An underperforming colleague can turn an ordinary workweek into a cycle of last minute fixes, quiet resentment, and constant worry about whether the team will deliver. When one person repeatedly misses deadlines, submits low quality work, or disappears when it is time to take ownership, the effects rarely stay contained to that person’s tasks. Their performance spills over into your workload, your reputation, and your stress levels. Many people react by either avoiding the issue until it becomes unbearable or confronting the colleague in a way that feels personal and accusatory. Both paths often make things worse. A better approach is to treat the situation as a professional problem that can be addressed through clarity, boundaries, and, when necessary, structured escalation.
The first step is to define what underperformance actually looks like in your context. It is easy to label someone as lazy or unreliable based on feelings, but feelings are difficult to defend and even harder to resolve. If you want a productive outcome, you need to focus on observable patterns. That might include repeated late handoffs, unfinished work, sloppy execution, missed details, unclear communication, or an inability to follow agreed processes. Specificity matters because vague frustration invites disagreement, while concrete examples keep the conversation grounded. It also helps you remain fair. Sometimes what appears to be poor performance is actually confusion caused by unclear expectations, shifting priorities, or an uneven distribution of work.
Once you are clear about the pattern, the next move is a direct but calm conversation. The purpose of speaking up is not to vent or shame. The purpose is to restore reliability to the workflow so the team can function without constant last minute damage control. A useful way to begin is by describing impact instead of character. For example, when you focus on what happened and how it affected the project timeline, the conversation becomes harder to dismiss. After describing the impact, you ask a simple question about what happened on their end. This invites context without turning the discussion into an interrogation. Some colleagues underperform because they are overwhelmed, they misunderstood the brief, they are waiting for inputs, or they lack a particular skill. Others underperform because they do not prioritize the work or avoid accountability. Understanding which situation you are dealing with helps you choose the right response.
If the colleague responds with accountability, the conversation can move into practical alignment. At this stage, it helps to introduce clear expectations with specific deadlines, formats, and definitions of what “done” means. Underperformance often thrives when tasks are broad and deadlines are distant. A more structured handoff makes progress visible and reduces the risk of surprises. Instead of one large deadline at the end of the week, you can set smaller milestones such as an outline first, then a draft, then a final version. This is not micromanagement. It is risk management. Small checkpoints reveal problems early and give the team time to adjust without panic.
If the colleague responds with excuses or vague promises, the best strategy is still calm firmness. You acknowledge what they say, but you return to the deliverable and the agreed timeline. You also introduce a clear point at which they must flag obstacles. For example, you can set a rule that if they are blocked, they need to communicate it by a certain time so the team can adapt. This keeps the focus on accountability and prevents the common pattern where issues are hidden until the deadline has already been missed.
One of the biggest traps in these situations is becoming the unofficial fixer. When a colleague underperforms, it can feel easier to quietly repair their work, cover for them, or redo tasks in order to keep the project on track. This might solve the immediate problem, but it creates a long term one. It trains the colleague to rely on rescue, and it trains the organization to believe there is no real issue because results somehow still appear. Over time, this approach drains your energy and turns your professionalism into resentment. Protecting the team does not mean sacrificing yourself. It means setting boundaries that prevent you from being the permanent safety net.
Because you do not have authority over a colleague, peer accountability can feel awkward. Yet you still have a legitimate stake in the shared output. You are not trying to act like their manager when you ask for dependable inputs. You are simply defending the integrity of the work. In many workplaces, tone and phrasing matter as much as content, especially in cultures where harmony is valued. You can remain respectful while still being clear. Framing requests around alignment and delivery, rather than blame, often reduces defensiveness. The goal is to make the standard visible and to link it to team success, not to personal conflict.
If the situation improves, that is ideal. Sometimes people need structure and feedback more than they need punishment. However, if the pattern continues despite clear expectations and multiple attempts to align, it becomes important to document agreements and consider escalation. Documentation does not need to be dramatic. A simple follow up message summarizing what was agreed, including dates and deliverables, can protect you and reinforce accountability. It also creates clarity. If deadlines are missed again, there is no debate about what was expected.
Escalation is often misunderstood as an attempt to get someone in trouble, but it can also be a necessary step to protect project delivery. When you escalate, the most effective approach is to describe impact and the actions you have already taken, rather than attacking the person’s character. A manager can only respond well when they understand the operational risk. You can explain that repeated missed handoffs are affecting timelines, that you have tried to set milestones and align expectations, and that you need help clarifying ownership or adjusting workload. This keeps the conversation professional and reduces the chance that it turns into office politics.
There is also a difficult reality that needs to be acknowledged. Not every underperforming colleague is confused or overwhelmed. Some are disengaged and have learned to do the minimum while relying on others to absorb consequences. In these cases, your focus should shift from trying to change them to reducing how much their behavior can damage you. You can limit dependencies, request earlier handoffs, keep agreements in writing, and make delays visible in factual terms. You do not need to expose them with drama. A simple statement such as a task could not be completed because inputs were not received by the agreed time is enough to protect your position and keep the truth visible.
At its core, dealing with an underperforming colleague requires you to move from emotion to structure. It is normal to feel frustrated when someone else’s inconsistency increases your workload, but frustration alone will not solve the problem. Clarity, boundaries, and process will. When you focus on specific behaviors, set measurable expectations, document agreements, and escalate only when necessary, you protect both the project and your own wellbeing. You cannot manage another person’s attitude, but you can shape the way work flows around you. That is what allows you to handle the situation professionally without sacrificing your time, your energy, or your reputation.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
