The Team Leader's Performance Conversation
Nadia manages a customer service team of eight at an insurance call centre. One team member, Josh, has handled 40% fewer calls than his peers for three months. His average call handling time is high, but his customer satisfaction scores are the best on the team, and his written follow-ups resolve complaints that others escalate. Nadia's manager, Dev, wants Josh placed on a formal performance improvement plan (PIP) because the call-volume metric is the team's headline measure. Nadia has not yet spoken to Josh about the gap. Josh has mentioned twice that his mother is in hospital and he is her main carer. Dev says personal circumstances are "not relevant to the numbers."
1. Assess whether a formal performance improvement plan is the appropriate next step, using principles of performance management.
Read the worked answer
A PIP is a formal tool with serious consequences. It is appropriate when there is a clear, communicated performance standard, evidence the employee is not meeting it, an opportunity to respond, and reasonable support. Several of those conditions are missing.
No prior conversation. Nadia has not raised the gap with Josh. A PIP that arrives before any feedback is a procedural shortcut. The first step in performance management is a conversation, not a document.
The metric may be incomplete. Josh's call volume is low, but his satisfaction scores are the best on the team and his follow-ups prevent escalations. Escalations cost the business time and money. A single volume metric may be measuring activity rather than value. Before judging Josh's performance, Nadia should ask whether the measure captures what the team is actually for.
Context is relevant. Dev's claim that personal circumstances are irrelevant is wrong as a management matter. Josh is a carer for a hospitalised parent. That does not excuse poor performance, but it is relevant to what support is reasonable - for example, flexible hours or temporary workload adjustment. Ignoring it risks losing a high-value employee.
Assessment: A PIP now would be premature and likely unfair.
2. Recommend a fair process Nadia could follow, and explain how she should respond to Dev's instruction.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Talk to Josh first. A private, informal conversation: acknowledge his strengths, describe the volume gap factually, and ask what is affecting it. This is where the caring responsibilities surface properly, and where Josh may identify causes Nadia has not seen - for example, complex cases being routed to him because he resolves them.
Step 2 - Check the data. Is Josh receiving a different case mix? Are escalations from others landing on him? If so, the comparison is not like-for-like and the 40% figure is misleading.
Step 3 - Agree adjustments and a review point. Reasonable adjustments might include flexible start times around hospital visits, or a temporary rebalancing of caseload. Set a review date - say six weeks - with specific, agreed measures that include both volume and quality.
Step 4 - Only then consider formality. If performance does not improve after support and a fair review, a PIP with clear targets and review dates becomes appropriate.
Responding to Dev: Nadia should not simply refuse; she should reframe. She can explain that a PIP without prior feedback and support carries risk of being overturned, and that Josh's quality scores and escalation handling are business value. She can propose the informal process with a defined review date as a lower-risk route to the same outcome Dev wants - improved performance. If Dev insists on the PIP, Nadia should ask for that instruction in writing and document her concerns. That protects both Josh and Nadia.