Underperformance is one of the most common and most uncomfortable challenges an engineering manager faces. Left unaddressed, it drags down the entire team. Handled poorly, it destroys trust and morale. This guide walks you through a structured approach to identifying, addressing, and resolving underperformance on your engineering team.
Recognising Underperformance Early
Underperformance rarely appears overnight. It builds gradually — missed estimates become the norm, code review feedback goes unaddressed, participation in team discussions drops, and the quality of output slowly declines. The challenge for engineering managers is distinguishing between a temporary rough patch and a genuine performance problem that requires intervention.
Start by examining the data objectively. Look at delivery consistency over the past two to three months, not just the most recent sprint. Review code review feedback patterns, on-call incident contributions, and the complexity of work the engineer is tackling compared to their level. Compare against the expectations you have communicated, not against the team's top performer.
It is equally important to consider context. Has the engineer recently experienced a personal life change? Has the nature of their work shifted in a way that no longer plays to their strengths? Has the team or organisational environment changed in ways that might be affecting their motivation? Understanding the context does not excuse underperformance, but it shapes how you address it.
- Track delivery consistency over multiple sprints, not just isolated incidents
- Review code quality trends through pull request feedback and review cycles
- Compare performance against communicated expectations for the engineer's level
- Consider personal, team, and organisational context before drawing conclusions
- Document specific examples rather than relying on general impressions
Diagnosing the Root Cause
Before you can fix underperformance, you need to understand what is driving it. The most common root causes fall into four categories: skill gaps, motivation issues, unclear expectations, and personal circumstances. Each requires a fundamentally different intervention, and misdiagnosing the cause leads to wasted effort and continued underperformance.
Skill gaps are the most straightforward to address. The engineer may have been promoted too quickly, moved to an unfamiliar domain, or the technology stack may have evolved beyond their current expertise. These are solvable through targeted learning, mentoring, and pairing with more experienced engineers.
Motivation issues are subtler. An engineer who was once a strong performer may have lost engagement because the work is no longer challenging, because they feel unrecognised, or because they have lost faith in the team's direction. These conversations require vulnerability and honesty from both you and the engineer.
Unclear expectations are the most common cause and the one most within your control as a manager. If the engineer does not have a clear understanding of what good performance looks like at their level, underperformance is as much your failure as theirs. Start by ensuring that expectations are documented, discussed, and mutually understood.
Having the Performance Conversation
The performance conversation is where many managers falter. They either avoid it entirely, hoping the problem resolves itself, or they approach it so indirectly that the engineer leaves the meeting without understanding there is a problem. Neither approach serves the engineer or the team.
Be direct but empathetic. Open the conversation by stating clearly that you have concerns about their performance. Use specific, recent examples — not generalisations. Instead of saying 'your code quality has been slipping,' say 'in the last three pull requests, there were recurring issues with error handling that required multiple rounds of review.' Specificity makes the feedback actionable.
Listen actively to the engineer's perspective. They may have context you lack, or they may be dealing with challenges they have not felt comfortable sharing. The goal of this conversation is not to deliver a verdict — it is to build a shared understanding of the problem and a mutual commitment to solving it.
End the conversation with clear next steps. What specific improvements do you expect to see? Over what timeframe? What support will you provide? Document these agreements and share them with the engineer in writing so there is no ambiguity about what was discussed.
Building and Executing an Improvement Plan
A performance improvement plan should be a genuine tool for growth, not a precursor to termination. The best improvement plans are collaborative — built with the engineer, not imposed on them. They include specific, measurable goals, a realistic timeline, and clearly defined support from you as their manager.
Set goals that are achievable within thirty to sixty days. These should be concrete and observable: 'complete assigned stories within the sprint with no more than one round of code review feedback' rather than 'improve code quality.' Break larger goals into weekly milestones so both of you can track progress incrementally.
Meet weekly to review progress against the plan. These check-ins should be brief and focused. Celebrate improvements, no matter how small. If the engineer is falling behind, adjust the support you are providing before adjusting the expectations. More pairing time, clearer task scoping, or a temporary reduction in workload can all help an engineer regain their footing.
When Improvement Does Not Happen
Despite your best efforts, some engineers will not improve. This is a difficult reality, but avoiding it causes more harm than addressing it. If the improvement plan has run its course and the engineer has not met the agreed goals, you owe it to them and to the team to make a decision.
Before escalating to formal performance management or separation, consider whether a role change might be appropriate. Sometimes an engineer is underperforming not because they lack ability, but because they are in the wrong role. A move to a different team, a different type of work, or even a different level might unlock performance that was always there.
If separation is the right outcome, handle it with dignity and professionalism. Work closely with your HR partner to ensure the process is fair and well-documented. Communicate the decision to the team thoughtfully — you do not need to share details, but you should acknowledge the change and reaffirm your commitment to supporting every team member's success.
Key Takeaways
- Diagnose the root cause before choosing an intervention — skill gaps, motivation, and unclear expectations all require different approaches
- Use specific, recent examples when delivering performance feedback, never generalisations
- Build improvement plans collaboratively with the engineer, including measurable goals and a realistic timeline
- Meet weekly to review progress and adjust support before adjusting expectations
- If improvement does not happen, consider role changes before moving to separation
Frequently Asked Questions
- How long should I wait before addressing underperformance?
- Do not wait longer than two to three weeks once you have identified a pattern. A single bad sprint can happen to anyone, but if you see consistent issues over two or more sprints, it is time to have a direct conversation. Delaying only makes the problem harder to solve and signals to the rest of the team that underperformance is tolerated.
- Should I involve HR in the performance conversation?
- For the initial conversation, no — keep it between you and the engineer. Involving HR at the first stage can feel adversarial and shut down honest dialogue. However, if you move to a formal improvement plan, loop in your HR partner early. They can help you set appropriate goals, ensure the process is fair, and provide guidance on documentation requirements.
- How do I handle underperformance from a senior or staff engineer?
- The same principles apply, but the stakes are higher and the conversation requires more nuance. Senior engineers often have more organisational capital and their underperformance may be less visible because it manifests as missed influence rather than missed tickets. Focus on the impact gap — the difference between the impact expected at their level and what they are currently delivering. Be prepared for a more complex root cause analysis, as senior engineer underperformance is frequently tied to motivation or role fit rather than skill gaps.
Download Performance Review Templates
Get structured templates for one-on-ones, performance reviews, and improvement plans designed specifically for engineering managers.
Learn More