Why good employees struggle in wrong workplace

A manager once told me about an employee she couldn’t figure out. In one role, he had been described as disengaged, resistant to feedback and difficult with his team. When he joined her department, she braced herself. She expected the same issues to surface within weeks.

But they didn’t.

Instead, she found someone thoughtful and collaborative. He asked good questions. He followed through. He even became a steady influence on newer staff.

Months later, she called his previous manager, partly out of curiosity. “I don’t understand,” she said. “He’s doing really well here.” There was a long pause on the other end of the line before the response came back. “That’s not the version of him we saw.”

Both experiences were real. The difference was not the person. It was the environment.

We often talk about performance and behaviour at work as if they are fixed traits. Someone is a strong employee or they are not. Someone is easy to work with or they are difficult. But the truth is far more uncomfortable and far more useful.

People are not static. They respond to the conditions around them. The same employee can thrive in one setting and struggle in another, not because they have changed but because the context has.

It is a helpful shift in thinking for managers, especially when faced with behaviour that does not meet expectations. It invites a different question.

Instead of asking what is wrong with this person, we start asking what is happening around them.

Environment is not just the physical space, although that plays a role. It is the tone of communication, the clarity of expectations, the way feedback is delivered and the level of psychological safety in the team. It is whether people feel watched or trusted, rushed or supported, included or on the outside. These factors shape behaviour in quiet but powerful ways.

Consider how people respond to uncertainty.

In a workplace where expectations are unclear or constantly shifting, even strong employees can appear hesitant or defensive. They may ask fewer questions, because they do not want to look unprepared. They may avoid taking initiative because they are unsure how their decisions will be received. Over time, this can be interpreted as disengagement, when in reality it is a response to ambiguity.

Now imagine that same employee in an environment where priorities are clear and consistent. Where it is safe to ask questions early and often. Where feedback is direct but fair.

The behaviour shifts. Confidence grows. Initiative returns. Nothing about the person has fundamentally changed, but the conditions have.

This is not about excusing poor behaviour. Accountability still matters, but it does mean that before we move quickly to performance management, there is value in pausing to assess the environment we have created.

Small changes can make a meaningful difference.

For managers, one of the simplest and most effective shifts is clarity. Many workplaces assume expectations are understood because they have been stated once, often in a job description or an onboarding conversation. In reality, expectations need to be reinforced regularly and in practical terms.

What does success look like this week, not just in theory but in action? When employees know where to focus, their energy follows.

Another change is in how feedback is delivered.

In some environments, feedback only shows up when something has gone wrong. This creates a sense of unease. People start to associate conversations with criticism and may become guarded or defensive. When feedback becomes more balanced and more frequent, it changes the dynamic. A quick acknowledgment of what is working can go a long way in building trust. It makes it easier to receive more difficult messages because the relationship feels fair.

Managers also influence behaviour through how they respond to mistakes.

In a culture where errors are met with frustration or silence, people learn quickly to protect themselves. They may avoid taking risks or delay raising issues. In contrast, when mistakes are treated as part of the learning process, employees are more likely to speak up early. This does not mean lowering standards. It means creating space for improvement without fear.

There is also something to be said for consistency. Employees watch closely how decisions are made and how people are treated. If expectations are enforced unevenly or if behaviour is overlooked in some individuals but not others, it erodes trust. Over time, this can lead to resentment and withdrawal. Consistency does not require perfection, but it does require awareness.

For employees, there is also some ownership in shaping the environment, even when it feels like most of the control sits elsewhere.

One of the most practical steps is to seek clarity rather than sit with uncertainty. Asking for direction or confirming priorities is not a sign of weakness. It is a way to reduce guesswork and set yourself up for success. It can also signal to managers where communication gaps exist.

Another small but meaningful shift is in how feedback is received and used. Even in less supportive environments, finding one or two takeaways from your manager and acting on them can gradually change how others perceive your work.

It can also build a sense of control in situations that otherwise feel frustrating.

Employees can also influence tone. Workplaces are shaped by collective behaviour, not just leadership. A simple check-in with a colleague, a willingness to share information or a calm response under pressure can shift interactions in subtle ways. These actions may seem small, but they accumulate.

There is also value in recognizing when an environment is not a good fit.

Not every workplace will bring out the best in every person. Sometimes the most honest assessment is that the conditions are not aligned with how someone works best. That is not a failure. It is information — and it can guide better decisions about where to invest energy and when to make a change.

What makes this conversation lighter, and perhaps more hopeful, is that it moves us away from fixed labels. It allows room for growth and adjustment. It reminds us that behaviour is often a signal, not a verdict.

When we see someone struggling, it is easy to assume that is who they are at work. The disengaged employee. The difficult team member. The one who does not quite fit. But there is often another version of that same person, one that shows up under different conditions.

For managers, the opportunity is to create those conditions more intentionally. Not through large, sweeping changes, but through steady, thoughtful adjustments in how work is structured and how people are supported.

For employees, the opportunity is to stay curious about what helps them do their best work and to take small steps toward that, even within the limits of their current role.

Workplaces will never be perfect. There will always be pressure, competing priorities and moments where things do not go as planned. But within that reality, there is still a great deal of influence over how people experience their work.

And sometimes, the difference between someone struggling and someone thriving is not nearly as large as we think. It can come down to a few small shifts in environment, repeated consistently over time, that allow people to show up at their best.

Tory McNally, CPHR, BSc., vice-president, professional services at TIPI Legacy HR+ (formerly Legacy Bowes), is a human resource consultant, relationship builder and problem solver. She can be reached at tmcnally@tipipartners.com