Why Is My Team Not Performing? A CEO’s Guide to Diagnosing and Fixing Underperformance

Let’s skip the pleasantries. You’re here because something is broken. Deadlines are slipping, excuses are piling up, and you’re starting to suspect the problem isn’t your team; it’s you. You can shuffle the deck, hire new people, or buy another piece of software, but the pattern will persist. Why? Because 90% of underperformance isn’t a personnel problem; it’s a leadership design flaw. This isn’t a guide to motivating people. It’s a diagnostic manual for the system you built.

The Mirror Test: Underperformance Starts at the Top

Before you audit a single employee, you audit yourself. The urge to blame your team is a reflex—a convenient fiction that protects your ego but kills your company. The brutal truth is that your team’s performance is a direct reflection of the standards you set and the systems you’ve built. They are a mirror. If you don’t like what you see, the problem isn’t the mirror.

“If your team isn’t delivering, it’s your problem.” Few truths in leadership are harder to accept. It is easy for CEOs to assume that low performance stems from laziness, weak motivation, or poor individual discipline. The reality is more uncomfortable. Most team underperformance issues stem from leadership and system design, not from the people doing the work.

Blaming individuals is the classic leadership mistake. Replacing staff feels decisive, yet patterns usually persist. New hires encounter the same vague goals, misaligned incentives, and broken processes. Even the most capable people falter in systems designed for drift. The uncomfortable lesson is that leaders who tolerate underperformance are often complicit in it.

This article sets out a clear proposition: underperformance is solvable when CEOs own it. The following sections provide a diagnostic framework and playbook, showing leaders how to distinguish whether issues stem from clarity, competence, commitment, or culture. This reframing shifts focus away from personalities towards systems, incentives, and leadership behaviour.

The costs of tolerating mediocrity are severe. A team running at sixty per cent speed is not just slow; across ten full-time employees, the loss equates to four missing roles. Deadlines drift, revenue slips, and high performers disengage. Competitors capture opportunities while leaders debate why their people seem unmotivated. In truth, standards have been allowed to collapse.

The promise here is practical clarity. Readers will see how to run a CEO-level diagnostic, collect evidence, audit against the four C’s, and decide whether problems sit in the system or with individuals. They will also learn how to hold hard conversations, decide quickly whether to develop or exit underperformers, and rebuild culture with cadence and accountability.

Jake Smolarek’s coaching experience informs this approach. His work with CEOs and executive teams stresses directness, measurable outcomes, and no theatre. The emphasis is always on frameworks that convert vagueness into structure. Performance problems are reframed as leadership design challenges, not employee flaws.

The harsh truth is unavoidable. If your team is stalling, it is your system that permits it. If standards are sliding, it is your tolerance that signals acceptance. Underperformance is not destiny. With courage and design, CEOs can fix it.

The Real Cost of Underperformance (Money, Time, Opportunity)

Underperformance isn’t a soft problem; it’s a silent tax that bleeds your company dry. It doesn’t show up as a single line item on your P&L. It’s a cancer that metastasises across every department, lost revenue from slow sales cycles, wasted payroll on rework, and squandered market opportunities your competitors are happily seizing. Before we fix the system, let’s be brutally honest about the price you are already paying.

Headcount Maths: How 60% Output Across 10 FTE ≈ Losing 4 FTE

On paper, a team of ten should deliver the equivalent of ten full-time employees. In practice, when each contributes at only 60 per cent, the real productivity mirrors six. This creates a false sense of capacity. Strategic plans are built on resources that do not exist.

Leaders often respond by hiring more staff, thereby inflating costs without addressing the root issues of team performance. The compounding effect is visible across sales, operations, and support. Each lagging unit multiplies the pressure elsewhere. This isn’t a hiring problem; it’s a diagnostic one. The fundamental challenges a CEO faces are solvable, but only when you stop throwing money at headcount and start attacking the root cause with diagnostic precision.

The message is clear: capacity is defined by output, not by payroll size. CEOs must interrogate the ratio between resources and results.

Missed Revenue & Margin Leakage (Slow Cycles, Rework, Churn)

Revenue leakage is a direct outcome of underperformance. Deals stall, margins erode, and contracts take longer to close. Slow cycles are particularly damaging. Competitors secure deals while internal processes delay approvals. Rework compounds the cost. Every error consumes resources that should drive growth.

Customer churn follows naturally, with clients equating missed deadlines to unreliability. Leaders often underestimate these hidden losses. Research from Gallup on global workplace productivity shows that disengagement alone costs organisations billions each year, and the same principle holds true at company scale. The cumulative effect is strategic erosion. Margins decline, investor confidence weakens, and opportunity is lost.

Culture Tax: Hidden Costs of Low Trust & Politics

Culture is often dismissed as intangible, but its economic cost is measurable. Low trust and politics impose a culture tax.

When psychological safety is absent, employees protect themselves rather than advance goals.

Politics thrives, draining energy into appearances and turf battles instead of problem-solving.

Retention costs add weight, as high performers leave to avoid toxic environments.

Building trust in teams is essential for sustained performance.. It reduces politics, accelerates collaboration, and creates the conditions for sustainable delivery.

For CEOs, ignoring culture creates a hidden liability. Left unchecked, it repels talent and undermines execution.

“Stop Tolerating 60%”: CEO Mindset Shift

The final cost is psychological: leadership mindset. Tolerating 60 per cent output signals that mediocrity is acceptable.

This tolerance cascades through managers and employees, lowering standards across the board.

Breaking the cycle requires courage and clarity. Every unit of underperformance must be treated as compounding loss.

Consistency matters most. Allowing one low-performing team undermines all others.

Andrew Grove captured this principle in High Output Management. His argument was that managers should treat performance as leverage, not an afterthought.

For CEOs, the choice is stark: enforce standards or accept the hidden taxes of underperformance.

What “Performance” Actually Means (and How It’s Measured)

Performance is a word used so often that it risks losing precision. For CEOs, clarity matters because definitions shape what gets measured and rewarded.

Many leaders reduce performance to whether tasks are completed. But outputs alone can disguise deeper team performance issues.

Real performance is about outcomes. The question is not whether a campaign was launched, but whether it generated a qualified pipeline of leads.

This distinction anchors any serious performance management framework. Without it, leaders risk rewarding busyness without impact.

The problem intensifies when effort is measured instead of results. Hours worked or documents produced create the illusion of progress.

Low-performing teams often appear busy yet deliver little. CEOs who fail to interrogate outcomes miss early warning signs.

Performance must be defined rigorously. Outcomes, behaviours, and alignment with strategy all matter.

Definitions also affect accountability. If performance means only activity, underperformance is harder to prove.

When KPIs reflect impact, conversations about managing underperforming employees become evidence-driven.

The following subsections examine four key dimensions of measurement, illustrating how CEOs can make performance visible and accountable.

Outputs vs Outcomes (Activity ≠ Impact)

Activity is the easiest way to appear productive. But equating it with performance creates blind spots.

An employee can attend every meeting and draft every report without moving the strategy forward.

Outputs without outcomes are camouflage. They consume time without advancing organisational health.

Outcome-based measurement is central to fixing team performance because it rewards business impact rather than optics.

This is why the distinction is highlighted in Harvard Business Review’s work on measuring outcomes. Research shows firms that focus on outcomes outperform those that rely on output-based reporting.

For CEOs, the lesson is clear: redefine performance as outcomes, and teams start delivering what matters.

Leading vs Lagging Indicators (Examples)

Leading indicators measure results already delivered. Revenue and profit confirm outcomes but arrive too late for correction.

Leading indicators predict results. Pipeline quality, customer sentiment, or cycle times show what lies ahead. The error is over-relying on lagging data. By the time numbers fall, intervention is too late. High-performing organisations balance both, using lagging metrics for accountability and leading ones for course correction.

The most effective leaders master this balance. They use leading indicators as a compass to set the long-term direction and lagging indicators as milestones to validate the results. My Vision GPS framework is designed to instil this exact discipline, creating a combination that avoids both short-termism and drift. The balance creates resilience. CEOs gain foresight and avoid surprises when performance veers off track.

Quality & Health Metrics (NPS, Cycle Time, Defects, Engagement)

Financial metrics alone don’t capture sustainability. Quality and health metrics show whether results can last.

Net Promoter Score reflects customer loyalty, while cycle time reveals execution speed.

Defect rates expose hidden costs. Engagement levels signal discretionary effort and resilience.

Neglecting these metrics risks decline. Defects accumulate, and disengagement spreads silently.

McKinsey’s research on organisational health shows how disengagement and weak systems undermine productivity at scale.

For CEOs, the implication is direct: health and quality metrics must sit alongside financial ones in every performance dashboard.

Cadence and Visibility

Measurement only matters when visible. Dashboards, reviews, and one-to-ones make metrics operational.

Dashboards highlight progress and drift in real time. Weekly reviews create rhythm across teams.

One-to-ones surface individual challenges and build psychological safety.

This cadence is not bureaucracy. It is infrastructure for leadership and team performance.

The discipline is often reinforced by external guidance. An accountability coach can help leaders install routines that make performance visible without overwhelming managers with process.

Leaders who adopt structured rhythms reduce the reliance on ad-hoc management. Teams know that progress will be tracked and discussed at predictable intervals.

This creates an atmosphere of fairness. Everyone understands that expectations are applied consistently across the organisation.

It also prevents drift. Without cadence, even strong strategies dissolve into scattered activity and confusion.

For high-growth firms, this structure protects against chaos. Rapid scaling often makes informal practices unsustainable.

Regular routines also provide transparency. Employees see that leadership is serious about measuring and improving outcomes.

Cadence builds trust. With visibility, underperformance cannot hide, and accountability becomes a shared expectation. Jake Smolarek’s article on the benefits of prioritising workload shows how structured discipline creates focus across teams, ensuring cadence supports clarity rather than chaos.

The 4 C’s of High Performance

High performance is rarely accidental. It rests on conditions that make excellence predictable.

CEOs searching for how to fix team performance often focus on individuals. In reality, systems and expectations shape outcomes more than personalities.

The 4 C’s framework provides a way to diagnose and design for success: clarity, competence, commitment, and culture.

These elements are practical. They are observable and measurable, which makes them actionable.

Clarity gives direction, competence ensures capability, commitment sustains effort, and culture defines atmosphere.

When they are missing, team underperformance becomes easier to identify. One gap often triggers another.

Applied well, the 4 C’s convert vague perceptions of drift into structured insights leaders can act on.

The framework scales across contexts, from start-ups to global firms. The principles are universal, even if the application varies.

For UK SMEs, gaps often appear in clarity and competence as rapid growth outpaces systems.

The subsections below examine each “C” in detail, with examples of what strengthens or weakens performance.

Clarity: Mission, Strategy, Roles, Decision Rights, KPIs

Clarity is the first condition for performance. Without it, talent cannot deliver consistent results.

Mission and strategy must be understood, not just published. Employees should articulate how their work contributes.

Roles and decision rights prevent drift. Ambiguity in either slows execution and fuels politics.

KPIs translate clarity into measurable targets. Vague objectives create vague outcomes.

This is why John Doerr’s Measure What Matters has influenced so many leaders. Its OKR framework provides a structured way to make clarity operational.

For CEOs, clarity eliminates excuses. With defined missions, roles, and metrics, accountability becomes unambiguous.

Competence: Skills Gaps, Training, Coaching, Hiring Standards

Competence is the engine of performance. Even clear goals collapse without capability.

Skills gaps appear quickly in growth organisations. Teams scale faster than expertise.

Training builds capability systematically, while coaching addresses individual strengths and weaknesses.

Hiring standards matter equally. Low thresholds lower the ceiling for the entire team.

This is where executive coaching adds value. It equips leaders with frameworks to identify competence gaps and build capability systematically.

Competence is therefore not optional. It is the baseline on which sustainable performance rests.

Commitment: Incentives, Recognition, Psychological Contracts

Commitment determines whether competence is fully applied. Skilled but disengaged employees underperform.

Incentives must align with outcomes. Poorly designed systems reward the wrong behaviour.

Recognition matters equally. Specific and timely acknowledgement strengthens trust and morale.

The psychological contract defines fairness and growth expectations. When broken, disengagement follows.

McKinsey research on employee motivation and incentives shows that non-financial factors like purpose, recognition, and growth drive commitment as strongly as pay.

For CEOs, commitment cannot be assumed. It must be cultivated deliberately through systems and culture.

Culture Norms, Safety, Ownership, Meeting Hygiene, Speed

Culture defines the atmosphere of performance. It shapes what behaviours are tolerated or repeated.

Norms around punctuality, clarity, and accountability matter as much as formal policies.

Psychological safety enables candour, while ownership strengthens accountability.

Meeting hygiene and execution speed are cultural signals. Poorly run meetings and slow delivery erode trust.

This is where The War Map framework becomes relevant. It demonstrates how disciplined goal-setting and planning reinforce cultural standards of focus and speed.

Leaders often underestimate how much clarity reduces conflict. When objectives are unambiguous, politics has less space to thrive.

In many UK SMEs, cultural drag shows up as repeated meetings with no outcomes. Removing this wasted time is one of the fastest ways to lift morale.

Psychological safety also plays a role. Teams contribute more openly when they know ideas won’t be punished.

Consistency of standards creates predictability. Employees thrive when they understand expectations and can rely on them being enforced fairly.

Momentum compounds when cadence and culture align. Weekly rituals such as progress reviews become symbols of focus, not bureaucracy.

High-performing cultures are never accidental. They are designed deliberately and reinforced daily by leadership behaviour.

For CEOs, culture is leverage. It compounds either in favour of excellence or in favour of mediocrity. As outlined in how to build trust in a team, trust acts as the multiplier that converts culture from an abstract idea into a daily performance driver.

System vs Human vs Leadership vs Market: The Four Lenses

Underperformance is rarely caused by a single factor. It usually emerges from an interplay of systems, people, leadership, and external context.

CEOs who focus narrowly on one category risk misdiagnosis. A team may look disengaged when the real issue is broken processes.

This is why the four-lens model is practical. It forces leaders to look at systemic, human, leadership, and market drivers together.

Systemic failure occurs when processes and tools undermine productivity. Even capable teams struggle in environments where systems create friction.

Human mismatch is about fit. Skills, values, or behaviours that are misaligned with role requirements create predictable team performance issues.

Leadership gaps are decisive. Micromanagement, lack of vision, or absent feedback all erode motivation and weaken results.

Market factors add external pressure. Poor strategy, product-market misfit, or regulatory shifts can overwhelm even strong teams.

Together, these lenses create a comprehensive diagnostic. CEOs can map symptoms against categories rather than blaming individuals prematurely.

This model also supports better conversations. Managing underperforming employees becomes less about fault-finding and more about identifying the right lever for change.

In UK SMEs, systemic weaknesses and leadership gaps are the most common culprits. Rapid scaling often exposes fragile processes and inexperienced managers.

Systemic Failure (Broken Processes/Tools)

Systems should accelerate work. When they are broken, they do the opposite, dragging down performance regardless of individual effort.

Duplicated approvals, outdated tools, and excessive bureaucracy create invisible friction. Teams spend more time navigating the process than delivering results.

This is one of the most common team underperformances in large organisations. Legacy systems designed for stability rarely support speed.

In SMEs, the opposite problem often emerges. A lack of documented process creates chaos, leaving delivery dependent on individual heroics.

The cost is the same in both contexts: wasted time, increased errors, and frustrated staff.

Leaders who want to know how to fix team performance must interrogate systems first. If processes obstruct flow, no amount of coaching will solve the problem.

This is reinforced by MIT Sloan Review’s Revisiting Complexity in the Digital Age, which finds that organisations striking a balance between product variety and process simplicity (avoiding “non-value-adding” complexity) tend to outperform peers weighed down by unwieldy processes.

Broken systems eventually make even the strongest teams appear weak. The pattern is consistent.

For CEOs, system audits are not optional. They are the foundation of sustainable performance.

By removing systemic friction, leaders unlock capacity already present in the organisation.

Human Mismatch (Role Fit, Capability, Behaviour)

Not all underperformance is structural; sometimes it stems from a misalignment between a person and their role.

A low performing team often includes individuals whose skills or behaviours do not fit the demands of their positions.

Capability gaps are visible when employees consistently miss technical or delivery standards. Behavioural misfits show up as conflict, disengagement, or resistance to accountability.

Recruitment plays a critical role. Weak hiring standards allow mismatches to enter and persist in the organisation.

Leaders must also distinguish between can’t and won’t. Some employees lack ability; others lack will. The solutions differ accordingly.

Tailored support can help in these cases. Coaching, training, or redeployment can resolve many mismatches before they escalate.

Jake Smolarek’s business coaching approach emphasises this diagnostic precision. It equips leaders to decide whether to invest in development or manage exits.

Seven paragraphs later, the pattern is clear. Misdiagnosing mismatch as laziness damages both fairness and outcomes.

For CEOs, fairness and discipline go hand in hand. A clear process for identifying and addressing mismatches protects culture and strengthens credibility.

Human mismatch cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed systematically through clear standards and decisive action.

Leadership Gap (Micromanagement, No Vision, No Feedback)

Leadership is the force multiplier of performance. When it fails, even competent teams lose direction and motivation.

Micromanagement suffocates initiative. Employees disengage when leaders hover over tasks instead of empowering responsibility.

Lack of vision creates drift. Teams cannot align if they do not know where the organisation is heading.

Feedback gaps compound both problems. Without regular feedback, employees do not know whether they are succeeding or failing.

These leadership gaps are among the most damaging team performance issues. They demoralise capable staff and frustrate ambitious managers.

They also slow decisions. Unclear direction forces teams into endless cycles of approval and rework.

Liz Wiseman’s Multipliers illustrates this dynamic. Leaders who amplify talent create momentum, while diminishers shrink it.

Leadership quality ultimately determines whether organisations scale or stall.

For CEOs, the priority is to build leadership systems as deliberately as business systems. Coaching and standards must apply at the management level, not just frontline staff.

A leadership gap tolerated is underperformance institutionalised.

Market/Context (Bad Strategy, Product-Market Issues, Constraints)

Not all causes of underperformance are internal. Market forces often overwhelm even well-run teams.

A bad strategy misdirects energy. Even competent execution cannot rescue poor positioning.

Product-market misfit is equally punishing. Teams may work tirelessly, but if the offering does not resonate, results will not materialise.

External constraints, such as regulatory shifts or economic downturns, can further suppress performance. Leaders must recognise these pressures honestly.

The danger lies in denial. Blaming employees for context-driven underperformance damages trust and accelerates disengagement.

Strong leaders distinguish between controllable and uncontrollable factors. They adapt strategy rather than punishing teams for external realities.

The Financial Times has documented how strategic misalignment with market demands can undermine even the most efficient firms, as seen in detailed analyses of leadership incentive failures.

Seven paragraphs later, the principle is unchanged. Context sets the stage, and leaders must adjust plays accordingly.

For CEOs, humility is part of performance management. Acknowledging when the market has shifted protects credibility and guides smarter decisions.

The market lens ensures leaders avoid simplistic diagnoses. It reminds them that underperformance can be due to structural, human, or strategic factors.

The Science & History of Team Performance (Why Teams Succeed or Fail)

The reasons why certain teams achieve excellence while others consistently fail have been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. Research spanning psychology, management, and history reveals recurring dynamics that determine whether performance compounds or collapses.

Military units, sporting organisations, and corporate groups repeatedly demonstrate similar patterns in trust, clarity, and leadership effectiveness. These parallels highlight that underperformance rarely originates from laziness but rather from systemic weaknesses across the organisation.

Scientific models provide a framework for leaders attempting to interpret seemingly random team behaviors and performance inconsistencies. They supply language and frameworks that convert anecdotal experiences into structured explanations and practical diagnostic tools.

These models challenge oversimplified narratives of blame directed towards individual employees struggling with performance demands. Instead, they emphasise that sustainable results depend on systemic conditions, culture, and leadership design.

Teams consistently thrive when they share a strong purpose, psychological safety, and accountability. Conversely, they falter when fear, politics, or confusion dominate daily interactions and decision-making processes.

This perspective reframes leadership responsibility. CEOs seeking to understand how to fix team performance must look beyond individuals. Systemic design failures often explain poor results more than low commitment or weak effort from employees.

For SMEs in the United Kingdom, growth phases frequently expose these weaknesses. Informal norms collapse under pressure, requiring structured frameworks and stronger management practices to sustain delivery.

The value of these models lies in their predictive ability, not simply retrospective explanation. They help leaders anticipate potential stalls or breakdowns before they materialise into visible performance failures.

They also enhance diagnostic clarity, enabling managers to identify whether the issue stems from team formation, psychological safety, engagement, or leadership behaviour. This reduces reliance on instinct when managing underperforming employees.

Tuckman’s Stages (Forming → Performing) + What Stalls Teams

Bruce Tuckman’s model of team development remains one of the most enduring and practical leadership frameworks. It describes how teams progress predictably from forming to storming, then norming, and ultimately performing.

Teams begin in the forming stage, where relationships and roles are tentative. They transition into storming, where authority and norms are tested, creating tension and conflict.

Alignment occurs in the norming stage, which enables progression into performing, where delivery becomes consistent and sustainable. Without effective leadership, many teams stall permanently between storming and norming.

This stall explains common team underperformance causes, where unresolved conflict or apathy replaces constructive collaboration and accountability. Leaders misinterpret these struggles as permanent weakness rather than temporary phases requiring structured guidance.

Patrick Lencioni’s The Five Dysfunctions of a Team builds on this principle, emphasising how trust and accountability are often missing in stalled teams. This connection reinforces the importance of addressing relational gaps directly.

For CEOs, the model is a map. Identifying the stage accurately allows leaders to implement targeted interventions that accelerate progression into the performing phase.

Psychological Safety (Google Project Aristotle)

Psychological safety describes whether employees feel comfortable sharing concerns or mistakes without fear of reprisal. Its presence determines whether intelligence is fully leveraged across the team.

Teams with high psychological safety contribute freely, share ideas, and take risks, accelerating innovation and learning. Teams without safety withdraw, withhold suggestions, and disengage, resulting in stagnant performance.

Google’s Project Aristotle study as detailed in its Understand team effectiveness guide showed that psychological safety ranked above role clarity and technical expertise in driving team performance.

This finding explains why many low-performing teams struggle. Even skilled employees suppress contributions when they perceive risks in openness. Leadership and team performance decline without deliberate reinforcement of safety.

UK research, including studies within the NHS, demonstrates the same principle: safe teams achieve stronger results. In medicine, staff who feel able to challenge authority improve patient outcomes measurably.

For CEOs, psychological safety is not cultural luxury but structural necessity. Without it, clarity and competence cannot sustain long-term performance, regardless of the technical investments made.

Engagement Research (e.g., Gallup Themes)

Employee engagement measures whether individuals feel emotionally committed to their work. High engagement translates into discretionary effort and innovation. Low engagement results in withdrawal, delivering the minimum required.

Gallup research consistently shows engagement correlates directly with productivity, retention, and profitability across industries. Engaged teams outperform disengaged counterparts by wide margins.

This demonstrates why attempting how to motivate an unmotivated team with perks or slogans inevitably fails. Engagement depends on structure, leadership trust, and meaningful recognition rather than superficial gestures.

Engagement is shaped significantly by leadership behaviour. Employees who believe managers are consistent, fair, and empathetic are more likely to commit fully to organisational objectives.

Jake Smolarek’s article on good leadership qualities reinforces this. It shows how qualities like consistency, empathy, and decisiveness drive engagement. These behaviours create environments where motivation flourishes naturally.

For CEOs, engagement is an essential diagnostic. Tracking engagement provides early warning signals of underperformance, complementing financial KPIs and operational metrics.

Multipliers vs Diminishers (Liz Wiseman)

Leadership style exerts disproportionate influence on organisational performance. Liz Wiseman described this dynamic through multipliers and diminishers.

Multipliers expand intelligence by creating autonomy, setting ambitious expectations, and enabling contribution. They amplify both competence and commitment within teams.

Diminishers hoard control, limit decision-making, and suffocate creativity. Capable employees underdeliver because leadership actively suppresses initiative and ownership.

This distinction explains many team underperformance causes. Outcomes are not limited by individual skills, but by leadership behaviors that constrain contributions.

Patrick Lencioni’s The Advantage reinforces this point. Organisational health depends less on strategy than on leadership behaviours that multiply capacity. Effective leaders design systems that compound performance.

For CEOs, investing in leadership development is not optional. Multipliers create sustainable high-performance cultures, while diminishers entrench mediocrity and weaken long-term competitiveness.

The Most Common Root Causes (Field-Tested Patterns)

Underperformance is rarely random. It usually follows familiar patterns that appear across industries and organisational sizes.

CEOs who learn to recognise these patterns can diagnose problems faster and act with greater precision.

The most common root causes range from missing KPIs to leadership bottlenecks. Each undermines performance in predictable ways.

Some causes are structural, like vague goals or broken processes. Others are human, like poor role fit or weak management.

Left unchecked, these issues create compounding drag on productivity, morale, and customer outcomes.

In the UK context, these patterns are evident in both public and private sectors. From local councils to fintech start-ups, the same weaknesses surface.

The value of mapping root causes is that it prevents wasted effort. Leaders stop treating symptoms and start addressing the source of underperformance.

For example, a low performing team may appear disengaged, but the root issue could be misaligned incentives.

Similarly, repeated mistakes may be blamed on individuals when the real problem is inadequate feedback loops.

These recurring causes also highlight the link between leadership and team performance. Leaders who ignore them end up reinforcing them.

By contrast, CEOs who act decisively can transform performance quickly. Addressing root causes unlocks hidden capacity already present in the organisation.

No KPIs / Vague Goals → “Busy but Aimless”

One of the clearest team underperformance is the absence of meaningful KPIs. Teams without them tend to drift into activities that appear productive but lack impact.

Vague goals encourage busyness. Employees generate reports, hold meetings, and complete tasks without advancing strategic outcomes.

This creates frustration for both staff and managers. Individuals feel unsure whether they are succeeding, and leaders struggle to measure progress.

Without KPIs, accountability collapses. Performance conversations become subjective and often unfair.

It also weakens motivation. Teams that cannot see how their work contributes lose energy and engagement.

This is where a structured productivity coach can help CEOs translate strategy into clear KPIs. It ensures effort aligns with impact.

Seven paragraphs later, the lesson stands. Clarity of goals is the first building block of performance management frameworks.

In UK SMEs, vague goals often reflect rapid growth. Leaders focus on survival and sales, neglecting the discipline of measurable targets.

The cost is hidden but substantial. Without KPIs, leaders cannot spot underperformance until results have already collapsed.

For CEOs, the fix is straightforward and non-negotiable. Install clear, measurable KPIs and make them visible at every level.

Wrong People in Critical Seats (Role/Values Misfit)

Another common cause is a poor fit between people and roles. Even talented individuals can underperform when they are misaligned with their responsibilities or the culture.

Role misfit manifests as repeated errors, missed standards, or conflict with team values. It undermines collective delivery.

Hiring mistakes are often the root. Weak recruitment processes prioritise speed over quality, embedding long-term underperformance.

Misfits are also costly in leadership roles. A poor manager can damage engagement across multiple teams, compounding drag.

Values misalignment is equally damaging. Employees who reject organisational norms erode culture and credibility.

The issue is not always visible immediately. Some misfits perform well technically but undermine trust and collaboration.

Research from Bain & Company highlights how misallocating talent away from business-critical roles becomes a hidden drag on performance globally.

Seven paragraphs later, the message is consistent. Role fit is as critical as technical competence in sustaining performance.

For CEOs, the discipline lies in making tough calls quickly. Delaying action only deepens cultural and operational costs.

Fixing misfits is rarely easy but always necessary. Redeployment, retraining, or respectful exits are preferable to prolonged damage.

Process Bloat (Meetings, Approvals, Tool Sprawl)

Processes should support performance, but in many organisations, they become the enemy of speed.

Excessive meetings consume time without producing decisions. Long approval chains slow delivery to a crawl.

Tool sprawl adds complexity. Teams juggle multiple platforms, duplicating effort and losing focus.

This creates a culture of frustration. Employees disengage when they spend more time navigating the process than delivering value.

The issue is common in scale-ups. As firms grow, informal practices are replaced with layers of process, often copied from larger corporations.

The result is process bloat, a major cause of underperformance that leaders often misinterpret as laziness.

Ben Horowitz’s The Hard Thing About Hard Things explains how process discipline must adapt with scale. The wrong systems suffocate performance.

Processes should enable rather than constrain the flow of work. The principle remains unchanged.

For CEOs, trimming bloat is one of the fastest ways to release trapped capacity. The payoff is immediate in both speed and morale.

Process design is therefore not administrative. It is a strategic infrastructure for performance.

Incentives That Reward the Wrong Behaviour

Incentives shape behaviour. When misaligned, they reward the wrong outcomes and undermine strategy.

Sales teams paid solely on volume cut margins to hit targets. Operations teams are rewarded for speed sacrificing quality.

These distortions create systemic underperformance. Teams optimise locally at the expense of overall business outcomes.

Poorly designed incentives also breed cynicism. Employees recognise when rewards encourage counterproductive behaviour.

This erodes trust in leadership and deepens team culture problems.

Fixing incentives requires alignment with strategy. Metrics must reward outcomes, not just visible outputs.

Recognition also matters. Incentives are not only financial; timely appreciation reinforces desired behaviours.

Leaders must regularly audit incentives. What gets rewarded drives what gets repeated.

For CEOs, incentives are levers of culture. Aligned well, they accelerate performance; aligned poorly, they entrench mediocrity.

Ultimately, incentives are silent architects of behaviour. They should never be left unmanaged.

No Feedback Loops (Annual Reviews Only)

Feedback is one of the cheapest performance tools, yet it is often neglected. Many firms rely solely on annual reviews.

Annual cycles are too slow. Issues that could have been corrected in weeks linger for months.

This creates avoidable frustration. Employees feel blindsided by delayed criticism, and managers struggle to remember specifics.

The absence of feedback loops explains why many underperforming employees stagnate rather than improve.

Real-time feedback accelerates growth. It corrects errors, reinforces standards, and builds trust.

In UK companies, delayed feedback is a common complaint. It signals avoidance and weakens accountability.

Feedback loops also strengthen psychological safety. Teams that receive consistent input feel supported rather than judged.

For CEOs, feedback is non-negotiable. It is a leadership habit, not an HR process.

Without it, performance management frameworks collapse into formality.

Feedback must therefore be timely, specific, and continuous to sustain high performance.

Manager Gap (Weak Middle Leadership, No Coaching)

Middle managers are often the fulcrum of performance. When they are weak, entire organisations suffer.

A management gap is evident in disengaged teams, missed targets, and rising turnover.

Weak managers avoid coaching, fail to set clear goals, and tolerate mediocrity.

This leaves employees unsupported and frustrated. Many disengage or leave, creating further instability.

The gap also undermines leadership pipelines. Without strong middle managers, organisations struggle to scale.

This is a frequent issue in fast-growth UK SMEs. Founders promote early staff into management without adequate training.

The result is underdeveloped leaders managing underperforming employees poorly.

Fixing the gap requires investment in training and coaching. Strong managers multiply team capacity. As highlighted in 15 good leadership qualities, traits such as decisiveness, empathy, and fairness are especially vital in middle managers, since their behaviour sets the tone for entire teams.

For CEOs, upgrading managers is one of the highest ROI interventions available.

Leadership and team performance cannot improve sustainably without addressing this middle layer.

Founder Bottleneck (Decisions Centralised at the Top)

Founder-led businesses often stall when decision-making remains centralised. Every choice routes through one person, creating delay and dependency.

This bottleneck undermines scalability. Teams wait for approval rather than exercising delegated authority.

It also demoralises capable employees. Ambition is stifled when decision rights are not distributed.

The bottleneck becomes acute as headcount grows. What worked with ten employees fails with one hundred.

This dynamic is one of the most overlooked team underperformance in scaling firms.

Founders who become CEOs must transition from doers to enablers. The shift is both cultural and structural.

Jake Smolarek’s Founder → CEO Transition framework addresses this directly. It provides tools to shift from centralised control to distributed leadership.

Seven paragraphs later, the lesson is clear. Delegation is not abdication; it is structured empowerment.

For CEOs, breaking the bottleneck is non-negotiable. Without it, growth will always outpace capacity.

The founder bottleneck is not just a personal habit; it is an organisational risk.

How to Diagnose Underperformance Like a CEO (Step-by-Step)

Diagnosing underperformance is one of the hardest responsibilities of leadership. It demands rigour, neutrality, and the ability to separate signal from noise.

CEOs cannot rely on gut instinct alone. Misdiagnosis wastes time, erodes trust, and often entrenches the very problems it seeks to solve.

A structured diagnostic process avoids these pitfalls. It creates a framework for identifying the root causes of team performance issues.

This process also ensures fairness. Employees can see that assessments are based on evidence, not favouritism or politics.

The diagnostic begins with data. Numbers reveal trends that anecdote often obscures, but they must be interpreted in context.

Next comes mapping against frameworks. Tools like the 4C model help leaders distinguish whether issues lie in clarity, competence, commitment, or culture.

System analysis follows. Leaders must ask whether performance is realistically possible within the environment provided.

Managerial quality must also be assessed. Weak middle management is a common source of hidden underperformance.

Observation is critical. Real-time workflows often reveal inefficiencies invisible in reports.

Techniques like silent meetings surface unspoken barriers. They provide unfiltered insight into what blocks progress.

Prep the Facts: Collect KPIs, Trends, Work Samples, Customer Voice

The first step is preparation. CEOs must gather evidence before drawing conclusions.

Team KPIs provide the baseline. Trends over time show whether performance is improving, stalling, or declining.

Work samples reveal quality. They show whether outputs meet agreed standards or fall short.

Customer voice is equally important. Complaints, churn, or feedback highlight gaps that internal reporting may downplay.

This evidence prevents subjective bias. Leaders can base assessments on data, not assumptions.

Preparation also signals seriousness. Teams see that performance reviews are grounded in facts, not vague impressions.

For CEOs, this step creates credibility. It strengthens every subsequent conversation about how to fix team performance.

Without this preparation, interventions risk being dismissed as unfair or inconsistent.

Preparation is therefore the foundation of diagnostic integrity. Skipping it weakens the entire process.

Run the 4C Audit: Map Issues to Clarity/Competence/Commitment/Culture

Once evidence is collected, leaders must map it against a framework. The 4C model provides structure.

Clarity asks whether goals, roles, and decision rights are understood. Competence examines whether skills match requirements.

Commitment considers motivation and incentives. Culture evaluates whether norms and safety support performance.

Mapping issues this way avoids oversimplification. It indicates whether underperformance originates from systems, skills, or behaviors.

The audit also creates transparency. Teams can see which dimension is weak and how it will be addressed.

This strengthens trust, reducing defensiveness in performance conversations.

Jake Smolarek highlights this in his article on the importance of feedback in coaching. Structured feedback is more effective when framed within models like the 4C audit.

Seven paragraphs later, the benefit is clear. Frameworks depersonalise critique and turn it into an actionable diagnosis.

For CEOs, the audit serves both diagnostic and prescriptive purposes. It shows not just what is wrong but where to intervene.

The 4C audit turns vague underperformance into structured, solvable categories.

System vs Person: Is Performance Possible in the Current System?

Underperformance often reflects the system. Leaders should first assess whether processes and structures enable success.

Broken processes, poor tools, or unclear priorities can make even strong employees appear weak.

If the system is flawed, no amount of individual coaching will resolve the problem.

This diagnostic lens protects fairness. It ensures employees are not blamed for failures beyond their control.

It also strengthens leadership credibility. Teams respect leaders who take responsibility for systemic barriers.

This step is particularly important in complex UK organisations. Regulatory compliance, legacy systems, or siloed structures can often hinder effective delivery.

System audits, therefore, act as a safeguard. They clarify whether performance expectations are realistic given the current infrastructure.

If not, leaders must first address the system’s issues. Only then can they fairly judge individual contributions.

This separates genuine low-performing teams from those trapped by flawed environments.

For CEOs, the question is blunt: Have you built a system where performance is possible?

Manager Assessment: Does the Manager Multiply or Diminish?

Managers have disproportionate influence on performance. They either multiply capability or diminish it.

Multipliers set clear expectations, provide coaching, and create ownership. Diminishers confuse, micromanage, and erode morale.

Assessing managers is, therefore, a critical diagnostic step. If the manager is weak, the team will rarely perform strongly.

This step also highlights leadership and team performance as inseparable. Managers model standards that shape culture.

Assessment should include team feedback. Engagement surveys or direct interviews reveal whether managers support or obstruct performance.

UK firms often underestimate this layer. Many middle managers are promoted for tenure rather than capability, creating hidden drag.

For CEOs, upgrading managers is often the highest-leverage intervention. Strong managers transform entire functions.

If managers diminish rather than multiply, no diagnosis of individuals will solve the issue.

The manager assessment ensures that accountability flows both upward and downward.

It forces leaders to confront whether the problem is at the supervisory level, not just the frontline.

Shadow Critical Workflows: Real-Time Observation Beats Reports

Reports often obscure more than they reveal. Real-time observation provides unfiltered insight.

Shadowing critical workflows shows where time is lost, errors occur, or coordination fails.

This method highlights bottlenecks invisible in metrics. A KPI may look fine while underlying workflows are breaking down.

Observation also reveals cultural signals. Whether teams collaborate or conceal becomes visible in practice.

It prevents leaders from relying solely on second-hand information. Reports are often curated to present favourable impressions.

In UK settings, shadowing has revealed a range of issues, from excessive handovers in NHS trusts to tool overload in financial services.

For CEOs, observation is time-intensive but invaluable. It provides direct evidence for interventions.

It also signals commitment. Employees notice when leaders take time to see work first-hand.

Real-time observation, therefore, strengthens both diagnostic accuracy and cultural credibility.

For diagnosing underperformance, seeing beats reading every time.

“Silent Meeting” Technique: Surface Real Blockers

Traditional meetings often reward the loudest voices. Quiet contributors and real blockers remain hidden.

The silent meeting technique flips this. Participants write observations or ideas before the discussion begins.

This reduces bias. Input is gathered from everyone, not just dominant personalities.

It also surfaces issues leaders may not hear otherwise. Politics and hierarchy often suppress candour.

For diagnosing underperformance, this method reveals barriers no report will capture.

Seven paragraphs later, the point is reinforced. Silence allows the truth to surface without the performance of theatre.

For CEOs, the technique is low-cost but high-value. It combines inclusivity with diagnostic clarity.

Silent meetings offer valuable insights into both systems and culture, thereby strengthening the evidence base for informed action.

This makes them a practical tool in the CEO diagnostic toolkit.

Heatmap & Priority: Pick the 3 Levers with the Biggest ROI

No leader can fix everything at once. Prioritisation is essential.

A heatmap of issues highlights where the biggest gaps lie. It shows which levers will yield the highest return.

This avoids scattergun approaches. Leaders focus resources where they will make the most difference.

The heatmap also creates alignment. Teams can see why leadership prioritised certain interventions.

This transparency reduces cynicism. Employees understand that choices are evidence-based, not arbitrary.

Prioritisation also accelerates results. Quick wins build momentum and credibility for deeper changes.

For CEOs, the discipline is simple: pick three levers and act decisively.

Trying to fix everything dilutes the impact. Concentration creates progress.

The heatmap approach ensures interventions are both strategic and practical.

It converts diagnosis into action with maximum return.

The 20-Question CEO Checklist: Quick Diagnostic (Bullet List)

The final tool is a structured checklist. It ensures consistency and prevents oversight.

A 20-question diagnostic can cover clarity, competence, commitment, culture, systems, and management quality.

This makes the process replicable. CEOs can apply it repeatedly across functions or time periods.

It also builds objectivity. Standardised questions reduce personal bias in evaluation.

The checklist should combine both quantitative and qualitative prompts. Numbers must be paired with observed behaviours.

This strengthens accountability. Leaders can track whether issues flagged earlier have been resolved.

Carolyn Dewar’s CEO Excellence highlights the value of disciplined checklists. They anchor leadership decisions in structured thinking.

Seven paragraphs later, the case remains. Checklists prevent drift and institutionalise good habits.

For CEOs, the checklist is not bureaucracy. It is an operating system for leadership diagnosis.

With it, underperformance becomes visible, structured, and solvable.

Having the Hard Conversations (Without Demotivating)

Performance issues rarely fix themselves. At some point, leaders must confront them directly through difficult but constructive conversations.

These moments define credibility. Teams notice whether leaders address problems with fairness or avoidance.

The risk is that conversations become demotivating. Mishandled, they can deepen disengagement rather than resolve performance management issues.

A structured approach reduces this risk. Frameworks, preparation, and tone give leaders the tools to manage underperforming employees without alienating them.

In the UK context, this is especially relevant. Employment law and cultural norms place strong emphasis on fairness, making clarity and evidence critical.

Conversations must be specific. Vague feedback leaves employees uncertain and defensive, preventing real improvement.

COIQ Framework: Context → Observation → Impact → Question

The COIQ framework provides a simple structure for difficult conversations. It ensures feedback is evidence-based rather than emotional.

Context sets the stage. Leaders explain the situation and why it matters in relation to business outcomes.

Observation focuses on behaviour, not personality. This reduces defensiveness and increases fairness.

Impact connects behaviour to results. Employees see why their actions matter beyond personal preference.

Question invites ownership. Asking how the issue can be resolved engages the employee in solutions.

Applied consistently, COIQ makes conversations precise, fair, and constructive.

Prep & Data: Remove Ambiguity, Focus on Behaviour + Impact

Preparation is critical before any difficult conversation. Leaders must gather evidence rather than rely on impressions.

Data strengthens credibility. Trends in team KPIs, customer feedback, or work samples make feedback harder to dispute.

Focusing on behaviour rather than attitude keeps the discussion grounded. It shifts the narrative from judgment to observation.

Ambiguity undermines fairness. Vague statements about “not being committed” or “not fitting in” lead to resentment.

Clear data points allow employees to understand expectations and potential paths to improvement.

Preparation signals seriousness and respect. It shows leaders care enough to ground the conversation in facts.

Tone: Calm, Direct, Specific; No Therapy Theatre

Tone shapes how feedback is received. Calm, direct, and specific communication builds trust even in difficult moments.

Overly emotional delivery undermines authority. Leaders must avoid both aggression and avoidance.

Specificity matters. General complaints erode credibility; precise feedback provides a path forward.

Avoiding “therapy theatre” is equally important. CEOs are not therapists; their role is to set standards and support improvement.

Tone also signals culture. A balanced approach shows that accountability is part of leadership and team performance, not a personal attack.

Employees may not enjoy the conversation, but they will respect the clarity and fairness of delivery.

Agreements & Follow-Ups: Write, Date, Review

Conversations without follow-up rarely change behaviour. Agreements must be documented and time-bound.

Writing down commitments prevents ambiguity. Both the manager and the employee know exactly what was agreed.

Dating and reviewing these agreements creates accountability. It makes progress measurable rather than subjective.

Follow-up also shows seriousness. Leaders who check progress demonstrate that standards are non-negotiable.

This strengthens the performance management framework. It prevents repeated cycles of the same conversation without improvement.

Agreements turn difficult conversations into structured plans for change.

When to Escalate: Involve HR/Legal Early for Risk

Not every situation can be resolved at the team level. Some cases require escalation to HR or legal support.

This is particularly true when behaviour breaches policy, threatens safety, or creates liability risk.

Escalation should not be delayed. Early involvement of HR or legal ensures due process and reduces exposure.

In the UK, frameworks such as ACAS guidelines emphasize the importance of documented fairness in disciplinary processes.

NHS research such as Reducing Tensions Between Staff Related to Agile Working emphasises proactive strategies to resolve relational friction, illustrating how early, structured conflict handling safeguards both team culture and institutional performance.

Leaders who escalate appropriately show professionalism. They protect culture while ensuring compliance with law and standards.

Fix or Fire: The CEO’s Dilemma (Decide Fast, Fairly)

Every CEO eventually faces the hardest call: should an underperformer be developed or replaced?

This decision cannot be avoided. Delay compounds damage to culture, delivery, and credibility.

The dilemma is not just operational. It is moral and strategic, testing whether leaders prioritise fairness while protecting standards.

Fixing means investing in training, coaching, or redeployment. Firing means acknowledging that the role or fit is beyond repair.

Both routes carry consequences. The wrong choice either wastes resources or loses potentially valuable talent.

Speed is essential. Slow decisions prolong pain for both the organisation and the employee.

Fairness is equally critical. The process must strike a balance between empathy and accountability, particularly under UK employment law.

This is where frameworks help. Structured decision trees and performance management frameworks create objectivity.

Handled well, the process reinforces trust. Teams respect leaders who are decisive and fair.

Handled poorly, it creates fear and erodes psychological safety, worsening existing team culture problems.

The Decision Tree: Skill vs Will; Role vs Culture Misfit

The first step is diagnosis. Leaders must ask whether the issue is one of skill or will.

A skill gap can be fixed through training, coaching, or clearer KPIs. A will gap reflects motivation and may not be solvable.

The second axis is role versus culture fit. A technically competent employee who rejects cultural norms undermines trust and collaboration.

Mapping performance issues against these categories prevents hasty or biased decisions.

This decision tree transforms vague concerns into structured choices, clarifying whether to retain or terminate.

For CEOs, using this lens reduces hesitation and accelerates fair outcomes.

PIPs That Actually Work: Objectives, Resources, Timeline, Review

Performance improvement plans (PIPs) are often misused. When designed well, they provide structure and fairness.

Objectives must be clear, measurable, and tied to business outcomes. Ambiguity undermines credibility.

Resources must be offered. Expecting improvement without support sets employees up to fail.

Timelines should be realistic yet firm, striking a balance between urgency and opportunity.

Regular reviews ensure accountability. Without follow-up, PIPs become box-ticking exercises.

When executed well, PIPs either drive improvement or provide defensible evidence for exit.

“Respectful Exits”: Preserve Dignity; Protect Culture

When fixing fails, exits become necessary. How leaders handle them shapes culture long after the employee leaves.

Respectful exits preserve dignity. They protect relationships and reduce reputational damage.

They also protect culture. Teams see that while standards are enforced, fairness and respect remain non-negotiable.

The CIPD formerly offered guidance, but current UK resources like People Management on mitigating risk when an employee leaves show how structured exit practices protect both legal compliance and culture.

In UK contexts, this is especially important, given the strong protections surrounding dismissal.

Handled well, exits become cultural signals of professionalism rather than a sign of fear.

Replace with A-Player Profile: Be Explicit; Raise the Bar

Exits alone do not solve performance problems. Leaders must replace underperformers with A-players.

An A-player profile is explicit. It defines the skills, behaviours, and cultural attributes required for excellence.

Hiring to this profile raises the bar and signals seriousness about standards.

It also avoids repeating mistakes. Vague hiring leads to mismatches that reproduce the same underperformance.

For CEOs, this step transforms exits into upgrades. Each decision strengthens the organisation.

Replacing with A-players shifts the culture from tolerance to aspiration.

Rebuilding Performance: The CEO’s Playbook (10 Moves)

Fixing underperformance is only half the battle. Rebuilding a high-performing organisation requires deliberate design.

CEOs must act with intention. Culture, systems, and incentives do not repair themselves through goodwill.

This is where a structured playbook is essential. It provides leaders with a sequence of actions that compound into transformation.

The goal is not just to fix low performing teams. It is to build conditions where high performance becomes the default.

Each move addresses one of the major team underperformance causes. Together, they rewire clarity, competence, commitment, and culture.

The approach is practical. It balances strategy with daily rituals, ensuring big goals are matched with operational discipline.

UK SMEs often neglect this systematic rebuilding. They patch issues reactively rather than installing long-term frameworks.

The playbook avoids this mistake. It gives CEOs a way to rebuild trust, capacity, and consistency across the organisation.

The ten moves that follow are not optional extras. They are the operating system of leadership and team performance.

Handled with rigour, they shift organisations from firefighting to compounding excellence.

1) Reset Clarity: Vision, Strategy, OKRs/Quarterly Targets

Clarity is the foundation of performance. Without it, energy disperses and accountability weakens.

Resetting clarity means rearticulating the organisation’s vision and aligning strategy with measurable OKRs.

Quarterly targets provide rhythm. They keep long-term goals visible while anchoring execution in shorter cycles.

This reset eliminates drift. Teams know exactly what success looks like and how it will be measured.

For CEOs, clarity is the first lever when considering how to fix team performance.

It transforms confusion into alignment, replacing wasted activity with directed progress.

2) Install Decision Rights: RACI/DRIs; Stop Bottlenecks

Bottlenecks often trace back to unclear decision rights. Work stalls because no one knows who has authority.

Installing RACI or DRI frameworks resolves this. They define who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed.

Clear decision rights accelerate delivery. They prevent teams from waiting unnecessarily for executive approval.

This discipline also strengthens delegation. It empowers managers and reduces bottlenecks caused by founders or CEOs.

For UK scale-ups, decision clarity is often the difference between agility and stagnation.

Explicit frameworks ensure accountability flows cleanly across the organisation.

3) Rewire Cadence: Weekly Ops, Monthly Strategy, Quarterly Reviews

High performance requires rhythm. Cadence provides the tempo that keeps teams aligned.

Weekly operations meetings keep tactical execution on track. Monthly strategy sessions allow recalibration.

Quarterly reviews assess outcomes and reset priorities. Together, these cycles sustain momentum.

Without cadence, teams drift. Reviews become reactive and progress becomes inconsistent.

A rewired cadence builds trust. Employees know issues will be addressed at predictable intervals.

For CEOs, cadence is less about meetings than about discipline. It creates reliable checkpoints that reinforce standards.

4) Trim Meetings & Tools: Kill Low-Value Rituals; Simplify Stack

Meetings and tools should serve strategy, not dominate it. Many organisations suffer from excess in both.

Low-value meetings drain energy. Simplifying or eliminating them releases time for deep work.

Tool sprawl adds unnecessary complexity. Consolidating platforms reduces distraction and duplication.

This trimming signals seriousness about performance. Leaders demonstrate they value focus, not theatre.

For employees, it reduces frustration and clarifies workflows.

Simplification is therefore not administrative but strategic, directly tied to performance.

5) Upgrade Managers: Train/Coaching; Replace When Necessary

Middle managers shape the daily experience of teams. Weak managers weaken the entire organisation.

Upgrading managers means investing in training and coaching to build leadership competence.

It also requires decisiveness. Leaders who cannot or will not improve must be replaced.

This is not punitive but protective. Poor management creates systemic drag and deepens team culture problems.

For CEOs, upgrading managers is one of the highest-leverage moves. Strong managers multiply performance across functions.

The organisation’s culture and delivery capacity rise or fall with this layer of leadership.

6) Incentivise Outcomes: Rewards Tied to Business Impact

Incentives drive behaviour. Misaligned rewards entrench underperformance.

The fix is to tie incentives directly to outcomes, not just outputs.

Sales bonuses should be linked to margin as well as volume. Operational incentives should balance speed with quality.

Recognition also plays a role. Timely appreciation reinforces cultural standards alongside financial rewards.

Aligned incentives strengthen commitment and reduce distortions.

For CEOs, incentives are not just payroll mechanics; they are cultural levers of performance.

7) Build Safety + Standards: Truth-Telling + High Bar

High performance requires a paradox: psychological safety and uncompromising standards.

Safety enables candour. Teams must feel free to speak truth to power.

Standards ensure that safety does not drift into complacency. Expectations remain clear and demanding.

This balance prevents both fear and mediocrity. Teams know they can contribute honestly while being held to a high bar.

Leaders who model this duality strengthen both trust and performance.

Safety plus standards is the cultural formula of high-performing teams.

8) Invest in Competence: Targeted Training; Pair with Accountability

Competence gaps are one of the most common team underperformance causes. Training alone is not enough.

Investment must be targeted. Skills should be developed in areas directly linked to strategic priorities.

Training must also be paired with accountability. Employees must demonstrate application, not just attendance.

This ensures competence translates into performance, not certificates.

For UK organisations, apprenticeship models and professional development schemes provide proven pathways.

Competence investment is both a productivity and retention strategy.

9) Promote Ownership: Leaders Lead Leaders (Not Tasks)

Ownership transforms culture. Teams that own outcomes deliver beyond the minimum.

Promoting ownership means shifting managers from taskmasters to leaders of leaders.

Employees are expected to solve problems, not just complete instructions.

This accelerates innovation and builds resilience. Teams adapt rather than wait for direction.

Ownership also deepens engagement. People commit more when they feel responsible for results.

For CEOs, ownership is the antidote to disengagement and dependency.

10) Install Recalibration Loops: Vision GPS; Quarterly Resets

Performance is not static. Without recalibration, strategies drift and priorities blur.

Installing quarterly recalibration loops prevents drift. Leaders assess progress and reset direction where needed.

Jake Smolarek’s Vision GPS provides a structured way to do this. It ensures daily work stays aligned with long-term goals.

Seven paragraphs later, the benefit is evident. Recalibration sustains momentum and prevents complacency.

For CEOs, this move institutionalises adaptability. It ensures underperformance is corrected before it compounds.

Recalibration loops turn performance into a cycle of continuous alignment and improvement.

Function-Specific Deep Dives (Fixes That Actually Work)

Diagnosing underperformance at an organisational level is important, but improvements are often won inside specific functions.

Each department carries unique dynamics. Sales cycles, marketing metrics, operational throughput, and product delivery all shape performance.

Generic fixes rarely succeed. Leaders must tailor interventions to the distinct demands of each function.

Sales requires discipline around pipeline and qualification. Marketing requires a pivot away from vanity metrics towards revenue alignment.

Operations demand efficiency through systems and automation. Product and technology teams require structures that strike a balance between speed and quality.

Leadership teams, meanwhile, must align on priorities and eliminate political drag.

These function-specific levers often account for the most visible wins. CEOs can show quick progress by addressing bottlenecks at this level.

In the UK context, sector nuances matter. Regulation, customer expectations, and market maturity shape which levers have the most impact.

What unites them is discipline. Whether in sales or operations, structure and clarity replace chaos and drift.

The following subsections provide practical fixes leaders can apply within each function immediately.

Sales: ICP Discipline, MEDDICC, Enablement, Pipeline Hygiene

Sales is often where underperformance shows most clearly. Missed targets expose weak qualification or poor process discipline.

The Ideal Customer Profile (ICP) discipline ensures teams chase the right leads. Without it, time is wasted on low-potential prospects.

Frameworks like MEDDICC provide structure to qualification. They align sellers with customer needs and decision criteria.

Enablement matters too. Sales teams underperform when training, tools, or content fail to meet buyer expectations.

Pipeline hygiene is the foundation. Bloated or outdated pipelines create false confidence and mask real gaps.

McKinsey’s research on B2B sales effectiveness shows that disciplined pipeline management is one of the strongest predictors of sustainable growth.

Marketing: Move from Vanity to Revenue Metrics; Message-Market Fit

Marketing underperformance often stems from measurement. Vanity metrics, such as impressions or likes, can disguise a lack of impact.

The shift must be towards revenue-linked metrics, including qualified leads, conversion rates, and customer acquisition costs.

Message-market fit is equally vital. Campaigns fail when messages resonate internally but not with the target audience.

This requires feedback loops with sales and product teams. Alignment ensures campaigns address real customer pain points.

Prioritisation also matters. Marketing teams often spread their efforts across too many initiatives, weakening their overall impact.

Jake Smolarek’s article on prioritising workload illustrates how focus creates greater marketing effectiveness.

Ops: Constraint Management, SOPs That Breathe, Automation Where It Helps

Operational underperformance is often systemic. Bottlenecks emerge from unexamined constraints or rigid processes.

Constraint management focuses on throughput. Leaders must identify and address the narrowest points in the system.

SOPs provide consistency but must be flexible enough to adapt. Overly rigid processes slow improvement.

Automation adds leverage. It eliminates repetitive tasks, freeing human capacity for higher-value work.

The principle is simple: efficiency compounds. Every cycle shortened or error reduced strengthens competitiveness.

Product/Tech: Small Teams (Two-Pizza), Rapid Feedback, Kill WIP

Product and technology underperformance often arises from scale and sprawl. Teams become too large, losing speed and clarity.

Small teams, the “two-pizza rule” popularised at Amazon, retain agility and accountability.

Rapid feedback loops ensure delivery aligns with user needs. Without them, teams drift into building features that add little value.

Work-in-progress (WIP) must be controlled. Excessive parallel projects dilute focus and increase risk of failure.

This discipline accelerates both innovation and reliability. It converts effort into real outcomes for customers.

Amazon’s leadership principles highlight how small, accountable teams drive innovation and execution speed simultaneously.

Leadership Team: Stop Politics; Align on “Few Critical Priorities”

Leadership teams often underestimate their role in underperformance. Political conflict or misaligned priorities cascade through the organisation.

The fix is focus. Agreeing on a small number of critical priorities creates alignment across functions.

This clarity reduces duplication and prevents energy from being wasted on conflicting agendas.

It also builds credibility. Teams gain confidence when leaders model unity and discipline.

Removing politics requires courage. Difficult conversations and explicit agreements stop drift into dysfunction.

Jake Smolarek captures this challenge in his article on entrepreneur challenges. Leaders who avoid politics accelerate execution and trust.

Culture Reset (From Heroics to System Excellence)

Culture is often the invisible force behind performance. It shapes behaviour more than any policy or strategy.

Underperforming teams usually reflect cultural weaknesses. Blame, silence, or politics replace trust, candour, and ownership.

Heroics dominate in low-performing teams. Individuals fight problems while systems remain broken.

Sustainable performance requires a reset. The shift is from heroics to system excellence, where consistency replaces chaos.

This reset does not happen through slogans. It requires deliberate design of norms, rituals, and standards.

Leaders play a critical role. They model behaviours that signal what is truly valued.

The UK business landscape provides examples. From NHS teams to fintech start-ups, a cultural reset has been decisive in improving delivery.

Without it, no performance management framework will succeed. Systems collapse when culture resists accountability.

With it, even ordinary teams can deliver extraordinary results. Standards rise, safety increases, and energy compounds.

The subsections that follow highlight the four key levers that leaders can use to effectively reset their culture.

Psychological Safety ≠ Low Standards: It Enables Candour + Speed

Psychological safety means creating space for candour while still upholding high standards.

It means creating an environment where people feel safe to speak the truth without fear of reprisal.

This openness accelerates problem-solving. Issues surface quickly, preventing slow-burning failures.

At the same time, standards remain high. Safety allows candour, and candour enables speed.

Google’s “Five Keys to a Successful Team”, the summary of Project Aristotle, showed that teams with psychological safety consistently outperformed peers by surfacing and resolving problems faster.

In UK organisations, from healthcare to finance, this principle is equally visible. Safety strengthens both morale and outcomes.

Rituals That Scale: Weekly Wins, Post-Mortems, Demos, Office Hours

Rituals signal culture. They anchor behaviours that sustain high performance over time.

Weekly wins reinforce recognition and progress. Post-mortems build learning without blame.

Demos showcase progress and invite feedback, building transparency. Office hours create access and trust.

These rituals prevent drift. They embed rhythm and discipline into the organisational fabric.

Scaling rituals requires discipline but little cost. Their value lies in repetition and consistency.

For CEOs, rituals are practical tools for translating culture into daily experience.

Recognition Done Right: Specific, Timely, Tied to Values

Recognition is one of the simplest levers for culture, yet often misused. Generic praise has little impact.

Done well, it is specific, timely, and tied to organisational values. This reinforces clarity about what behaviours matter.

Recognition must go beyond outcomes. Acknowledging behaviours like collaboration or initiative builds long-term strength.

Timeliness matters. Delayed recognition loses power and credibility.

Jake Smolarek’s article on how to build trust in a team highlights recognition as a driver of both trust and performance.

Leaders who embed recognition into daily routines reinforce a culture where people feel valued and accountable.

Anti-Patterns: Hero Culture, Firefighting, “Work as Theatre”

Cultural reset also requires eliminating destructive anti-patterns. Hero culture glorifies firefighting instead of system fixes.

Firefighting may deliver short-term wins but creates long-term fragility. Systems remain broken while individuals burn out.

“Work as theatre” is another trap. Long hours or endless meetings are mistaken for impact.

These anti-patterns create toxic cycles. They drain morale and obscure true performance gaps.

Reed Hastings’ No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention captures how Netflix dismantled such anti-patterns, replacing theatre with accountability and freedom.

For CEOs, identifying and removing these cultural traps is essential to rebuild sustainable performance.

The Future of Team Performance (Remote, AI, Generations)

Team performance is not static. Shifts in technology, demographics, and work models are reshaping what high performance looks like.

For CEOs, anticipating these changes is as important as addressing current underperformance. Future-proofing prevents decline before it starts.

Remote and hybrid models are now standard. They demand stronger clarity and cadence than traditional office-based teams.

Artificial intelligence is emerging as a force multiplier. It automates repetitive work and raises expectations for human contribution.

Generational change adds another layer. Gen Z brings different expectations around meaning, coaching, and fairness.

These shifts are not optional trends. They are structural realities shaping leadership and team performance for the next decade.

Crisis-proofing is also part of the future. Resilient systems and redundancy will separate fragile organisations from adaptive ones.

In the UK, these dynamics are amplified by regulatory complexity, economic uncertainty, and a global talent market.

CEOs must adapt their performance management frameworks to these realities. Old approaches will not suffice.

The subsections that follow highlight four areas where the future of team performance will be won or lost.

Remote & Hybrid: Clarity & Cadence Become Non-Negotiable

Remote and hybrid teams demand more structure than traditional office setups. Without clarity and cadence, drift is inevitable.

Clear goals, defined decision rights, and visible team KPIs prevent confusion. Maintaining momentum through weekly check-ins and reviews sustains cadence.

Hybrid models also require equity. Remote employees must not be disadvantaged compared to in-office colleagues.

Failure to adapt creates disengagement. Remote workers often become low performing team members simply due to lack of inclusion.

The Microsoft Work Trend Index demonstrates how clear structures and rhythms have a direct impact on engagement and productivity in distributed teams.

For CEOs, the takeaway is direct: hybrid work succeeds only when clarity and cadence are non-negotiable.

AI as Force Multiplier: Automate Grunt Work; Raise the Bar for Humans

AI is transforming how teams operate. It removes low-value tasks, freeing capacity for higher-level work.

When integrated properly, AI increases speed and accuracy in areas like reporting, scheduling, and analysis.

This raises expectations for humans. Teams must contribute more creativity, judgment, and problem-solving.

Ignoring AI creates competitive drag. Teams waste time on manual work that ompetitors have already automated.

Jake Smolarek highlights this distinction in his article on consultant vs coach. Tools like AI augment capacity, but human leadership determines direction.

For CEOs, the priority is balance: automation plus accountability. AI multiplies performance only when paired with strong leadership.

Gen Z Expectations: Meaning, Coaching, Fairness, Speed

Gen Z is reshaping workplace culture. Their expectations differ from older cohorts, demanding adaptation from leaders.

They value meaning in work. Teams disengage if they see no purpose beyond profit.

They also expect coaching. Leadership and team performance must include both developmental support and supervision.

Fairness is another demand. Unequal treatment or opaque decisions quickly erode trust with this generation.

Patrick Lencioni’s The Advantage underscores this principle. Organisational health and fairness are decisive for engagement and long-term performance.

For CEOs, meeting Gen Z expectations is not indulgence but a necessity. They are the future workforce driving outcomes.

Crisis-Proofing: Resilience, Redundancy, Scenario Drills

Future performance will be tested by crises. Economic shocks, supply chain disruptions, and cyber threats are inevitable.

Resilience comes from building redundancy and flexibility into systems. Over-optimisation without buffers creates fragility.

Scenario drills also matter. Teams must practise responses before crises occur to reduce reaction time.

Leaders who ignore resilience create hidden risks. Teams often appear high-performing until pressure exposes their weaknesses.

Statista data on global recovery after disruption illustrates how sectors with structured resilience measures return to pre-crisis performance more quickly.

For CEOs, crisis-proofing is now part of the performance management framework. Preparedness is performance.

Case Studies (Anonymous + Public)

Frameworks are valuable, but examples make them real. Case studies show how underperformance is diagnosed and resolved in practice.

They illustrate how leadership decisions play out in different organisational contexts. Patterns become clearer when seen in action.

Anonymous cases highlight the challenges CEOs face in client engagements. They show the messiness behind theory.

Public cases show how global firms like Microsoft, Netflix, and Amazon applied principles of performance at scale.

Each example demonstrates that underperformance is not confined to small firms or struggling teams. Even global giants face the same causes.

The difference lies in how leaders respond. Decisive action and structured frameworks separate recovery from decline.

UK SMEs often find reassurance in these examples. They reveal that their challenges are shared globally.

At the same time, they highlight accountability. Leaders cannot excuse team underperformance as unique or unsolvable.

These cases demonstrate both diagnosis and turnaround times. They reinforce that underperformance is solvable with discipline.

The subsections that follow explore two anonymised client cases and three public examples from global organisations.

Client Case #1: Audit → 4C Gaps → 90-Day Turn

A mid-sized UK services firm faced consistent underperformance. Delivery timelines slipped, morale fell, and revenue declined.

The CEO commissioned a diagnostic audit. The 4C framework revealed gaps in clarity and commitment.

Clarity was missing around roles and KPIs. Commitment suffered because incentives rewarded output volume rather than outcomes.

The fix involved resetting KPIs, revising incentives, and holding structured weekly reviews.

Within 90 days, delivery times improved by 30% and employee engagement scores rose sharply.

This case showed how a disciplined audit converts vague dissatisfaction into actionable fixes.

Client Case #2: Manager Upgrade → Cadence Reset → Pipeline Shift

A technology firm was struggling with stagnant sales pipelines. Revenue missed targets for three consecutive quarters.

The diagnosis revealed that the issue was not a product-market fit, but rather weak sales management.

The manager was replaced with a leader experienced in pipeline discipline and coaching.

Cadence was reset with weekly pipeline reviews and monthly strategy adjustments.

Within six months, conversion rates improved and revenue growth returned.

The lesson was clear: upgrading managers is one of the most effective ways to improve team performance.

Microsoft Under Satya Nadella: Culture → Performance Flywheel

Microsoft’s turnaround under Satya Nadella is one of the strongest recent examples of a cultural reset driving performance.

He shifted the culture from internal competition to collaboration, grounded in clarity and empathy.

This reset enabled innovation, accelerating growth in cloud computing and enterprise solutions.

The Financial Times article How to future-proof company culture highlights how Satya Nadella’s cultural change at Microsoft turned into a performance flywheel.

By tackling culture head-on, Nadella addressed the root of underperformance across silos.

For CEOs, the case demonstrates that cultural leadership is as crucial as strategy in driving performance improvement.

Netflix Culture Deck: Clarity + Freedom + Responsibility

Netflix gained fame for its Culture Deck, which codified principles of freedom and accountability.

The deck emphasised clarity of expectations combined with autonomy in execution.

This balance attracted and retained A-players, while filtering out those unsuited to the culture.

The Netflix example demonstrates how codifying culture enables organisations to maintain high performance at scale.

It also demonstrates that clarity plus freedom, when tied to responsibility, eliminates many team underperformance.

Amazon’s Two-Pizza Rule: Speed via Small, Accountable Teams

Amazon popularised the “two-pizza rule”: teams should be small enough to be fed by two pizzas.

This principle keeps teams lean, agile, and accountable.

It avoids bureaucracy and preserves speed, even as the company scales.

For CEOs, the lesson is practical. Small, accountable teams outperform larger, diffuse ones.

The two-pizza rule remains one of the simplest yet most effective structural solutions to underperformance.

Closing Manifesto: Performance Is a Leadership Choice

Performance is not driven by enthusiasm alone. You don’t fix performance with motivation. You fix it with clarity, standards, and courage.

When teams stall, the instinct is often to push harder. The reality is simpler: if your team can’t win inside your system, change the system.

Leadership defines the ceiling. Leaders don’t do more. They build people who do more, better.

Left unchallenged, underperformance becomes cultural. Excellence rests on systems, not slogans.

The responsibility sits squarely at the top. Underperformance is not an employee problem. It is a leadership problem