The sudden decline of a high-performing employee is one of the most perplexing challenges facing modern management. When a staff member who previously exceeded expectations begins missing deadlines or producing subpar work, the conventional managerial response is often to initiate a performance improvement plan or issue a formal warning. However, emerging leadership philosophies suggest that a decline in output is frequently a symptom of systemic failures rather than a sudden lack of individual competence. By shifting the focus from the individual’s character to the environment in which they operate, organizations can salvage valuable talent and address underlying operational inefficiencies that may be hindering the entire team.
At the heart of this shift in perspective is Jamesia Harrison, the director of university communications at North Carolina State University. Speaking at the upcoming Ragan Employee Experience Conference in Nashville, Harrison argues that managers must adopt an investigative mindset when addressing performance gaps. The core of her philosophy is a simple yet profound directive: "Look at what changed before you look at who changed." This approach acknowledges that high performers rarely transition to low performance without an external catalyst, whether that be a shift in organizational priorities, a breakdown in communication, or a process that has become too cumbersome to navigate.
The Nashville Summit: A Focus on the Employee Experience
The Ragan Employee Experience Conference, scheduled to take place in Nashville this August, serves as a critical gathering for communication professionals and HR leaders. The event focuses on the evolving relationship between employers and their workforce in an era defined by remote work, rapid technological shifts, and a heightened focus on mental well-being. Harrison’s insights arrive at a time when organizations are struggling to retain talent amidst the "Quiet Quitting" phenomenon—a trend often driven not by laziness, but by a lack of clarity and support from leadership.
The conference aims to provide actionable strategies for fostering a workplace culture that prioritizes transparency and professional growth. Harrison’s session specifically addresses the "unable vs. unwilling" dilemma, a framework designed to help managers distinguish between employees who lack the skills to succeed and those who have lost the motivation to do so. By identifying these nuances, leaders can tailor their interventions, providing training where there is a skill gap or restructuring workflows where there is a systemic bottleneck.
The Chronology of Performance Misalignment
Understanding how a strong employee begins to "miss the mark" requires an analysis of the typical timeline of performance decline. This chronology often begins long before a deadline is actually missed.
- The Shift in Context: The organization introduces a new strategy, software, or reporting structure. While the change may be necessary, the "why" and "how" are often insufficiently communicated to the frontline staff.
- The Initial Friction: The employee attempts to apply old methods to the new context. They encounter minor hurdles, such as a lack of access to new tools or a confusion regarding who has final approval authority.
- The Communication Gap: The employee seeks clarification but receives vague instructions. The manager, assuming the employee’s past success guarantees future performance, provides less oversight than is actually required.
- The Performance Dip: Minor errors begin to surface. The employee, sensing the manager’s dissatisfaction, may become hesitant to ask questions for fear of appearing incompetent.
- The Misdiagnosis: The manager labels the dip as a "performance issue." This leads to a defensive posture from both parties, further eroding the trust necessary for a resolution.
Harrison emphasizes that breaking this cycle requires managers to intervene at the third stage—the communication gap—by ensuring that expectations are not just delivered, but fully understood.
Quantitative Insights: The High Cost of Mismanagement
The stakes for correctly diagnosing performance issues are high. According to data from Gallup, the cost of replacing an individual employee can range from one-half to two times the employee’s annual salary. For a high-performing communications specialist or manager, this represents a significant financial loss, compounded by the loss of institutional knowledge and the negative impact on team morale.
Furthermore, Gallup’s research indicates that 70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager. When a manager misdiagnoses a process issue as a personal failing, they risk alienating their most productive workers. In contrast, organizations that prioritize clear communication and supportive management see a 21% increase in profitability. These figures underscore the fact that "digging deeper" into performance issues is not just a soft skill; it is a financial necessity for sustainable business growth.
Bridging the Gap Between Communication and Understanding
One of the most common pitfalls in management is the assumption that communication is synonymous with understanding. Harrison points out that a leader can announce a new direction with great fanfare, but without concrete examples and contextual framework, the message often fails to translate into action.
To combat this, Harrison recommends a "feedback loop" technique. When assigning a task, managers should ask the employee to explain the assignment back to them in their own words. This practice serves two purposes: it catches potential confusion before work begins, and it empowers the employee to voice concerns about feasibility.
For example, in a communications setting, rather than a vague request to "improve the quality of a newsletter," a manager should provide specific benchmarks. This might include instructions to craft a more engaging headline, incorporate bulleted lists for readability, and include a clear call to action. By defining "what good looks like," the manager removes the guesswork that often leads to employee anxiety and procrastination.
Confidence as a Metric of Success
Beyond technical skill, an employee’s confidence plays a pivotal role in their output. Harrison suggests that managers should use a quantitative scale to gauge this often-overlooked factor. By asking an employee, "On a scale of one to 10, how confident are you that you can deliver this accurately and on time?" a manager can gain immediate insight into the employee’s mental state.
A score of five or six is an immediate red flag, indicating that the employee may be struggling with a new technology or an unfamiliar aspect of the project. This opens the door for a non-punitive conversation. Instead of a reprimand, the manager can offer coaching or point the employee toward specific resources. This approach fosters a culture of psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable admitting what they don’t know—a trait Harrison describes as invaluable in an era where technology and industry standards change almost daily.
Systemic Friction: When Bureaucracy Stifles Talent
In many cases, the "problem employee" is actually an efficient worker trapped in an inefficient system. Harrison warns that organizations often try to "improve the people" before they "improve the work."
One of the primary culprits of performance decline is "process sludge"—an accumulation of unnecessary approval layers and redundant meetings. An employee who appears to be working slowly may actually be waiting for three different department heads to sign off on a minor draft. If the process requires six or seven rounds of approvals, even the most diligent worker will eventually miss a deadline.
Harrison advocates for a periodic audit of workflows. "Just because we’ve been doing something for the last 10 years doesn’t mean it’s the best process for today," she notes. By identifying where projects get "stuck," managers can remove obstacles that hinder productivity, allowing their high performers to return to their peak output.
Case Study: Optimization at North Carolina State University
Harrison provides a practical example of this philosophy in action through her work at NC State. The university faced a challenge where university-branded merchandise was not selling, leading to frequent markdowns and lost revenue. Initially, this might have been viewed as a failure of the marketing or design teams.
However, Harrison looked deeper into the process. She discovered that while the marketing team understood the university’s brand standards perfectly, they lacked input from the retail managers who were on the front lines with students. By bringing the retail manager into the approval process, the university was able to align its marketing efforts with actual consumer behavior. The problem wasn’t the "who"—the designers were talented—but the "how"—the process lacked the necessary market intelligence. This shift in the approval chain resulted in better-selling products and a more cohesive strategy.
Broader Implications for the Future of Work
The lessons shared by Harrison extend far beyond the communications department. As the global workforce continues to navigate the complexities of hybrid and remote work, the need for intentional, clear, and empathetic management has never been greater. In a remote environment, the "visual cues" of a struggling employee—such as staying late or appearing stressed at their desk—are gone. Managers must rely more heavily on proactive check-ins and structured feedback loops.
Furthermore, the rise of Artificial Intelligence and automated tools means that job descriptions are evolving faster than ever. An employee who was a "star" two years ago may now feel overwhelmed by the need to integrate new AI tools into their daily routine. If a manager does not provide the time and resources for upskilling, they are effectively setting their best employees up for failure.
Conclusion: The Manager as an Investigator
The role of the modern manager is shifting from that of a supervisor to that of an investigator and coach. When a strong employee starts to struggle, the easiest path is to blame the individual. The more effective path, however, is to remain curious.
By questioning the clarity of expectations, assessing the adequacy of the tools provided, and auditing the efficiency of the workflow, leaders can uncover the true root causes of performance dips. As Jamesia Harrison will highlight in Nashville, the goal of management is not to find someone to blame, but to create an environment where talent can flourish. In the end, a manager’s success is measured not by how they handle their best employees on their best days, but by how they support and redirect them when they begin to lose their way.
