What happens when your managers give feedback without documenting it, and why "we've talked about it" isn't enough.
The manager who waited to act
Tom is a team lead at a software company of 120 people. He's a good manager. Engaged, fair, respected by his team.
One of his developers, Pieter, has been underperforming for months. Everyone sees it. Colleagues work around him, make subtle comments, roll their eyes when his name comes up in task assignments. But nobody says it out loud.
Tom sees it too. And he has conversations. Occasionally, between two meetings, he'll say things like "hey, we need to talk about the last sprint" or "I'm counting on you for this project."
Pieter nods. Promises to do better. And then nothing happens.
Nine months later
It's November. The situation is untenable. A client project is about to blow up because Pieter's part isn't finished. Two good developers have pulled Tom aside to say they can't take it anymore. It's time to act.
Tom walks to HR.
"I want to start a formal process with Pieter."
HR asks what every HR manager asks: "What exactly has been discussed with him? When? What agreements were made? What have you documented?"
Tom stares at his laptop. There's nothing. No file. No notes. No recorded commitments. Just a vague sense that he's "talked about it a few times."
And at that moment, the company is stuck.
Up next
This is where it gets painful. The company has two bad options:
Option A: act without a file. Risk of legal trouble. Expensive severance. A signal to the rest of the team that performance doesn't really matter.
Option B: retroactively build a file. Means months of additional "formal conversations" to document what should have been documented nine months ago. Meanwhile, the team stays frustrated. And if Pieter happens to leave or go on sick leave during that time, you're back to square one.
Tom picks option B. The company loses another three months. And sometime in February, one of Tom's best developers — the one who could least stand it anymore — leaves for a competitor.
The bill
9 months of reduced output from Pieter (30% less productive) | €12,000 – €18,000 |
Impact on team productivity (frustration, workarounds) | €5,000 – €10,000 |
HR and legal hours to retroactively build a case | €3,000 – €8,000 |
Potential severance without a strong file | €5,000 – €15,000 |
Loss of the good developer who walked out | €35,000+ |
Total: 60.000-85.000. For one situation.
And this is actually a relatively mild version. I've heard stories from companies where situations like this dragged on for two years and ended in arbitration.
What Tom actually needed
Tom didn't need more time. Or more courage. Or a tougher conversation.
He needed a place where those conversations could live. A place where, after each chat, he could capture in two minutes: this is what we discussed, these are the commitments, this is the deadline we agreed on, this is how we'll measure progress.
No bureaucracy. No formal improvement plan with three signatures. Just a place where the information lives. Trackable. Findable. Shareable with HR when needed.
Because here's the paradox: most performance problems don't get worse because of bad conversations. They get worse because of good conversations that go nowhere.
The question for you
Think about one of your own managers. Someone currently dealing with a difficult conversation with an underperforming employee.
If that manager got sick tomorrow and you had to step in, could you find:
What was discussed in the last three conversations?
What commitments were made?
What deadlines were agreed on?
What the employee promised to do?
If the answer is "no," you don't have an underperformer. You have an unfindable problem.
And an unfindable problem always gets bigger.
———————————————————————
Book a 30-minute demo and see how to bring all feedback, 1:1s and action items into one place.
Previous post:
