Ask the Expert: Can I dismiss an employee if performance hasn’t improved?

Performance issues are one of the most common, and most misunderstood, areas of people management. Many employers do the right thing by having informal conversations, offering support, and giving employees time to improve. But when things don’t change, a difficult question often follows: can we move to dismissal if there’s been no formal warning?

We’re asked this regularly, particularly by employers who feel they’ve been fair, reasonable, and patient but are unsure whether their approach would stand up to scrutiny if challenged.  Over a lovely cup of coffee, I sat with Ella to answer some of the most common questions we hear.

So Ella, if an employee’s performance hasn’t improved, can we dismiss without a formal warning?

Ella: In most cases, no at least not safely. While informal conversations are important, they rarely provide enough protection on their own. A formal warning makes it clear that the issue is serious, that continued underperformance could lead to dismissal, and that the employee has been given a structured opportunity to improve.

But we’ve had lots of informal conversations doesn’t that count for something?

Ella: Yes, it does count, and it often helps demonstrate that you’ve tried to resolve the issue reasonably. However, informal discussions are not a substitute for a formal process. Without clear documentation and formal steps, it can be very difficult to show that the employee understood the consequences of not improving.

What if the employee knew they weren’t performing well?

Ella: That’s a common assumption, but it’s a risky one. Employees don’t always interpret feedback in the same way employers intend. A formal warning removes ambiguity. It confirms expectations, timescales, and potential outcomes in a way that informal conversations often don’t.

Are there any situations where dismissal without a warning might be justified?

Ella: Possibly, but these are the exception rather than the rule. In cases of very serious underperformance in a senior or safety-critical role, or where the impact is immediate and severe, employers may have more scope to move quickly. Even then, the process needs to be handled carefully, and advice should be taken early.

How long should we give someone to improve before taking formal action?

Ella: There’s no fixed timeframe. It depends on the role, the nature of the performance issues, and what improvement is realistically achievable. What matters most is that expectations are clear, support is offered, and the employee is given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate improvement.

What does a ‘reasonable opportunity to improve’ actually look like?

Ella: It usually includes clear objectives, regular review meetings, appropriate support or training, and a realistic timeframe. Importantly, it also means being honest with the employee about where they stand, including the risk of formal action if improvement doesn’t happen.

Without going into all the detail, what does a fair performance process usually involve?

Ella: A fair process is less about rigid steps and more about clarity and consistency. Employers should be clear about what isn’t working, what improvement looks like, and the consequences if it doesn’t happen. Documenting discussions, giving reasonable time to improve, offering appropriate support, and following your own policies are the fundamentals.

What if the employee’s performance is linked to health or personal issues?

Ella: This changes the conversation significantly. Where health may be a factor, employers need to pause and consider their obligations carefully. That might include seeking medical advice, exploring reasonable adjustments, or treating the matter as a capability issue rather than performance. Moving straight to dismissal in these circumstances carries a much higher risk.

Does having a policy make a difference?

Ella: Yes and following it matters just as much as having it. If your performance or capability policy sets out a staged process, you should normally follow it. Failing to do so can undermine an otherwise fair decision and expose the business to challenge.

What’s the biggest mistake employers make in these situations?

Ella: Assuming that being reasonable is enough. Many employers genuinely try to do the right thing, but without a clear process, good intentions don’t always translate into legal protection. Structure and consistency are key.

What should employers do if they’re unsure whether they’re handling performance correctly?

Ella: Get advice early. A short conversation at the right time can prevent months of difficulty later on. Performance issues rarely resolve themselves, and the earlier they’re addressed properly, the more options employers usually have.

Thank you Ella, that is helpful … any final thoughts for employers?

Managing underperformance can feel uncomfortable, particularly when you’re trying to be fair and supportive. But clarity is kind. When expectations, timescales and consequences are clearly set out, employees know where they stand and employers are far better protected if matters don’t improve.

If you’re dealing with a performance issue and aren’t sure whether you’re taking the right approach, a conversation at the right time can make all the difference. We’re always happy to talk things through and help you decide on the next sensible step.