Why is "underperformance" so hard to solve?

Reader,

Have you ever described a team member as an "underperformer"?

I have, usually in response to that nagging sense something isn’t working.

I’ve also been described this way before—ironically, during a season when I felt like I was thriving.

It’s a complex issue that can derail even the best of teams. Hard to define. Harder to solve. And once the seeds of doubt are planted, they’re hard to uproot.

Let’s explore a few perspectives on why it happens and how to respond.

You’re not performing.

One day, I walked into a room expecting to talk strategy with the person I reported to. Instead, I was blindsided: “You’re not performing, and here’s what we’re going to do about it.”

No conversation. No curiosity. Just a statement of fact.

Guess what I thought about my own performance? I was doing great.

I was focused on elevating the quality of our work and increasing our impact to a whole new level. Customer satisfaction and loyalty were growing. I was energized. It was slow, meaningful work that would pay off big later.

What wasn't I doing? Selling. So we didn't see the quick growth that was expected.

It’s personal.

I’ve never once heard someone described as an underperformer without also hearing the frustration it’s causing someone else.

Now I’m dealing with all these other issues I don’t have time for.
I have to constantly check everything because there are always mistakes.
All these exciting things are getting done, yet the important things are ignored.
We’re not hitting our goals, and something has to change.

What one person does (or doesn’t do) ripples across the whole team.

Performance isn’t about checking boxes on a job description. It’s about fulfilling the role in a way that matches what the leader and team needs and expects.

For the leader picking up the slack, it’s personal.
For the team member feeling the leader’s disappointment, it’s personal.

Approach matters.

In my situation, both of us wanted the same outcome:

To be irreplaceable to our customers.
To achieve big goals.

But we had very different views of how to get there:

A) Build sales momentum to create critical mass.
B) Build an unforgettable customer experience to create loyalty.

Both strategies were essential. The disagreement came down to priority. Because we disagreed on what came first, we disagreed on what it meant to “perform.”

A brief segue.

For the record, I don’t love words like perform or underperform. They sound like we’re talking about machines, not people. But it’s a real challenge in teams, so it's worth setting aside the nuance of the word to deal with the issue.

What's the real issue to solve?

Someone can do everything listed in their role, be on time, stay engaged—and still be seen as underperforming.

Someone can feel successful in their role—and still be labeled the same way.

Why? Because performance isn’t just about the individual. The individual’s approach and priorities are interconnected with the leader and team. These approaches need to align.

It should be personal.

We do a disservice when we reduce performance to a checklist of responsibilities.

It’s not.

When you experience “underperformance,” it’s about what rolls up to you. The things you now have to deal with. The expectations you needed met that weren’t. The weight of feeling like this is harder than it should be.

In those moments, here are a few things to consider:

What does this person need to focus on so you can do your job well?
How does she need to think about the work, so it aligns with your perspective?
What perspective does she need to bring to fill a gap in your thinking?
Do you agree on which work is done first? If it doesn't matter, can you adjust your plan?

We write job descriptions, but we lead people.

When there’s an issue, the real question is: Are you managing to a role—or leading a person?

Maybe the problem isn’t underperformance at all. Maybe it’s misalignment. And misalignment is solvable.