Introducing Time Off. Manage leave requests, policies, balances and team availability.
Learn moreShort, expert-led courses with practical insights your team can apply immediately.
Close skill gaps by assigning targeted courses or paths with trackable progress.
Upload and manage your internal training with our built-in course creation tools
Run structured, flexible reviews tailored to your company’s style and goals.
With high value tips, stories, and content to help you get the best from our products.

Introducing Time Off. Manage leave requests, policies, balances and team availability.
Learn moreIntroducing Time Off. Manage leave requests, policies, balances and team availability.
Learn moreIntroducing Time Off. Manage leave requests, policies, balances and team availability.
Learn moreLearn how managers and HR can distinguish a real performance blocker from an excuse — with diagnostic questions and response scripts for each.
Marketing Lead

May 29, 2026
•
3 Mins Read
How to handle performance excuses vs real blockers is one of the most politically sensitive challenges in performance management. When an employee underperforms, the manager suspects excuses while the employee believes they faced real obstacles — and both may be partly right. Getting this wrong in either direction costs you: treating a genuine blocker as an excuse destroys trust and leaves a fixable problem unfixed, while treating an excuse as a blocker enables a pattern that damages the whole team. This framework gives managers and HR a practical diagnostic for distinguishing between the two.
When reviewing underperformance reasons, managers often suspect excuses while employees believe they faced real obstacles — and both perspectives deserve structured scrutiny. Both may be partly right. Getting performance blockers vs excuses wrong in either direction produces a bad outcome: treating a genuine blocker as an excuse destroys trust and leaves a fixable problem unfixed. Treating an excuse as a legitimate blocker enables a pattern that damages the team.
This article gives managers and HR a practical framework for distinguishing between the two, with specific questions and diagnostic tests.
A blocker is an obstacle that was outside the employee's control, that they escalated proactively, and that would have prevented any similarly capable employee in the same circumstances from meeting the target.
An excuse is an explanation for underperformance that attributes the gap to external factors the employee could have influenced, escalated, or planned around, and that is offered after the deadline rather than flagged before it.
The diagnostic questions:
These are organisational or contextual failures that genuinely impair performance and require a systemic response:
These are attributions that deflect responsibility the employee could have taken:
For a genuine blocker: acknowledge it, document it, investigate whether the organisational condition that created the blocker needs to be fixed, and remove it from the performance assessment. "The resource constraint you faced was a management failure, not a performance failure. I am not holding you accountable for something you could not control."
For a performance excuse: be direct without being accusatory. "I hear what you have described, and I want to test it against the evidence. The obstacle you named was present from [date]. Your deadline was [date]. I can see from the check-in notes that it was raised for the first time after the deadline passed. What would you have done differently if you could go back?"
Check-in notes are the most valuable tool for distinguishing blockers from excuses. An employee who flagged an obstacle in a check-in note two weeks before the deadline and received no response from their manager has a documented blocker with a management failure attached. An employee who never mentioned the obstacle until after the deadline missed has a weaker case.
This is one of the strongest arguments for requiring managers to keep check-in notes throughout the cycle: they create the evidentiary record that makes these conversations navigable rather than political.
Acknowledge both. "The resource constraint was real and I should have addressed it sooner. There was also a decision you made in [situation] that made the constraint worse. I want us to talk about both." Shared accountability conversations are more credible than assigning all responsibility to either party.
Make the escalation expectation explicit: employees are responsible for flagging blockers before they affect delivery, not after. Include "proactive risk flagging" as a competency in the review framework. This creates a positive accountability loop: employees who identify and escalate blockers early are demonstrating good performance, not asking for excuses.
Talstack is the people management platform for high-performing teams.
builtwithlove@talstack.com
+2349020000636
Enter email to subscribe