:

• Poor results: missed targets, late deliverables, quality below expectations. It’s a matter of performance.
• Behavioral issues: refusal to cooperate, repeated unexcused tardiness, resistance to feedback. It’s a matter of behavior.

These two cases are not handled in the same way, either from a managerial or a legal standpoint.

Step 1: Assess the facts objectively before drawing conclusions

The golden rule: start with the facts, not with an impression

The first instinct to avoid is jumping to conclusions. An employee who fails to meet their goals isn’t necessarily disengaged. They may be in the wrong role, lack proper guidance, or be facing changing expectations that haven’t been formally communicated.

Always compare actual results with expected results. Rely on measurable metrics: goal achievement rates, adherence to deadlines, quality of deliverables, and satisfaction metrics.

NUMA Recommendation: Never start with a conclusion (“this is a low performer”). Start with a quantified gap between what was expected and what was produced.

The 5 Most Common Causes of Underperformance

In the field, five patterns recur:

1. A gradual decline in energy: performance declines slowly, without any sudden drop. Unmet goals pile up.
2. A skills gap: expected standards have risen, but skills development has not kept pace.
3. Poor managerial guidance: shifting priorities, unspoken expectations, and a lack of objective criteria.
4. A poor fit for the position: the role requires a degree of independence or decision-making ability that the employee lacks.
5. A problematic attitude: resistance to management, failure to meet collective obligations, and refusal to accept feedback.

A low performer is therefore not always a disengaged employee. Sometimes, the organization itself is the cause of the underperformance.

Step 2: Identify the actual cause of the decline in performance

Check the management framework first

Managing low performers fails when the assessment is rushed. We are too quick to blame the employee without examining the system around them.

Before making any decision, ask yourself these four questions:

• Were the objectives formulated in a precise and measurable way?
• Have the priorities remained the same, or have they changed along the way?
• Has the employee received regular feedback on their performance?
• Were the criteria for success clear from the start?

Real-life example: An employee receives a "needs improvement" rating during their annual performance review. Upon further investigation, the manager realizes that the employee’s goals had been changed twice during the year without any formal documentation. The discrepancy is not a skills issue; it is a matter of clear direction.

Assessing the fit between skills and the position

An employee may be competent but not in the right position. There are three possible scenarios, and each calls for a different response.

A temporary shortcoming. The employee can improve with targeted support. The appropriate response is a development plan combined with a training program.

A persistent mismatch. The role does not match the candidate’s profile, regardless of the effort invested. The appropriate response is either an internal reassignment or termination.

Voluntary disengagement. The employee has lost motivation and is no longer striving for advancement. The appropriate response is a direct intervention followed by a swift decision.

This distinction determines what happens next: support, repositioning, or separation.

Step 3: Develop an effective progress plan

Reframe unambiguously

Supporting an employee who is struggling does not mean lowering our standards. It means establishing a clear framework with specific milestones and regular follow-ups.

Effective feedback addresses the discrepancy directly: "The goals were X. The results are Y. We need to address this discrepancy together." The point is not to attack the person, but to address the situation.

The 5 elements of a structured improvement plan

An effective employee development plan is based on five essential components:

1. Quantifiable, achievable goals over a short period (4 to 8 weeks).
2. Clear performance criteria that are communicated to the employee during the initial interview.
3. Regular check-ins, preferably weekly, to make adjustments in real time.
4. Targeted support: training, coaching, mentoring by a senior colleague, and reference materials.
5. Written records of each exchange and each interim evaluation.

Real-world example: A manager specifies that 100% of deliverables must be submitted on time over the next six weeks, with a progress update every Friday morning. The expectation is crystal clear. The employee knows exactly what they are being evaluated on.

Without a formal follow-up process, re-engagement remains nothing more than a pipe dream. Aprogress plan is not just an administrative document. It is a concrete roadmap with evidence of progress.

Structure your progress plan using practical tools. Our resource kit Managing Team Performance provides you with tracking templates, ready-to-use evaluation criteria, and managerial rituals to support your employees’ skill development.

Step 4: Evaluate progress based on evidence, not intentions

The Three-Question Rule

An employee who makes an effort but whose results do not improve remains underperforming. Visible effort is no substitute for measurable results.

Three questions are all it takes to assess the situation once the plan is complete:

1. Have the goals set out in the plan been achieved?
2. Is this growth consistent over time, or is it just a one-time spike?
3. Has the employee incorporated the feedback into their daily work?

Real-world example: An employee improves their performance for two weeks after receiving feedback, then reverts to their original level. The underlying issue remains. A temporary improvement is not enough to confirm that the employee has regained their motivation.

Establish decision-making criteria from the outset

Define the decision-making criteria at the beginning of the plan, not at the end. This helps avoid emotional decisions and ensures legal certainty moving forward.

• If progress is evident and consistent: continue providing support and reinforce what has been learned.
• If the gap persists despite clear guidelines, regular follow-up, and genuine support, consider exploring the possibility of a job change or termination.‍

Make your decisions more objective with our kit Performance Review : a method for analyzing variances, documenting discussions, and preparing managerial decisions based on sound criteria.

Step 5: Knowing when to end a relationship responsibly

When support is no longer enough

Keeping a low-performing employee on staff long-term undermines high performers, creates a sense of unfairness within the team, and damages management’s credibility.

When all the necessary conditions have been met—clear objectives, a structured plan, meaningful support, and documented follow-up—and the gap persists, continuing to provide support becomes counterproductive. The message is clear: results are not being achieved despite the framework.

The legal requirements for termination for poor job performance

In France, the Court of Cassation requires that professional incompetence be genuine, objective, and demonstrable. In practical terms, this means being able to prove:

• that the objectives were clearly defined and communicated to the employee,
• that regular feedback was provided and documented,
• that an improvement plan was proposed and implemented in collaboration with HR,
• that no lasting progress was observed at the conclusion of the plan.

Involve HR from the very start of the performance improvement plan, not as a last resort. Their role is to ensure the process is legally sound, to guarantee consistency with the company’s HR policy, and to support the manager through sensitive stages. Without solid documentation, the decision may appear arbitrary—and expose the company to a real legal risk.

Checklist: Key Points for Managing an Underperforming Employee

• The performance gap is quantified and documented (not merely perceived)

• The cause of the underperformance has been identified: guidance, skills, or motivation

• Performance and behavior were distinguished and addressed separately

• A performance review was conducted, and a written record was made

• A progress plan has been formalized, including objectives, deadlines, and monitoring

• The criteria for the final decision were established from the outset

• HR was involved from the very beginning of the process

• The final evaluation is based on measurable results, not on intentions

Key Takeaways

Labeling an employee as underperforming is not the answer. It is a situation that must be addressed systematically.

Start by objectively assessing the facts. Identify the root cause of the performance gap: issues with role definition, skills, or motivation. Develop a structured improvement plan with clear criteria and a formalized follow-up process. Evaluate progress based on measurable results, not impressions. If performance improves, reinforce it. If the gap persists despite genuine support, parting ways may be the most responsible decision—for both the team and the employee. The challenge isn’t about being harsh or lenient. It’s about being clear, consistent, and fair.