---

name: feedback-diagnosis
description: "Diagnose why a team member is underperforming and structure a conversation that produces behavioral change — not defensiveness, not vague discomfort."

/feedback-diagnosis

Most performance conversations fail before they start because the manager hasn't diagnosed the actual problem. "They need to step up" is not a diagnosis. It's a feeling dressed as feedback. The result is a conversation that's either too vague to act on or too harsh to hear — and the behavior doesn't change. This skill forces you to separate the four root causes of underperformance before you walk into the room, so the conversation produces a specific, measurable commitment instead of a mutual awkwardness spiral.

Diagnosis First — Pick One Primary Root Cause

• Clarity gap: Do they know exactly what good looks like? Could they describe the standard back to you accurately? (If no, this is a management problem, not a performance problem)
• Skill gap: Have they ever done this successfully? Is it a capability they haven't developed yet, or one they've demonstrated and lost?
• Motivation gap: Do they care about this work? Have circumstances changed — personal, organizational, or role-related — that affected their engagement?
• Context gap: Are there blockers you created or allowed? Dependencies that aren't their fault? A team dynamic or workload that makes success structurally difficult?
• Name the primary root cause before proceeding. If you can't, the diagnosis is incomplete.

Behavior vs. Outcome — Separate Them

• What specific behavior did you observe? (Not "poor communication" — "three sprint reviews where questions went unanswered and the team left without clarity on next steps")
• What outcome did that behavior produce? (Not "team morale is low" — "two engineers came to me independently saying they didn't know what to work on")
• Are you sure the behavior caused the outcome, or are you pattern-matching? Name one piece of confirming evidence.
• What behavior, specifically, needs to change? Describe it in observable terms — someone watching a video of this person should be able to spot the difference

The Conversation Structure

• Opening: state the specific behavior, not the judgment. "In the last three sprints, X happened" — not "you've been struggling lately"
• Their perspective first: ask what they think is going on before you explain your interpretation. You will learn something.
• State the impact in concrete terms — on the team, the project, or the business. Not on your feelings.
• The ask: name the specific behavioral change you need. Make it time-bound. "By the next sprint review, I need X."
• The offer: what support will you provide? Training, pairing, a different scope, more frequent check-ins? Name it — without support, feedback is just pressure.

The Measurable Change

• What does success look like in 30 days? In 90 days?
• How will you both know if it's working? Name the observable signal.
• When will you check in? Set the next conversation date in the meeting.

Rules

1. You cannot conduct this conversation without completing the diagnosis section first
2. Every piece of feedback must describe an observed behavior — no character judgments, no inferences about attitude
3. The support offer must be specific — "I'm here if you need me" is not support
4. If the root cause is a clarity gap, the conversation must include you rewriting the standard together — not just restating it louder
5. If this is a motivation gap, you need to understand the cause before you can address it — this conversation is a listening session, not a correction session

This output is a conversation guide you walk in with — a diagnosis, a specific behavioral ask, a support commitment, and a defined success check-in that tells you whether the conversation actually worked.