How to Manage Poor Performance

Poor performance should be dealt with in a structured way. Start by establishing what standard the employee is expected to meet, how their actual performance falls short and why the problem is happening. The employee should understand what needs to improve, what support will be provided, how improvement will be measured and what may happen if the required standard is not reached.

That does not mean every performance issue needs months of informal discussion or a rigid three-stage process. The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the problem, the employee’s role, the reasons for the underperformance and what has already happened.

Where poor performance is genuinely a capability issue, Acas recommends taking steps to support improvement before dismissal is considered. A dismissal for capability can potentially be fair, but an employer still needs a fair reason, evidence and a reasonable process.

What is poor performance?

Poor performance means that an employee is not carrying out their role to the standard reasonably required.

That might involve:

• the quality or accuracy of their work;
• the quantity of work they complete;
• consistently missing reasonable targets or deadlines;
• not demonstrating the skills required for the role;
• recurring errors;
• an inability to carry out an important part of the job; or
• failing to reach clearly communicated performance standards.

One missed target does not necessarily establish a capability problem. Employers should look at the circumstances, the evidence and whether the standard itself was clear and reasonable.

An employer cannot fairly criticise an employee for failing to meet a standard they did not properly understand. Job responsibilities, objectives and expected standards should therefore be sufficiently clear to manage against.

Poor performance or misconduct?

It is important to understand whether the problem is principally about capability or conduct.

Capability concerns whether the employee is able to perform the job to the required standard.

Conduct concerns behaviour and, often, an employee’s decision not to comply with a reasonable requirement despite being capable of doing so.

For example, an employee who is trying but repeatedly cannot complete a particular task accurately may have a capability issue. An employee who understands the task and is capable of completing it but deliberately refuses a reasonable instruction may present a conduct issue.

The distinction is not always clear-cut. Acas specifically recommends understanding the reason for the performance problem before deciding how to respond.

Avoid labelling an issue too quickly. What appears to be poor attitude, for example, could involve inadequate training, unclear instructions, workload, health, disability or a genuine conduct problem.

Step 1 — Define the performance gap

Before speaking to the employee, establish exactly what the problem is.

You should be able to explain:

• the standard reasonably required;
• the employee’s actual performance;
• specific examples showing the difference;
• how the standard has previously been communicated; and
• how satisfactory performance can be measured.

Avoid general statements such as “you need to improve”, “your work isn’t good enough” or “you need to be more proactive”.

They give the employee little practical information about what needs to change and create problems later if the employer wants to show that a reasonable opportunity to improve was provided.

Objectives should be relevant to the employee’s normal duties and workload, and Acas recommends making them specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound where appropriate.

Step 2 — Understand what is causing the problem

Do not assume that every case of underperformance has the same cause.

Possible explanations include:

• insufficient skill or experience;
• inadequate training;
• unclear objectives or instructions;
• poor supervision or management;
• unrealistic workload or insufficient resources;
• lack of motivation;
• conduct;
• changes to the role;
• personal circumstances;
• ill health; or
• disability.

The answer matters because different problems require different responses.

If a competent employee has been given an unrealistic workload, a warning is unlikely to address the real issue. If someone has never been trained to use a new system, training may be more appropriate. If the employee is capable but deliberately refusing to carry out reasonable work, the issue may need to be considered as conduct rather than capability.

Give the employee an opportunity to explain their perspective. You may discover information that materially changes how the issue should be managed.

Step 3 — Address performance informally

For many performance concerns, an informal conversation is a sensible starting point.

Informal does not mean vague.

The employee should normally leave the conversation understanding:

• what the employer is concerned about;
• what standard is expected;
• what improvement is required;
• what support or training will be provided;
• when performance will be reviewed; and
• what may happen if sufficient improvement is not achieved.

Acas recommends trying to understand performance problems and taking steps such as support, coaching, mentoring or training where appropriate before moving to formal action. It also recommends keeping records of performance conversations.

A short written follow-up is usually sensible. It creates a common record of what has been discussed without pretending that an informal conversation was a formal warning.

Where the issue is already complex, longstanding or commercially important, performance management support can help the employer decide how much informal management is appropriate and when escalation is justified.

Repeated informal conversations should not become a substitute for making a decision. If the employee has been told several times that their performance is unacceptable but nothing measurable changes, it may be time to move the process forward.

Step 4 — Set an improvement plan

A performance improvement plan — commonly called a PIP — can provide structure where improvement needs to be monitored over a defined period.

A PIP is not legally mandatory in every performance case. Acas describes it as an option where informal steps have not resolved the problem.

A useful improvement plan should identify:

The objectives

Be specific about what must improve.

The measures

Explain how satisfactory performance will be assessed. Measures should be relevant to the actual role rather than designed simply to make failure inevitable.

The support

Record any training, coaching, supervision, resources or other support being provided.

The timescale

Give a reasonable period in which improvement can genuinely be demonstrated.

There is no universal 30-, 60- or 90-day rule. The appropriate period depends on the nature of the role, the problem, how frequently the relevant work arises, the support required and how quickly improvement could reasonably be demonstrated.

The review points

Do not wait until the final day of the plan to tell the employee whether they are progressing.

Regular reviews allow managers to give feedback, recognise genuine improvement and identify problems early.

The consequences

The employee should understand what may happen if the required improvement is not achieved. Depending on the stage of the process, that could include further formal action and ultimately dismissal.

Step 5 — Review progress

Performance should be assessed against the expectations actually set.

Keep evidence.

That might include:

• work outputs;
• quality or error data;
• agreed targets;
• customer feedback where reliable and relevant;
• review notes;
• examples of work;
• training records; and
• records of support provided.

Avoid changing the goalposts during the process. If the employer repeatedly alters the required standard, it becomes difficult for the employee to understand what success looks like and difficult for the employer to demonstrate that the process was reasonable.

If the employee improves to the required standard, say so.

If there has been meaningful progress but the standard has not yet been reached, consider whether a further reasonable period is justified rather than automatically treating the PIP as failed.

If there has been little or no improvement, formal escalation may be appropriate.

When should the process become formal?

There is no single point at which every performance issue must become formal.

A formal capability or performance procedure may be appropriate where:

• informal management has not produced sufficient improvement;
• the performance problem is significant;
• concerns have continued for a substantial period;
• the employee already clearly understands the required standard;
• previous support has not resolved the issue; or
• the circumstances justify a formal process from an earlier stage.

Employers may use a separate capability procedure or their disciplinary procedure. The current Acas Code expressly recognises poor performance as falling within disciplinary situations and says that, where an employer uses a separate capability procedure, the Code’s basic principles of fairness should still be followed.

A formal process should give the employee sufficient information about the concerns, an opportunity to respond and a reasoned outcome. Where the meeting could result in a formal warning or other disciplinary action, the statutory right to be accompanied may apply. An appropriate appeal should also be offered against formal action.

Warnings should explain the performance shortfall, the improvement required, the timescale and the possible consequences of failing to improve.

There is no rule that every employee must receive a fixed number of warnings. The Acas Code describes a written warning followed by a final written warning as the usual progression, while recognising that sufficiently serious unsatisfactory performance may justify moving directly to a final written warning.

If you want an experienced HR professional to conduct or chair important capability meetings rather than simply advise you behind the scenes, HR Consultancy & Meeting Support may be appropriate.

Managing health and disability

Take particular care where health or disability may be affecting performance.

Do not assume that an employee with a health condition cannot be performance-managed. Equally, do not run a standard performance process without considering whether the problem is connected to their health and whether equality obligations are engaged.

Where the Equality Act 2010 duty applies, employers must make reasonable adjustments to remove or reduce disadvantages experienced by a disabled person at work. Adjustments are individual and might include changes to working arrangements, equipment, duties, methods of working, training or support.

A performance target or even the way a performance process is conducted may sometimes need adjustment.

For example, an employer might need to consider:

• additional training time;
• modified working hours;
• assistive equipment;
• a different way of carrying out a task;
• changes to communication;
• altered review arrangements;
• additional supervision; or
• an adjustment to a target where that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Acas advises employers to keep an open mind about how a disabled employee may be able to achieve the required result and to consider support and reasonable adjustments before moving towards dismissal.

Where performance concerns are principally being driven by sickness or an employee’s ability to attend work, sickness and absence management may be a more appropriate route than trying to force the issue through a conventional PIP.

Our separate guide to managing long-term sickness absence should also be considered once published.

What if performance does not improve?

Support does not mean accepting unacceptable performance indefinitely.

Where expectations have been made clear, appropriate support has been provided, the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to improve and performance remains below the required standard, stronger action may be justified.

Depending on the circumstances, that could include:

• a written or final written warning;
• a further defined improvement period;
• additional support where there is a credible reason it may work;
• changes to duties where appropriate and agreed;
• considering a suitable alternative role where one genuinely exists; or
• dismissal.

Acas advises that employers considering capability dismissal should have evidence both of the poor performance and of the steps taken to help the employee improve. It also recommends considering changes to duties or a different suitable role where possible before dismissal.

The employer should remain open to improvement throughout the process. A capability procedure should not simply be documentation created to support a dismissal that management has already decided to make.

Can an employee be dismissed for poor performance?

Yes.

Capability is a potentially fair reason for dismissal. An employee who is genuinely incapable of performing their job to the required standard may ultimately be dismissed where the circumstances justify it. But having a potentially fair reason is not enough by itself: the employer’s decision and procedure must also be reasonable.

In a typical capability case, an employer should be able to demonstrate matters such as:

• a genuine and sufficiently clear performance standard;
• evidence that the employee was falling below it;
• communication of the concerns;
• appropriate investigation into the reasons;
• reasonable support or training where required;
• a reasonable opportunity to improve;
• appropriate warnings;
• consideration of health, disability and reasonable adjustments where relevant;
• consideration of the employee’s explanation;
• a reasoned decision; and
• an appeal.

The exact process remains fact-sensitive.

If the business has reached the stage where dismissal is being actively considered, dismissal advice for employers can help test the evidence, legal risks and proposed process before the decision is made.

Does length of service matter?

Yes, but it should not be treated as permission to ignore other risks.

As at 9 September 2026, an employee will usually need two years’ continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair-dismissal claim.

That changes on 1 January 2027, when the Employment Rights Act 2025 reduces the ordinary unfair-dismissal qualifying period to six months. The change is enacted but is not yet in force.

Employees can already bring certain claims without two years’ service, including claims involving automatically unfair reasons for dismissal. Discrimination claims also do not depend upon two years’ service.

Short service should therefore change the risk analysis, not replace it.

Common performance management mistakes

Failing to define the standard

It is difficult to manage someone against a requirement nobody has clearly articulated.

Using vague criticism

“Not good enough” is not an improvement objective.

Confusing capability and conduct

Work out whether the employee cannot achieve the standard, will not achieve it or whether something else is happening.

Ignoring training or management failures

Do not blame an employee for a problem created by insufficient training, poor instructions or inadequate resources.

Setting an impossible PIP

A performance process should provide a genuine opportunity to improve, not manufacture evidence for a predetermined dismissal.

Changing targets during the process

Measure the employee against the standards actually communicated.

Ignoring health or disability

Consider whether performance difficulties may engage the duty to make reasonable adjustments before deciding what action to take.

Allowing informal management to continue indefinitely

Informal management should lead somewhere. If repeated conversations have not worked, decide whether a structured formal process is now appropriate.

Keeping inadequate records

Document concerns, meetings, expectations, support, reviews and decisions.

Deciding the outcome in advance

The employee must have a meaningful opportunity to respond. A process designed solely to justify a decision already made creates unnecessary risk.

Applying standards inconsistently

Material differences in treatment should be capable of objective explanation.

Frequently asked questions

Do employers have to use a PIP?

No. A performance improvement plan is a useful management tool, not a statutory requirement in every poor-performance case. What matters is whether the employer has managed the situation reasonably in the circumstances.

How long should a PIP last?

There is no universal minimum or maximum period. Set a timescale that gives the employee a realistic opportunity to demonstrate the required improvement given the role, problem and support being provided.

What if the employee says they were never told what was expected?

Investigate that properly. If the required standard was genuinely unclear, the sensible starting point may be to clarify expectations rather than immediately impose a sanction.

Can we issue a warning for poor performance?

Yes. The Acas Code recognises formal warnings for unsatisfactory performance. The warning should explain the problem, the improvement required, the relevant timescale and the possible consequences of failing to improve.

How many warnings are required before dismissing for poor performance?

There is no universal fixed number. The Acas Code describes a written warning followed by a final written warning as the usual sequence but allows for different treatment where the circumstances justify it. The appropriate approach depends on the seriousness of the underperformance and the wider facts.

What if performance improves and later deteriorates again?

Check what previous warning or performance process remains current, why performance has deteriorated and whether circumstances have changed. Do not automatically restart at either the beginning or the end of the previous process without considering what is reasonable.

Should the employee be allowed to appeal a capability dismissal?

Yes. The Acas Code includes an opportunity to appeal formal disciplinary decisions, including dismissal, and appeals should where possible be dealt with impartially by someone who was not previously involved.

For further practical employer guidance across disciplinary, absence, dismissal and other workplace issues, see our HR & Employment Law resources.