Performance work is where leadership stops being pleasant. The interview will probe both directions, and candidates who have only ever been supportive or only ever been decisive both read as incomplete.

A sudden drop in someone's output is a signal about the system or the situation until proven otherwise. In practice the causes cluster: an unfamiliar area handed over badly, something happening outside work, a mismatch between the role and what they are good at, or genuine capability limits. Only the last is a performance problem, and it is the least common. Reaching for a plan before diagnosing adds scrutiny to someone already struggling and usually makes it worse.

• Be clear, early and specific. The cruelty in performance management is ambiguity — months of hints followed by a sudden formal process. If someone is surprised by a formal conversation, that is your failure not theirs.
• Write down what ‘better’ means in terms they can act on, with a date. ‘More proactive’ is not actionable.
• Rule out what is yours to fix first — unclear expectations, missing context, a bad team fit — and say you have. That is what makes the eventual decision defensible to them and to you.
• Then decide, and do not let it drift. A prolonged process is worse for the person than a clear one, and the team already knows.

Most of your leverage is in the people who are doing fine. Ask what they want to be able to do in two years, then find work that moves them toward it — and be honest when the organisation cannot offer it, because helping someone leave well is a better outcome than keeping them frustrated. Leaders whose people leave for bigger roles elsewhere and stay in touch have a hiring advantage that compounds for a decade.