You will be able to run a performance conversation that is clear about the gap and fair to the person.
Wei Ling did talk to Ravi about the follow-ups, using the structure from lesson 5.2, Situation, behaviour, impact, and for two weeks things improved before they slipped again. One client has now asked Daniel directly whether their account could be moved to someone else. This is no longer a single piece of feedback. Ravi is falling short of what the role needs, and Wei Ling has to have a proper conversation about it.
Most new managers dread this meeting more than any other. Done well, it is also the meeting most likely to save the situation, for the person as much as for the team.
Start by asking whether the expectation was ever clearly stated. Often it wasn't. In lesson 4.2, Write down the expectations you assumed were obvious, you saw how easily a manager's habits pass for team rules nobody wrote down.
Wei Ling checked. Ravi's goals sheet said "client follow-ups completed as agreed with the client", and the team expectations included telling the client before a promised date slips. So the expectation existed, in writing, and Ravi had agreed to it. She also had her earlier SBI conversation noted in his one-on-one document, with the date.
If you find the expectation was never stated, the conversation is different. You state it now, clearly, and treat earlier shortfalls as the result of your own unclear direction. That is uncomfortable to admit, and it's the fair thing to do.
Then gather examples. Three specific ones with dates are enough. You want facts the person can recognise and check. Wei Ling's were the Tan & Co call promised for the 4th and made on the 9th, the Lim Logistics quote promised by Friday and sent the following Wednesday, and the client who wrote to Daniel on the 15th.
Open with the purpose of the meeting in the first minute. People can tell when a hard conversation is coming, and a long warm-up about the weekend only makes it worse. "Ravi, I want to talk about the client follow-ups. We spoke about it a few weeks ago, and it's come up again, so I want us to sort it out properly today."
Then describe the gap: what was expected, what happened, and the examples. Keep it factual and short. Then stop and ask for their view. "What's going on from your side?"
This is the step managers most often skip. They arrive with a theory of why the person is struggling and lead with the solution. Ask first. You may be missing something that changes the whole picture.
In Ravi's case, he was quiet for a while. Then he explained that since Arjun took over first contact on escalations, Ravi's own clients had been sending more queries directly to him, and he was spending most mornings on those. He had stopped keeping a follow-up list, because he thought he could remember. He clearly couldn't.
Once you've heard their side, decide which kind of problem it is, because the response differs.
A skill problem is one where the person wants to do the work well but can't, yet. They lack knowledge, a technique, a tool, or time. Skill problems need support: training, a clearer process, help with workload, more frequent check-ins for a while.
A will problem is one where the person could do the work but is choosing not to, or doesn't see why it matters. Will problems need clarity about expectations and a clear consequence if nothing changes.
Many real situations are a mix. Ravi's was mostly skill and workload: he had lost his system and was overloaded. There was a smaller will element too, in that he had noticed the slips and not raised them. So Wei Ling offered support and was also clear that this couldn't continue.
Be careful about deciding too quickly that something is a will problem. What looks like not caring often turns out to be a person who is overwhelmed, unclear about priorities, or dealing with something at home. If you're unsure, treat it as skill first and watch what happens when the support is in place.
The meeting should end with three things agreed: what will change, what support you will give, and when you will review it.
Wei Ling and Ravi agreed that he would keep every follow-up in the shared team tracker with the promised date, that he would tell a client before any date slipped, and that he would block the first hour of each day for client queries. Wei Ling would route new direct queries from two of his clients through Arjun's escalation desk for a month. In four weeks they would sit down and go through the tracker together.
She also said, calmly and without drama, what would happen if things didn't improve: they would need to move to a more formal process with HR. She said it as information Ravi deserved to have, and she kept her tone level so it would land that way.
After the meeting, write a short note of what was discussed and agreed: the gap, the examples, the person's explanation, the actions, the support and the review date. Share it with the person, usually in their one-on-one document, so they can correct anything they remember differently. Doing it the same day matters, because memories of a difficult conversation drift quickly and in different directions.
Lesson 5.4, Documenting performance fairly in Singapore, covers what to record and why it matters if things later become formal.
For now, plan the conversation itself: the gap, your examples, the questions you'll ask, and the date you'll come back to it.
Plan a performance conversation for a real or composite case: the gap, three examples, questions to ask and the follow-up date.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).