The Best Performance Management Might Happen Before the PIP

I have high expectations of people.

Not because I expect perfection.

And not because I think everyone should perform the same way.

I have high expectations because I genuinely believe most people want to do good work.

They want to contribute.

They want to feel trusted.

They want to know they're making a difference.

That belief has changed the way I think about performance management.

After years of working with founders, leaders, and teams, I've become much less interested in starting with:

“Why isn't this person performing?”

And much more interested in asking:

“What's getting in the way?”

Is it clarity?

Confidence?

Feedback?

Support?

A lack of training?

A mismatch between the person and the role?

A mismatch between the person and the environment?

Sometimes it is a performance issue.

Sometimes it isn't.

And I don't think starting with curiosity means lowering the bar.

If anything, I think it allows you to hold the bar higher.

Accountability doesn't have to start with a PIP

I have a client who is a great example of this.

He has very high expectations of his team.

He cares about the quality of the work. He notices when things aren't being done well. He expects people to take responsibility for their roles.

But he also starts from the assumption that people generally want to do well.

So when something isn't working, he doesn't immediately jump to:

“We have a performance problem.”

He gets curious.

What's happening?

What isn't clear?

Has the person been given what they need?

Is this a skill issue?

Is there something about the role that's creating the problem?

Has the expectation actually been communicated?

And, importantly, he has the conversation.

Early.

Directly.

Honestly.

He has never had to put someone on a formal PIP in the entire time he's been in business.

I don't think that's because he avoids accountability.

I think it's almost the opposite.

Accountability happens long before the formal process becomes necessary.

A PIP shouldn't be a surprise

One of the things I find most uncomfortable about performance management is when an employee reaches a formal process and genuinely has no idea there was a problem.

They've been showing up to work every day thinking things are okay.

Their manager has been quietly frustrated for months.

Other people have noticed.

The leader has talked about it with everyone except the person involved.

And then suddenly:

“We need to put you on a PIP.”

That isn't good performance management.

A formal performance process should never be the first time someone learns that their performance isn't meeting expectations.

There should have been conversations before that.

Clear expectations.

Feedback.

Examples.

Support.

Opportunities to improve.

And sometimes a very straightforward:

“This isn't where it needs to be, and we need to see a change.”

Those conversations can be uncomfortable.

But they are also much kinder than allowing a problem to grow quietly until everyone is frustrated.

Curiosity doesn't mean making excuses

This is an important distinction.

Being curious about someone's performance doesn't mean explaining away everything they do.

It doesn't mean lowering expectations because someone is struggling.

It doesn't mean keeping someone in a role indefinitely because you believe in their potential.

Sometimes, after asking all the questions, the answer really is:

This person isn't meeting the expectations of the role.

And that's okay.

Good leadership includes being willing to say that.

But I think the conversation is better when you get there through curiosity rather than assumption.

Because there are two very different starting points:

“What's wrong with this person?”

and

“What's happening here?”

The second question creates room for information.

And information helps you make better decisions.

High expectations and high trust can coexist

I think sometimes leaders assume they have to choose.

Either you're the leader with high expectations who holds people accountable.

Or you're the supportive leader who gives people lots of grace.

I don't think those things are opposites.

You can believe someone is capable of more and tell them clearly when they aren't meeting the standard.

You can trust someone and give them difficult feedback.

You can assume positive intent and expect better.

You can care about someone as a person and recognize that they may not be the right fit for the role.

In fact, I think people often perform better when those things exist together.

People generally want to know where they stand.

They want to understand what good looks like.

They want honest feedback.

And they want to know that when something isn't working, their leader will talk to them about it rather than quietly building a case against them.

Maybe good performance management is more ordinary than we think

We tend to think of performance management as the formal stuff.

Reviews.

Documentation.

Performance improvement plans.

Warnings.

Goals.

Templates.

Processes.

Those things have their place.

But some of the most effective performance management I've seen looks much less formal.

It's a leader noticing something.

Asking a question.

Giving feedback.

Clarifying an expectation.

Checking back in.

Having another conversation.

Recognizing improvement.

Addressing the issue again when it doesn't improve.

It's not one big meeting.

It's a series of small moments.

And maybe that's why my client has never needed a PIP.

Not because he has never had performance issues.

Because he doesn't wait for a performance issue to become a formal performance process.

He deals with it.

Early.

Honestly.

And with the assumption that the person sitting across from him probably wants to do good work too.

I think that's what high expectations can look like.

Not demanding perfection.

Not avoiding accountability.

Just believing people are capable, being willing to tell them when they aren't meeting the mark, and being curious enough to understand why.