It's a little different situation for me, now that the developers report to me. At one prior employer, it was just understood that everyone was doing their best and you rolled with it. There was another time when I worked with the lead developer on improving the performance of the person in question, but eventually we had to escalate to the manager to resolve the situation, who ended up replacing the person. It was hard to be part of that decision, but it was the right choice for the project and the company.
How have you handled situations like this? Saving Changes...
As you've shown with your examples, context counts. I've always wanted to start with trying to understand why the work isn't getting done. Is it a capacity, competency, commitment or understanding cause? Once that is determined, you can then decide how best to proceed taking the political climate surrounding the project and the team into consideration.
It depends. However, hard choices may be required! Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Aaron Porter Thank you for this honest and thoughtful post — it captures a challenge that every project leader eventually faces.
What resonates most is the tension between empathy and accountability.
As leaders, we naturally want to believe our team is doing their best — and most of the time, they are.
But when performance consistently falls short, we must act in service of the team, the project, and the broader mission.
In these moments, I find it helpful to distinguish between three dimensions:
- Capacity – Does the person have the skills, tools, or bandwidth to deliver?
- Clarity – Are the expectations, standards, and priorities truly understood?
- Commitment – Is the person genuinely engaged and aligned with the work?
This simple triad — which I integrate into my RCPCV™ Decision Model — helps move the conversation from judgment to diagnosis.
Rather than assuming the issue is “motivation,” we explore the structural and contextual layers first.
It creates a space for support before escalation.
At the same time, I’ve found great value in the framework proposed by Timothy R. Clark, who maps organizational cultures across two axes: psychological safety and accountability.
The most effective teams thrive in the high-safety/high-accountability zone — where people feel safe to contribute, challenge the status quo, and even fail, but are also held to high standards.
When safety is low and pressure is high, we fall into fear-based cultures.
When safety is high but standards are weak, we risk complacency.
Leadership lies in the ability to hold both: compassion and rigor, empathy and performance.
Your example reflects that balance — supporting the individual, exploring options, and ultimately making a hard decision when it became necessary.
As you said: It wasn’t easy, but it was the right call.
Now that your team reports directly to you, how do you approach these situations?
What has shifted in your leadership mindset or practice?
...
1 reply by Aaron Porter
Aug 28, 2025 10:25 AM
Aaron Porter
...
The biggest differences are:
- I don't have to worry about offending a manager when discussing performance concerns with a developer.
- I worked with the developers to establish their KPIs. I monitor their KPIs and keep them informed. When there are possible problems, we can address them right away and they don't feel like I'm overstepping my role.
- I don't have to negotiate with the developer manager to get developer time on projects - I let the developers know the priorities and then get out of their way until something changes that they need to know about.
Aaron Porter Thank you for this honest and thoughtful post — it captures a challenge that every project leader eventually faces.
What resonates most is the tension between empathy and accountability.
As leaders, we naturally want to believe our team is doing their best — and most of the time, they are.
But when performance consistently falls short, we must act in service of the team, the project, and the broader mission.
In these moments, I find it helpful to distinguish between three dimensions:
- Capacity – Does the person have the skills, tools, or bandwidth to deliver?
- Clarity – Are the expectations, standards, and priorities truly understood?
- Commitment – Is the person genuinely engaged and aligned with the work?
This simple triad — which I integrate into my RCPCV™ Decision Model — helps move the conversation from judgment to diagnosis.
Rather than assuming the issue is “motivation,” we explore the structural and contextual layers first.
It creates a space for support before escalation.
At the same time, I’ve found great value in the framework proposed by Timothy R. Clark, who maps organizational cultures across two axes: psychological safety and accountability.
The most effective teams thrive in the high-safety/high-accountability zone — where people feel safe to contribute, challenge the status quo, and even fail, but are also held to high standards.
When safety is low and pressure is high, we fall into fear-based cultures.
When safety is high but standards are weak, we risk complacency.
Leadership lies in the ability to hold both: compassion and rigor, empathy and performance.
Your example reflects that balance — supporting the individual, exploring options, and ultimately making a hard decision when it became necessary.
As you said: It wasn’t easy, but it was the right call.
Now that your team reports directly to you, how do you approach these situations?
What has shifted in your leadership mindset or practice?
The biggest differences are:
- I don't have to worry about offending a manager when discussing performance concerns with a developer.
- I worked with the developers to establish their KPIs. I monitor their KPIs and keep them informed. When there are possible problems, we can address them right away and they don't feel like I'm overstepping my role.
- I don't have to negotiate with the developer manager to get developer time on projects - I let the developers know the priorities and then get out of their way until something changes that they need to know about.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Aug 28, 2025 11:12 AM
Luis Branco
...
Aaron Porter Thank you for sharing these key shifts — they highlight the profound difference that structural authority and role clarity can make in enabling effective leadership.
Your first point really stands out: “I don’t have to worry about offending a manager.”
That alone removes a layer of political complexity and allows you to focus directly on growth and performance, rather than on triangulation or diplomacy.
I also appreciate how you’ve co-designed KPIs with the team — that co-creation builds both clarity and ownership, which are essential for accountability to thrive without micromanagement.
What you describe aligns well with “empowered alignment” — giving direction, setting expectations, and then stepping back to let people execute, while remaining available and engaged. It's a posture of trust paired with presence.
Out of curiosity, as you’ve transitioned from influencing without authority to leading with formal authority:
- Have you found any new challenges in sustaining psychological safety?
- How do you handle underperformance now that the escalation path stops with you?
Would love to hear more about how you’ve evolved your leadership practices in this new context.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Aug 28, 2025 10:25 AM
Replying to Aaron Porter
...
The biggest differences are:
- I don't have to worry about offending a manager when discussing performance concerns with a developer.
- I worked with the developers to establish their KPIs. I monitor their KPIs and keep them informed. When there are possible problems, we can address them right away and they don't feel like I'm overstepping my role.
- I don't have to negotiate with the developer manager to get developer time on projects - I let the developers know the priorities and then get out of their way until something changes that they need to know about.
Aaron Porter Thank you for sharing these key shifts — they highlight the profound difference that structural authority and role clarity can make in enabling effective leadership.
Your first point really stands out: “I don’t have to worry about offending a manager.”
That alone removes a layer of political complexity and allows you to focus directly on growth and performance, rather than on triangulation or diplomacy.
I also appreciate how you’ve co-designed KPIs with the team — that co-creation builds both clarity and ownership, which are essential for accountability to thrive without micromanagement.
What you describe aligns well with “empowered alignment” — giving direction, setting expectations, and then stepping back to let people execute, while remaining available and engaged. It's a posture of trust paired with presence.
Out of curiosity, as you’ve transitioned from influencing without authority to leading with formal authority:
- Have you found any new challenges in sustaining psychological safety?
- How do you handle underperformance now that the escalation path stops with you?
Would love to hear more about how you’ve evolved your leadership practices in this new context. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Aaron, I believe that everyone has the potential to contribute meaningfully, and as a project manager or leader, it’s important to recognize and nurture that potential within team members.
My approach is to work closely with individuals to identify their strengths and areas for growth, providing support and opportunities to help them develop. However, there are instances where, despite these efforts, a team member may lack the motivation or ambition to improve. In such cases, after providing clear feedback and giving ample opportunity for change, the responsible decision, though difficult, is to transition them out of the team to ensure the success of the project and the organization. Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Aaron Porter It's never easy dealing with performance issues!
My philosophy is to always start by talking directly to the person. First, I try to understand if they know how to do the job. If not, I'll teach them. If they know how, but they're not motivated, I'll try to inspire them. Only as a last resort, if those efforts fail, will I involve their manager.
I believe in giving people the opportunity to succeed, and addressing performance issues with empathy and support whenever possible.
Community Champion
