As soon as a team member begins to miss deadlines, check out in meetings, or slip in performance, the standard reaction of most managers is to slip into diagnosis mode — attitude problem, burnout issue, skill gap? But that shouldn't be a performance improvement plan or escalation, according to a former Stripe HR leader. It's just one clarifying question for managers to ask themselves before they "do something."
That question is: "Is this a can't do or a won't do?"
It sounds simple, almost simplistic, but people who have worked in HR for years say managers tend to miss this step—and that's when performance conversations start to go awry. When leaders can't differentiate between a lack of ability and a lack of will, they tend to activate the wrong intervention, and then you send someone who needs a nudge toward the exit ramp instead.
If an employee isn't doing the job — because he or she is undertrained, overwhelmed, unclear about what's expected and how it fits into the bigger picture of company goals, or unempowered to solve problems as they arise — the solution is not anger. Some coaching, more precise guidance, smaller goals, or different tools can flip the trend in short order. A lot of the time, strong performers slip because something has shifted upstream: the workload has increased, priorities have changed, or health and personal stress have gotten in the way. Functional problems reverse in most cases if adequately treated.
If the employee won't do the job — refuses work, misses deadlines, says no to feedback, or exhibits destructive behavior — that's a different conversation. That's when what we really need is not a relationship, but accountability. This category is rarer than managers think, say HR leaders. There are genuinely uncooperative employees, but all too many managers label it a "bad attitude" and escalate inappropriately when it might simply be stress or confusion.
Filtering employees into these two buckets, the ex-Stripe executive said, quickens managers' pace when they really should be slowing down and taking a look at the bigger picture rather than giving an emotional, gut reaction. Was the project scoped poorly? Did priorities shift without communication? Are expectations mismatched? Did the employee hit burnout? What has changed big time at home?
Most performance issues that appear to be "won't do" actually begin as "can't do" — or "not yet able to do." By going directly to discipline, leaders miss what's driving the behavior—and potentially lose a talent that could have been salvaged with support.
The question also shields teams from injustice. If two workers are both failing for entirely different reasons, they shouldn't be treated the same. Someone who is feeling overwhelmed but trying should not be grouped together with someone who won't take responsibility. The difference matters — for morale, for retention, and for maintaining trust with the rest of the team watching closely.
Managers also gain a sharper sense of their own leadership gaps. If more than one person on the team "can't do" the work, that's not an employee problem — it's a management or structural problem. Expectations might be fuzzy, onboarding might be weak, or strategy might shift too much.
On the flip side, if a manager repeatedly finds themselves dealing with "won't do" behavior, it might be an indicator of cultural problems, mixed signals about accountability, or inconsistent performance management.
The idea of the question, at least as far as the former HR executive is concerned, isn't to get all philosophical — it's to arrive at a more pragmatic answer. For the "can't do" employees, leaders should ask: What training, clarity, or prioritization is missing? In cases of "won't do," they should inquire: What boundaries, expectations, and consequences need to be put in place?
And occasionally, asking the question reveals a third truth: The employee can do the job, and even wants to, but not how it's currently being done. That's a sign of burnout, imbalance, or an environmental mismatch that needs to be addressed more globally.
The idea is the test's simplicity. Managers frequently turn to spreadsheets, performance logs, or emotional frustration. But one question refocuses the issue: "Is the problem ability or willingness?" When "yes" is obvious, the way forward generally is as well.
