Why Clear Expectations Can Turn Around Underperformance, According to Leanne Bridges

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leanne Bridges discusses how unclear expectations, limited follow-through and low confidence can contribute to an employee’s underperformance. This article reports on Bridges’s account and analysis; it is journalistic coverage of her post, not an article written by her.

“A lot of underperformance isn’t solved by pressure or replacing people.”

Bridges describes a manager whose managing director was considering dismissal after seeing sloppy work, slow completion of routine tasks and reluctance to take on business development. On the surface, the employee seemed disengaged. But, according to Bridges, a closer look revealed practical gaps that had gone unaddressed.

Making expectations measurable

Bridges identifies clarity as the first missing element. In her account, the outcomes expected of the manager had been assumed rather than defined in concrete, measurable terms. That left him without a clear picture of what successful performance meant.

Her analysis points to a management challenge: when expectations remain implicit, an employee’s results may fall short even if their role and responsibilities appear obvious to others. Bridges’s post suggests that managers should spell out desired outcomes so progress can be assessed against shared standards.

Building follow-through into the work

The second gap was follow-through. Bridges writes that work had been assigned and then left with the employee, in part because he was experienced. Without regular progress reviews, problems could persist without timely feedback or support.

“Because he was so experienced, no one reviewed his progress.”

According to Bridges, reviewing progress is not simply a response to poor performance. It can help surface obstacles earlier and create opportunities to adjust expectations or offer guidance before a small problem becomes a lasting one.

Addressing confidence alongside capability

Bridges’s third explanation was confidence. She says the manager was not avoiding business development because he did not care about sales; he was unsure he could do that work well and felt outside his comfort zone.

“He wasn’t avoiding the business development side of his job because he didn’t care about sales.”

That distinction matters in Bridges’s account. A manager who interprets avoidance only as a lack of effort may miss a need for coaching or targeted support. She says the employee’s performance changed quickly once expectations were clarified, progress was reviewed and support was focused where it was needed.

A diagnostic approach to “nearly delivering”

Bridges argues that managers should investigate what is driving underperformance before defaulting to pressure or replacement. Her post recommends setting specific expectations, building follow-through into assigned work and having conversations early.

For managing directors dealing with employees who are “nearly delivering,” Bridges says her short diagnostic call is intended to help pinpoint the cause and possible response. Her broader point is that a performance problem may call for clearer management and support—not an immediate conclusion about an employee’s commitment.