Every leader knows the moment. A team member repeatedly misses deadlines. Another struggles with accuracy, leaving others to pick up the slack. Someone regularly arrives unprepared for meetings. These are not one-off mistakes. They are recurring performance issues, patterns that, if left unchecked, can quietly erode trust and lower the standard for the whole team.

When recurring issues are not addressed, they frustrate colleagues who rely on consistent performance and send the message that accountability is optional. Yet stepping in can feel difficult. Push too hard and you risk damaging trust. Ignore the issue and you quietly endorse mediocrity.

But these moments are not just about tasks. They are about the agreements that bind a team together. A recurring performance issue is a signal that the team’s covenant is fraying. The question for the leader is less about “how do I fix them” and more about “what do we want to stand for together?” If accountability is to mean something beyond compliance, it must be chosen by the team as an act of citizenship, not enforced as an act of control.

So how can leaders approach these situations constructively? The Five Lenses of Performance provide a way of working through recurring problems with clarity and fairness. They help leaders see beyond blame and focus on solutions that strengthen both accountability and the culture of the team.

The five lenses of performance

Lens One: Clarity

The first step in addressing recurring performance issues is to name them with precision. Too often, leaders rely on vague language like “not committed enough” or “not pulling their weight.” This leaves the person guessing what the problem really is. Clarity requires describing the gap between actual and desired performance in specific, observable terms. It also means asking whether the issue is even worth pursuing. Not every deviation demands intervention, but patterns that undermine credibility, relationships, or team standards cannot be left to drift.

 1. What is the performance issue:

 • Whose performance is at issue?

 • Why is there said to be a problem?

 • What is the actual performance at issue?

 • What is the desired performance?

 2. Is it worth pursuing:

 • What would happen if I left it alone?

 • Are our expectations reasonable?

 • What are the consequences caused by the issue?

 • Is that cost enough to justify going in?

 

Lens Two: Simplicity

Sometimes what looks like resistance is actually confusion or poor design. Before assuming lack of motivation, ask whether the expectations are clear and whether feedback is available. People cannot hit a target they cannot see. Exploring simplicity helps uncover “fast fixes” that require minimal effort but remove significant barriers. Leaders often discover that the issue is not unwillingness, but a lack of clarity, missing feedback loops, or an obvious obstacle in the workflow.

 3. Can we apply fast fixes:

 • Do those concerned know what is expected of them?

 • Can those concerned describe the desired performance expected of them?

 • Are there obvious obstacles to performance?

 • Do these people get feedback on how they are doing?

 

Lens Three: Context

Recurring performance issues do not happen in isolation. They are shaped by the context surrounding the person and the team. Context includes both formal consequences, such as rewards and penalties, and informal signals, such as what behaviour gets attention, what is ignored, and what quietly earns approval. A common trap is that desired performance feels punishing, perhaps bringing extra work, tighter scrutiny, or less recognition, while underperformance feels easier or even rewarded. Sometimes there are simply no consequences at all, leaving behaviour unshaped. By examining context, leaders see not just what people are doing but why the environment makes those choices seem reasonable.

 4. Is the desired performance punishing:

 • What are the consequences of performing as desired?

 • Is it actually punishing or perceived as punishing?

 5. Is underperformance rewarding:

 • What rewards, prestige, status or comfort support the present way of doing things?

 • Does misbehaving get more attention than doing it right?

 6. Are there any consequences at all:

 • Does the desired performance lead to consequences that the performer sees as favourable?

 

Lens Four: Capability

Recurring issues sometimes reflect a lack of skill rather than a lack of will. Leaders must test whether the person knows how to perform as required, whether they once had the skill but have lost it, and whether they get to practise often enough. It also raises a deeper question. Does the person have the potential to succeed in this role at all? Not every performance problem is solvable by training. Sometimes it is about alignment between the person and the demands of the role.

 

 7. Is there a skill deficiency:

 • Could they do it if their lives depended on it?

 8. Could they do it in the past:

 • Could they once perform the task but have forgotten how?

 9. Is the skill used often?

 • How often is the performance displayed?

 • How often is the skill applied?

 • Is there feedback on how things are going? Is the feedback available regularly?

10. Do they have what it takes:

 • Is it likely that this person could learn to do the job?

 • Does this person lack the physical or mental potential to perform as desired?

 • Is this person overqualified for this job?

 

Lens Five: Design

Even when someone has the skills, the way work is structured may set them up to fail. Tasks may be unnecessarily complex. Demands may conflict. Policies may restrict more than they enable. The Design Lens shifts responsibility away from the individual alone and examines the environment. If several people experience similar obstacles, the system is the issue, not just the person.

 11. Can the task be simplified:

 • For “hurry up” demands, can I reduce the standard by which performance is judged?

 • Can I provide some sort of performance aid?

 • Can I redesign the workplace or provide some other physical help?

 • Can I parcel off the job to someone else or arrange a job swap?

 12. Any obstacles remaining:

 • Does something get in the way of doing it right?

 • Lack of knowledge about what is expected?

 • Conflicting demands?

 • Restrictive policies?

 

The Resolution Lens

After clarity, simplicity, context, capability, and design have been explored, leaders are in a stronger position to decide what resolution is best. By now, the conversation is evidence-based, not driven by frustration. Resolution is not about imposing fixes. It is about weighing solutions together and asking which ones are most practical, economical, and fair. The best resolutions address root causes while building shared accountability.

 13. Which solution is best:

 • Have all potential solutions been identified?

 • Does each address one or more parts of the problem(s)?

 • Have estimates of any intangible costs of the problem(s) been included?

 • What is the cost of each potential solution?

 • Which solution(s) are most practical / feasible and economical?

 • Which solution gives the most value, solving the greatest part of the problem(s) with the least effort?

 

Case example: The recurring late report

Clarity: The pattern was unmistakable. Sam, an analyst, had delivered six consecutive weekly reports after the Friday noon deadline. Leadership relied on these reports to make decisions on Friday afternoon, so lateness disrupted more than one calendar. The expectation was not new, but it had lost its weight. The manager paused to ask herself whether it was worth pursuing. Was this only about punctuality, or was something more profound at stake? She realised that each missed deadline sent a message to the rest of the team that commitments could be bent and that reliability was negotiable. She decided to act not only to protect credibility but also to restore the shared agreement that deadlines mattered to everyone.

Simplicity: She then asked whether the problem could be untangled with a straightforward adjustment. When she asked Sam what “end of week” meant, he assumed Sunday evening and often waited for sales figures that arrived late. He was not wilfully resisting; he was playing by his own definition of the rules. By clarifying that noon on Friday was non-negotiable and arranging for sales data to arrive earlier, she removed unnecessary confusion. This was a small but important shift. It turned a vague expectation into a clear and collective agreement.

Context: But clarity alone did not explain why lateness had become routine. The manager looked at the context shaping Sam’s choices. For him, punctuality meant pressure and the risk of mistakes. Lateness meant extra one-to-one attention and more time to polish his work. In subtle ways, the system rewarded lateness and made timeliness feel punishing. To reset the balance, she began recognising punctual colleagues more visibly. At the same time, she reduced the unintended rewards Sam received for submitting late.

Capability: She then asked whether skill was part of the problem. Sam admitted he often re-checked formulas on Friday mornings because he lacked confidence with the reporting template. He had the skill but not the rhythm. A Thursday peer review and checklist gave him structure and assurance. She also considered whether he had the potential to succeed in the role at all. His persistence and accuracy suggested the answer was yes. What he lacked was confidence and consistent practice.

Design: Finally, she examined the way the work was set up. Sales data often arrived too late to support a Friday noon deadline, which made the target stressful and unrealistic. By adjusting the process to request sales figures earlier and encouraging Sam to draft his report on Thursday, the system was redesigned to support success rather than undermine it.

Resolution: Together they agreed on a new rhythm. Reports would be drafted on Thursday, peer-reviewed that afternoon, and submitted by Friday noon. Punctuality would be recognised publicly. Within three weeks, the pattern of lateness was broken. What had once seemed like a chronic failing was resolved through clarity, contextual awareness, skill support, and system redesign. More importantly, the agreement was no longer just about Sam. It reaffirmed for the whole team that commitments were shared promises, not private preferences.

Applying the lenses as a lateral leader

The Five Lenses are not only for managers with direct reports. They are equally powerful when you are working laterally, whether with peers in your own team or members of other teams over whom you have no formal authority.

The difference is in how you apply them. Clarity still matters, but it needs to be expressed as an observation rather than a directive. For example, instead of saying “You are failing to meet deadlines,” you might say “I’ve noticed your updates often come after the agreed time, and it affects how I plan my part of the project.”

Context becomes even more critical. Ask yourself what in the surrounding environment makes their behaviour rational. Are they rewarded for prioritising other work? Are they under different pressures you do not see?

Capability questions can be raised gently, in the spirit of curiosity: “Is there something in the process that makes this harder for you?” or “Would it help if we walked through the steps together?” You are not diagnosing their skills so much as offering partnership.

Design is often the richest area for lateral leaders. Many recurring issues across teams are signals of process problems rather than individual failings. By naming obstacles and suggesting redesigns together, you can shift the conversation from blame to collaboration.

And finally, the Resolution Lens becomes a matter of co-creating agreements rather than imposing fixes. You are inviting commitment, not mandating it. Shared solutions strengthen the relationship and increase the chance of lasting change.

Practice tips for leaders

 •  Look for patterns, not isolated incidents. A single lapse may be a chance. A repeated behaviour is a signal about the culture being created in the team.

 • Begin with clarity. Vague statements erode trust, while specific observations restore shared understanding.

 • Test for fast fixes before escalating. Many recurring frustrations can be removed with simple clarifications or adjustments.

 • Pay attention to context. People respond to the rewards, signals, and pressures around them. Ask what story the environment is telling about what really matters.

 • Distinguish between capability gaps and motivation gaps. Skills can be learned and practised, but alignment and potential must be discerned.

 • Examine the system design. If more than one person struggles in similar ways, it is the structure, not just the individual, that needs attention.

 • See resolution as a reaffirmation of the team’s covenant. Agreements are not simply rules enforced by authority. They are promises that shape how we live and work together.

 • When leading laterally, shift from correction to invitation. Your influence comes not from power but from your capacity to name what you see, ask generous questions, and co-create solutions.

Reflective questions

 • What changes when I see recurring performance issues as signals about our team agreements, not just flaws in individuals?

 • How can I address recurring problems in a way that strengthens accountability without damaging trust?

 • Where in my team are our shared commitments fraying, and what conversations could restore them?

 • When I have no formal authority, how can I invite peers to renew our agreements and take shared responsibility for performance?