An Underperforming Employee’s Raise Request Tests the Leader

By Amara Osei

Nellie Akalp says a raise request from an employee who has not consistently met expectations should prompt a leader to examine their own management, not just the employee’s output. Her article treats the conversation as a diagnostic: feedback, accountability and the employee’s understanding of success determine whether a pay decision looks fair. When an employee still falls short despite receiving resources, support and feedback, Akalp says a simple refusal leaves the underlying management problem unresolved.

What should a leader check before saying no?

Akapl says leaders should first test whether they defined the employee’s expectations clearly, provided consistent feedback and addressed concerns as they arose. She counsels them to explain how success is measured so employees have direction to improve and grow. Her assessment is direct: “As a business owner, I’ve learned that compensation conversations can tell you a great deal about the effectiveness of your leadership.”

That makes compensation a test of management practice rather than merely a budget decision, according to Akalp. If an employee believes they have earned a raise while available evidence points elsewhere, Akalp says the mismatch may extend beyond that worker.

How should compensation standards work?

Companies use different compensation frameworks, Akalp notes. Some prioritize tenure, others emphasize performance or skills, and many combine those factors. The problem begins when an employee and leader do not share the framework, she says. An employee may expect a raise after reaching an anniversary or cite rising costs and personal financial obligations.

Akapl recommends acknowledging those concerns with empathy, but grounding the final decision in factors the business can apply consistently, including performance and the value an employee brings to the organization. She also separates performance from pay fairness. Leaders should consider market rates, responsibilities and changes to the position, Akalp says.

Standards should be communicated long before a request arrives, Akalp says, so employees know what leads to higher pay and what they need to do to advance. Employees should not have to guess how decisions are made.

What does a raise decision signal about culture?

Akapl warns against approving a raise simply to avoid an uncomfortable exchange. Such a decision sends a signal throughout the organization about what leadership values and rewards. The larger risk, she says, is not overpaying one employee but undermining the leader’s credibility with the rest of the team, particularly workers who consistently deliver results.

High-performing employees notice when accountability varies or someone who rarely meets expectations receives the same rewards, Akalp writes. Such choices can weaken a performance-driven culture and leave the strongest employees wondering whether their contributions matter.

She rejects a punitive approach. Compensation decisions should be fair, consistent and understood across the team, Akalp says, and should reinforce company values such as ownership and results.

Can the conversation become a coaching plan?

Akapl says, “A better approach is to listen.” Listening gives the employee a chance to explain why an increase is warranted, she says, which may reveal additional responsibilities or accomplishments the leader overlooked.

Leaders should then provide specific feedback rather than vague criticism, according to Akalp. They should identify the exact gaps with concrete examples, including repeatedly missed deadlines or responsibilities that have gone unfulfilled.

Akapl recommends stating what must change, such as consistently meeting deadlines without reminders or taking greater ownership of a job responsibility. The leader should then establish measurable goals and a reasonable timeline. The employee should know that another compensation conversation will be available at that point, she says.

This approach turns a static “no” into an actionable path forward, Akalp argues. Some employees will appreciate the push and rise to the challenge, while others will not. Either way, they should understand what success requires.

What does the request reveal about leadership?

Akapl says performance issues should never surprise an employee at the moment of a compensation request. Leaders should address them as they arise and make regular check-ins a normal part of management. She says waiting until the employee asks for a raise is ineffective leadership.

Ongoing positive and constructive feedback lets employees know where they stand and make adjustments, according to Akalp. That cadence also makes compensation conversations easier and helps employees identify existing opportunities for growth. Giving ambiguous answers to avoid saying no helps neither the employee nor the business, she says.

Her final judgment is that a raise request reflects the management of performance, expectations, communication and leadership throughout the year. For Akalp, the measure of better management is simple: the next compensation conversation should contain fewer surprises about expectations, performance and the route to higher pay.