Mastering Performance: Applying Situational Leadership to Technically Capable, Underperforming Team Members
The Management Challenge
You have a team member who possesses the technical skills required for their role. They understand the concepts, can write the code, or execute the complex tasks. Yet, despite this capability, they consistently miss deadlines, require excessive hand-holding, and their output lags significantly behind expectations and their peers. This isn't a matter of can't do the work; it's a matter of isn't doing the work effectively or efficiently. This scenario, common in many teams, creates significant friction. Projects slow down, deadlines are jeopardized, and the burden often shifts to other team members, leading to frustration, resentment, and declining morale. For managers, it's a perplexing problem: how do you motivate and manage someone who has the talent but lacks the consistent execution? Ignoring it allows the problem to fester, impacting team performance and potentially derailing critical initiatives. Addressing it requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond simply demanding more effort.
Understanding the Root Cause
The root cause of this performance gap in technically capable individuals is rarely a simple lack of effort. Instead, it often stems from a complex interplay of psychological and systemic factors. Psychologically, issues like a fear of failure or perfectionism can lead to procrastination and delays. They might overthink tasks, get stuck on minor details, or avoid starting challenging work altogether. A lack of confidence, despite technical skill, can manifest as a need for constant validation or hand-holding. They might be unsure of their own judgment or afraid of making mistakes, leading them to seek approval at every step. External factors also play a significant role. The individual might lack clear understanding of priorities, expectations, or the impact of their delays. They might not have the necessary resources or support structure. Sometimes, it's a mismatch between their skills/interests and the specific tasks assigned, leading to disengagement. Systemically, traditional management approaches often fail because they treat all performance issues the same way. A manager might default to a "telling" style, assuming the person just needs to be told what to do and when. However, for someone who knows how to do the work but struggles with execution, this approach can be demotivating or feel condescending. Conversely, a manager might delegate heavily, assuming technical skill equates to readiness for autonomy, only to find tasks incomplete. The key is recognizing that technical competence is only one part of the performance equation; commitment, confidence, and clarity are equally vital.
The Situational Leadership Framework Solution
The Situational Leadership framework, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, provides a powerful lens and practical approach for addressing the challenge of managing technically capable but underperforming individuals. The core principle is that effective leadership is not about having one fixed style, but about adapting your style to the specific needs of the individual and the task at hand. It posits that individuals vary in their "readiness level" for different tasks, which is a combination of their competence (skill and knowledge) and their commitment (motivation and confidence).
For the technically capable but underperforming team member, Situational Leadership helps diagnose why the performance gap exists despite competence. It shifts the focus from simply labeling them as "underperforming" to understanding their readiness level for specific tasks. Are they competent but lack confidence (low commitment)? Are they competent but unmotivated (low commitment)? Are they competent but unsure how to prioritize or manage their time (competence gap in execution, not technical skill)?
Based on this assessment, the framework prescribes four leadership styles:
1. Directing (S1): High directive, low supportive. Used for individuals with low competence and low commitment (or high commitment but no skill).
2. Coaching (S2): High directive, high supportive. Used for individuals with low competence but high commitment, or some competence but low commitment.
3. Supporting (S3): Low directive, high supportive. Used for individuals with high competence but variable or low commitment (lack of confidence, motivation).
4. Delegating (S4): Low directive, low supportive. Used for individuals with high competence and high commitment.
For the technically skilled but underperforming individual, the challenge often lies in the commitment dimension or a specific execution competence gap (like time management). Situational Leadership guides you to move away from potentially ineffective S1 (Directing) or premature S4 (Delegating) styles and instead consider S2 (Coaching) or S3 (Supporting), depending on the specific readiness assessment for the task. This tailored approach provides the right mix of guidance and support needed to build confidence, clarify expectations, and re-engage motivation, ultimately improving execution.
Core Implementation Principles
Step-by-Step Action Plan
Immediate Actions (Next 24-48 Hours)
1. Document Specific Performance Gaps: - Gather concrete examples of missed deadlines, tasks requiring excessive hand-holding, or quality issues related to execution (not technical ability). Focus on observable behaviors and outcomes, not assumptions about effort or attitude. Note the specific tasks and dates.
2. Assess Your Current Approach: - Reflect on how you have been managing this individual. What leadership style have you primarily used? How has it worked? Consider their readiness level for recent tasks based on the Situational Leadership model (Competence & Commitment).
3. Schedule a Private Conversation: - Send a brief, neutral meeting request to the individual. Title it something like "Check-in on Project X/Your Role" or "Discussion about Workflow." Avoid making it sound like a disciplinary meeting initially. Aim for a time and place where you won't be interrupted.
Short-Term Strategy (1-2 Weeks)
1. Conduct the Initial Conversation: - Use the conversation script provided below. Focus on presenting the observed performance gaps factually, understanding their perspective, and expressing your commitment to their success and the team's goals. Avoid accusatory language.
2. Collaboratively Set Clear Expectations and Goals: - Based on the conversation, define specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals related to the performance gaps (e.g., "Complete Task Y by [Date] with Z level of autonomy," "Reduce time spent on X type of task by Y% over 2 weeks"). Agree on what success looks like and how it will be measured.
3. Agree on Support and Check-in Structure: - Based on your assessment of their readiness for the specific goals/tasks, agree on the appropriate leadership style (S2 Coaching or S3 Supporting are likely candidates). Define what support you will provide (e.g., help breaking down tasks, providing resources, removing obstacles) and establish a regular, frequent check-in schedule (e.g., daily 15-minute stand-ups, twice-weekly progress reviews) to monitor progress and provide guidance/support.
Long-Term Solution (1-3 Months)
1. Implement Adapted Leadership Style Consistently: - Actively practice the agreed-upon leadership style (Coaching or Supporting) for the specific tasks and goals. Provide the agreed-upon level of direction and support. Resist the urge to revert to old habits (e.g., micromanaging or completely disengaging).
2. Provide Targeted Development and Support: - If the issue is a specific execution competence gap (like time management or task breakdown), provide resources or training. If it's a commitment issue (confidence, motivation), focus on building confidence through positive reinforcement and celebrating small wins, or explore motivational drivers.
3. Review Progress and Adjust Approach: - Use the regular check-ins to review progress against the SMART goals. Discuss what's working and what's not. Continuously assess their readiness level for the tasks. As competence and commitment grow, gradually shift your leadership style towards S3 (Supporting) and eventually S4 (Delegating) for those specific tasks. If progress is not being made, revisit the root cause and adjust the plan or consider escalation.
Conversation Scripts and Templates
Initial Conversation
Opening: "[Individual's Name], thanks for taking the time to chat. I wanted to connect about your performance on [Specific Project/Tasks]. I've noticed a pattern where [State specific, factual observations, e.g., 'deadlines for X and Y tasks were missed,' or 'Task Z required significant input from me/others to complete']. This is impacting [Explain the impact, e.g., 'our team's ability to meet project milestones,' or 'the workload on other team members']."
If they respond positively (e.g., acknowledge the issue, express frustration): "Thanks for sharing that. I appreciate your honesty. My goal here isn't to place blame, but to understand what's happening and figure out how we can work together to improve this. Can you help me understand what challenges you've been facing with [Specific Task/Area]? What support do you feel you need to meet these expectations?"
If they resist (e.g., deny the issue, make excuses, get defensive): "I understand this might be difficult to hear. My intention is to provide clear feedback so we can address this together. The examples I shared are based on observable outcomes. Let's focus on finding a path forward. What steps do you think we could take to ensure [Specific Task/Goal] is completed on time and with less friction going forward? What support would be helpful from my side?" (Gently steer back to problem-solving and support).
Follow-Up Discussions
Check-in script (e.g., daily/twice-weekly): "Hi [Individual's Name], quick check-in on [Specific Task/Goal]. How is progress coming along? Any roadblocks or questions I can help with?" (Keep it brief and focused on the agreed-upon task/goal).
Progress review (e.g., weekly): "Let's review the goals we set last week regarding [Specific Area]. How did you feel about your progress on [Specific Goal 1]? What about [Specific Goal 2]? Based on how things went, do we need to adjust our approach or the support structure? What's the plan for the next week?"
Course correction: "I've noticed that [Specific issue, e.g., 'we're still seeing delays on X,' or 'you're still needing significant help with Y']. We agreed on [Previous plan/support]. It seems that isn't quite working as intended. Let's revisit this. What do you think is preventing progress? What alternative approaches or support could we try?"
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Mistake 1: Assuming Lack of Effort is the Only Problem
Why it backfires: This assumption is often incorrect for technically capable individuals. It overlooks potential issues like lack of confidence, fear of failure, poor task management skills, or lack of clarity. Accusing someone of laziness when they are struggling with other factors is demotivating and damages trust.
Better approach: Approach the situation with curiosity. Use the initial conversation to understand the why behind the performance gap. Is it skill (in execution, not just technical), confidence, motivation, or external factors? Your leadership style should address the actual root cause, not just the symptom.
Mistake 2: Using a One-Size-Fits-All Leadership Style
Why it backfires: Treating everyone the same, regardless of their readiness level for a task, is inefficient and ineffective. Directing someone who needs support feels micromanaging; delegating to someone who needs coaching leads to failure.
Better approach: Apply the core principle of Situational Leadership: assess readiness (competence + commitment) for each significant task and adapt your leadership style accordingly. Be flexible and willing to shift styles as the individual's readiness changes.
Mistake 3: Failing to Set Clear, Measurable Expectations and Follow Up Consistently
Why it backfires: Vague expectations ("be faster," "be more proactive") are impossible to meet consistently and difficult to measure. Infrequent or inconsistent follow-up sends a message that the issue isn't a priority or that you aren't serious about supporting their improvement.
Better approach: Define SMART goals collaboratively. Establish a clear, agreed-upon schedule for check-ins and progress reviews. Consistency in follow-up demonstrates your commitment and provides the necessary structure and support for the individual to stay on track and build new habits.