Recommended resources
The freely available resources this lesson will direct you to.
- How to Deal With Underperforming Team Members -Tried & Tested Approachwww.youtube.com
- The Secret To Managing Poor Performancewww.youtube.com
- When Training Is Not the Answer: Diagnosing Performance Problems using Mager & Pipe - Developing Potential UKwww.developing-potential.co.uk
- Measuring Employee Performance – A Supervisor's Quick ...piv.opm.gov
Hello! This course focuses on making delegation in a small volunteer communications team clearer and more dependable. Before deciding how to follow up on a missed deadline or uneven work, you need to know what caused the gap. Today you’ll learn to distinguish unclear expectations, low commitment, limited capability, and practical constraints using evidence rather than guesses. The distinction matters: a volunteer who lacks access to a publishing tool needs something different from one who has never learned to write for that channel.
Describe the gap before explaining it
Suppose a campaign draft was expected on Tuesday and has not appeared by Wednesday morning. “They are unreliable” is an explanation—or a judgment—not an observation. “No draft was in the shared folder at 9 a.m. Wednesday” is observable, but it becomes a meaningful performance gap only if someone had accepted ownership and Tuesday’s deadline was clear.
For a useful starting description, put three things side by side:
| Expected | Observed | Still unknown |
|---|---|---|
| A named volunteer would share two draft posts by Tuesday, using the agreed campaign brief. | No draft was in the agreed location on Wednesday morning. | Did the volunteer understand and accept the assignment? What, if anything, prevented progress? |
This wording keeps you honest about what the evidence establishes. It also works for inconsistent quality. Rather than “the copy wasn’t good enough,” identify the observable difference: for example, “The draft omitted the required event date and used terminology different from the approved brief.” Then check whether those requirements were actually shared.
The first reading provides the diagnostic foundation. Its workplace examples are more formal than a volunteer setting, but its central discipline—define the gap before prescribing a fix—transfers directly.
Read this Developing Potential UK article for its questions about observable gaps, skill, and changes in past performance.
In “Start with the performance gap,” begin at the sentence about defining the problem clearly. Read the gap examples through the closing reminder to describe the issue properly. Notice how the examples replace character judgments with actions that can be checked. Then, in “Is there a skill or knowledge gap?”, read the capability questions from the opening question through the paragraph on designing help around the real task. Finally, read “Could they do it well in the past?” from its opening observation about changed performance to its closing list of possible responses: past performance. Focus on what a previous success tells you—and what it does not.
Past success is a clue, not a verdict. Someone who produced strong posts last month probably has relevant skills, but this month’s assignment might use an unfamiliar format, a different approval process, or a deadline that conflicts with other commitments. Diagnosis means finding out what changed.
Four explanations to investigate
The Six Boxes Model offers a broader view of performance than “can they do it?” and “will they do it?” Its top row concerns the working environment; its bottom row concerns the person and how the work is assigned. Use it to generate questions, not to put a volunteer in a box.
For this lesson, group the possibilities into four working hypotheses:
| Hypothesis | Evidence that would support it | A useful question |
|---|---|---|
| Unclear expectations | No named owner, ambiguous due date, conflicting instructions, or a quality requirement not shared in advance. | “What did you understand you had agreed to deliver, and by when?” |
| Limited capability | The outcome and standard were clear, but the volunteer cannot yet perform an unfamiliar task or repeatedly struggles with a specific technique despite access and time. | “Which part of producing this is unfamiliar or difficult?” |
| Practical constraints | Access, approvals, information, dependencies, or realistic volunteer hours were missing; the person could do the work under workable conditions. | “What blocked progress, and when did that become apparent?” |
| Low commitment to this responsibility | After understanding the work and having a feasible opportunity to do it, the volunteer says they no longer want the responsibility or repeatedly declines to commit to it. | “Do you still want to own this piece of work?” |
These are hypotheses, not labels for people. More than one can be true. A vague assignment can conceal a skills gap; repeated last-minute approvals can erode someone’s willingness to volunteer for the next campaign.
Two distinctions deserve particular care:
First, not knowing the standard is not automatically a capability problem. If “make it polished” was the entire brief, you cannot diagnose a writing-skill deficit from a draft that differs from the style you had in mind. Ask what guidance and examples were available. Capability becomes a stronger explanation when the standard was shared and understood, but the person still needs help performing the task.
Second, limited time is not the same as limited commitment. “I want to do this, but I can offer one hour this week rather than the four it requires” points to a capacity constraint and perhaps an assignment that needs resizing. “I have time, but I don’t want to own this kind of task anymore” points more directly to commitment or fit. Neither is a moral failing. In volunteer work, commitments must be feasible and open to renegotiation.
The article’s remaining sections show why incentives and obstacles belong in your investigation. In a volunteer team, an “incentive” need not be money: whether early warnings receive a helpful response, or simply result in more pressure, can affect what people disclose.
Return to the same article to examine how the working environment can produce what looks like an individual performance problem.
Read “Are people being rewarded for the wrong behaviour?” and “Is good performance being punished?” Start with the observation that people respond to what is rewarded and continue through the closing paragraph on support and recognition: consequences. Ask whether raising a risk early is made easier or harder in your team. Then find “Are there obstacles in the system?” Begin with the paragraph saying people can want to perform well yet be blocked, and stop at the paragraph ending with facilitated conversations: system obstacles. Pay particular attention to time, tools, handovers, and decision rights.
Test the hypotheses in a conversation
A shared document can tell you when a draft appeared. It usually cannot tell you why it did not appear. For that, speak privately with the volunteer while the details are fresh rather than waiting for a routine team catch-up. Bring the agreed brief and what you observed, but leave your interpretation open.
The following short video segment demonstrates the useful sequence: ask for the person’s assessment, offer concrete examples where needed, and listen for an explanation. It discusses employees; retain the inquiry, not an assumption that volunteers have employee-like obligations.
The Secret To Managing Poor Performance
Watch “The Secret To Managing Poor Performance” from Workovate for an example of seeking the other person’s account before settling on a cause.
Watch grasp the issue. Notice the suggestion to ask for a self-assessment and use concrete instances if accounts differ. Translate “targets” into the particular deliverable and agreement you made with a volunteer.
A diagnostic opening could sound like this:
“We had discussed sharing two draft posts on Tuesday. I couldn’t find them in the shared folder on Wednesday morning. What’s your understanding of where things stand?”
Follow the answer rather than running mechanically through a checklist. If they thought someone else owned the posts, inspect the handover. If they could not enter the folder, establish when access failed and whether another route was available. If they say they could not make the time, ask what time they had expected to have and what changed. If they can do the task but no longer want this responsibility, take that statement seriously rather than searching for a hidden defect.
You do not need private details to diagnose a capacity constraint. “I’m unable to give this four hours this week” is enough to discuss feasibility. Make it safe to report a blocker or a change in availability; otherwise silence may reflect uncertainty about how you will respond, not indifference.
Decide what the evidence supports—provisionally
Consider a four-person team preparing an announcement. A message to the group said, “Could someone draft two posts for Friday?” On Thursday, there is no draft. The primary finding so far is an unclear assignment: there was no named, accepting owner or agreed draft deadline. No observation here establishes that a particular volunteer lacks skill or commitment.
Now imagine a different record. One volunteer explicitly accepted ownership of a Wednesday draft; the brief and examples were available; the volunteer had written comparable posts before. On Tuesday, their account access failed, and they reported it promptly. No draft appeared Wednesday. Practical constraint is the strongest current explanation. Previous good work and the access report support it, although you should still verify that access was needed for this draft.
Contrast that with a volunteer who has the brief, access, and a feasible time commitment, but says, “I don’t want to take on posts anymore.” That is direct evidence about commitment to this responsibility—not evidence that they are generally uncommitted. If instead they want to continue but cannot shape the copy to an agreed standard, capability may be the stronger hypothesis. Your job is to distinguish these accounts, not to infer one from the missing draft alone.
A compact diagnostic note can keep the reasoning disciplined:
Gap: What was agreed, and what happened?
Evidence: What did the brief, work record, and volunteer’s account establish?
Leading explanation: Which of the four hypotheses best accounts for the gap?
Alternative or unknown: What else could explain it, and what would you need to check?
Write “leading explanation,” not “root cause confirmed,” when evidence is incomplete. In particular, low commitment should never be the leftover category after you fail to find another answer. It requires its own evidence, such as the volunteer’s stated preference or a pattern considered alongside clear agreements and feasible conditions.
Key takeaways
Diagnose the gap before the person: compare an agreed result with observable work, then ask what would explain the difference. Check expectations, capability, practical constraints, and commitment without treating a missed deadline—or silence—as proof of attitude. Use the volunteer’s account to test your initial hypothesis, and keep your conclusion provisional when important facts are missing.
In the next lesson, you’ll use that diagnosis to choose a proportionate leadership response: when to clarify, coach, remove a constraint, reprioritise, or reassign work.