When someone on your team isn’t performing, you’re dealing with one of three things: a training problem, the wrong seat, or the wrong hire. You tell them apart by asking whether the person ever did the job well, whether you ever wrote down what good looks like in that role, and whether anything changes when you correct them.
How do I know if it’s a training problem and not a bad hire?
Start with one question: did this person ever do the job well? If they did, and now they’re not, something changed. Maybe the role shifted under them. Maybe your management style changed. Maybe something in their life outside of work changed. Either way, there’s real capability in there, and the fix is figuring out what’s different now, not replacing the person.
If they never did it well, ask yourself a harder question. Did you ever actually write down what you needed from them? You hire someone, you show them around for a day or two, and then you expect them to read your mind about what doing a good job means. If you never handed them a clear picture of what done looks like, you don’t have a bad employee. You have a test nobody ever handed out. That’s on you to fix, and it’s fixable.
What’s the three-question test for a struggling employee?
Once you’ve ruled in a real performance problem, run it through three checks. One: have they ever done this job well? If yes, something in the environment changed and it’s worth digging into. Two: did you ever clearly define the outcomes you need from this role? If no, that’s a training gap, and it’s yours to close before you can fairly judge them. Three, and this is the one that tells you what you’re dealing with: when you correct them, does anything change? Even a little?
That third question is the real tell. Someone who nods, agrees with you, and keeps doing the exact same thing has an attitude problem, and no amount of retraining fixes that. Someone who hears the correction and adjusts, even imperfectly, is showing you they’re coachable. That’s the difference between someone worth more of your time and someone you need to let go.
What do I say to an employee who isn’t hitting the mark?
Don’t wing this conversation. Sit down and get specific: “Here are the five things I need from this role. This is what done looks like for each one, and this is how we’ll measure it. Let’s check in on this together in thirty days. What do you need from me to make this happen?” That last question matters, because it puts real support on the table instead of just handing down a warning.
Put it in writing after the meeting, even if it’s a short email restating the five outcomes and the thirty-day checkpoint. It protects both of you, and it makes the standard impossible to argue with later. And while that thirty-day clock is running, keep recruiting in the background. You always want to know who you’d call next, whether this works out or it doesn’t.
What happens after the thirty-day conversation?
By the end of those thirty days, you’ll know. Either they’ve moved on the things you asked for, even a little, and you keep coaching them up. Or nothing changed, and now you’re making a decision from evidence instead of frustration. Either way, you’ve stopped guessing, and you’ve stopped absorbing the cost of a problem you never named out loud.
That cost is real. Say someone is doing sixty percent of the job you’re paying them full price for. That gap drains your bottom line every month you avoid the conversation, even if nobody’s talking about it. Naming the problem and running the thirty-day test is how you stop the bleeding, whether the outcome is a save or a goodbye. And if it’s a goodbye, you’ve already got a name in your back pocket, because you never stopped recruiting.
Questions owners ask
Is it always my fault if an employee isn’t performing?
Not always, but check your own work first. If you never wrote down what the role actually requires, you can’t fairly blame someone for missing a target they never saw.
How long should I give someone to improve?
Thirty days is a workable window for most roles. It’s long enough to see a real pattern and short enough that you’re not letting a problem drag on for months.
What if they say all the right things but nothing changes?
That’s your answer. Agreement without action is the attitude-problem signal. Words don’t count here, behavior does.
Should I put the expectations in writing before or after the conversation?
Have the conversation first so it feels human, then follow up in writing the same day. The email isn’t the warning. It’s the record of what you both agreed to.
Here’s the homework. Before you fire someone or write off a hire as a mistake, run the three-question test. It takes fifteen minutes, and it turns a gut feeling into a decision you can stand behind. Watch the full episode for the complete breakdown.