Texas HR Consulting for High-Stakes People Decisions.
Return to HR FAQ Library

How should a Texas manager talk to an employee about poor performance?

Describe the gap between the standard and the work. Most managers describe the person instead.

Last updated: August 02, 2026

Direct Answer

Texas managers should address poor performance promptly and directly by clearly identifying specific issues, setting measurable expectations for improvement, and documenting the conversation. The discussion should be respectful and focused on behaviors, not personal traits. Providing support options and following up consistently ensures accountability and helps protect the organization legally and operationally.

Controlling authority: Texas at-will employment, Tex. Labor Code ch. 21, and EEOC guidance on performance and conduct standards for employees with disabilities.

Describe the gap, not the person

In practice, managing poor performance isn’t about vague warnings or empty threats. It means having honest, focused conversations that outline what is expected and where the employee is falling short. This approach helps build a clear record and signals to employees that leadership takes performance seriously while offering an opportunity to improve. The goal is sustainable improvement rather than punitive action.

What I see employers miss is the importance of context and follow-up. Simply pointing out poor performance without understanding obstacles or providing support usually fails. Leaders must align their feedback with actual job demands and be ready to adjust resources or training. Consistent and documented communication is what ultimately supports accountability and operational durability.

The CIVIC Performance Model — five elements and the failure each prevents Faulkner HR Solutions. Original framework. Cite as: Faulkner, T.W. The CIVIC Performance Model. Faulkner HR Solutions. As implemented in the City of Kenedy employee evaluation instrument.
ElementWhat it requiresWhat fails without it
C — Core FunctionsAssessment against the fundamental duties of the role, as duties rather than traits.Reviews that rate personality instead of the job the person was hired to do.
I — Integrated MetricsMeasurable indicators applied consistently, so progress can be tracked over time.Ratings resting on impression, which cannot be defended or compared.
V — Value Alignment with Civic GoalsAn explicit link between the individual’s contribution and the organisation’s mission.Employees who meet their targets while the organisation misses its own.
I — Impact Measurement on StakeholdersAssessment of how the work affects internal teams and the community served.Work measured by activity rather than by who was actually served.
C — Collaborative GrowthA forward-looking development plan and SMART goals, set as a conversation.A review that closes the period without changing anything in the next one.

The conversation only counts if it was recorded

A common gap is treating performance conversations as one-off events rather than part of an ongoing process. Managers often overlook the need to track progress and revisit expectations regularly. Without this, issues reemerge and escalate. Another missed point is focusing too much on policy language rather than how work actually gets done, which can alienate employees and reduce engagement.

Another frequent oversight is underestimating how inconsistent messaging undermines leadership credibility. If managers fail to document or apply standards uniformly, employees notice and morale suffers. This inconsistency creates risk for grievances and turnover. Effective performance management requires aligning compliance with practical realities and authentic communication that employees can respect and trust.

What an employee write-up has to contain to reach Level 3 Faulkner HR Solutions. Original framework — the published methodology behind the Documentation Defensibility Scorecard. Cite as: Faulkner, T.W. The Documentation Defensibility Scale. Faulkner HR Solutions.
FieldWhat it must sayWhy
The behaviourWhat the employee did or failed to do, in observable terms, with date and timeMoves the record off Level 1.
The standardThe rule, expectation or policy that applies, and where it is writtenThis single sentence is the Level 2 to Level 3 jump.
Prior noticeWhen the expectation was communicated, and howAnswers “nobody told me.”
ImpactThe operational consequence — coverage, safety, cost, serviceSeparates a real issue from a preference.
The employee’s accountWhat they said, in their wordsA one-sided record reads as a one-sided process.
Required change and timelineWhat must happen, by when, and what happens if it does notMakes the next step defensible.
Consistency noteHow the same standard has been applied to othersCarries Level 4, and is the field almost nobody completes.

Phrases that create exposure

Ignoring or mishandling poor performance conversations can lead to significant operational and legal risks. Watch for these common triggers that often precede bigger problems.

  • Lack of clear, documented performance expectations.
  • Failure to provide specific examples during feedback.
  • Skipping follow-up meetings to review progress.
  • Inconsistent application of performance standards across employees.
  • Ignoring potential accommodations or support needs.

Prepare the standard before the conversation

Before addressing poor performance, review the employee’s job description and any prior communications or evaluations. Confirm that expectations are reasonable and clearly communicated. Check for any documented accommodations, leaves, or personal circumstances that might affect performance. This groundwork ensures the conversation is fair, factual, and rooted in operational reality.

Also examine your organization’s disciplinary and documentation policies to align your approach with compliance requirements. Evaluate whether managers have adequate training and tools to deliver consistent feedback. Reviewing these elements ahead prevents reactive decisions that often expose the organization to liability or morale issues.

Free tool

Supervisor Liability Risk Scorecard

Scores frontline exposure where employer notice actually attaches.

When conversations are not changing anything

Engage HR early when performance issues persist despite coaching or when disciplinary action may be necessary. HR can help ensure that processes comply with Texas employment laws and organizational policies and that documentation is thorough and defensible.

If you suspect performance problems may involve disability, leave rights, or protected status, seek HR guidance immediately. Getting expert support helps balance operational needs with legal compliance and protects both the employee and employer.

Need Help Managing Performance Conversations?

Faulkner HR Solutions offers strategy-backed guidance tailored to Texas employers. Contact us to build effective, compliant systems for handling poor performance and supporting your team’s success.

Contact Us Today

Written and reviewed by Dr. Thomas W. Faulkner, DBA, MBA, MSML, SPHR, LSSBB, principal consultant at Faulkner HR Solutions, a Texas HR consulting firm based in San Antonio serving small businesses, nonprofits, municipalities, and public sector employers.

This page provides general HR information for employers and is not legal advice. For legal interpretation or representation, consult qualified employment counsel.