Managing underperformance in France: why conversations are not enough

Updated: 2 August 2026

What headquarters expects — and what French law requires

Many international organisations follow a familiar sequence: informal feedback, a documented performance improvement plan, and, if performance does not improve, an exit. That approach can work in France too. But the legal logic behind it is different.

French law does not require a formal Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP. Instead, any dismissal must be based on a real and serious cause: the reason must be genuine, objective and verifiable, and sufficiently significant to justify termination of the employment relationship.

The French concept closest to underperformance is insuffisance professionnelle — professional inadequacy. It can constitute a valid ground for dismissal, but poor results alone are not necessarily enough.

The employer must be able to show that the shortcomings are objectively established and relate to the employee's ability to perform the job, rather than to unrealistic objectives, inadequate resources, organisational problems or other circumstances outside the employee's control. The employer must also have complied with its own obligation to ensure that the employee was appropriately adapted to the role.

This is why documentation matters. Legally, the burden of proof does not rest exclusively on either party. The judge examines the evidence produced by both sides and may order further investigation where necessary. But there is one important rule: if doubt remains, it benefits the employee¹.

In practice, this means that an employer who has documented very little may have very little to put before the judge. A manager's genuine conviction that an employee was underperforming is not the same thing as evidence that the employee was professionally inadequate.

What headquarters sees — and what is actually happening

Performance and misconduct are not the same thing

One of the most important distinctions for an international employer is between professional inadequacy (insuffisance professionnelle) and misconduct (faute). They may sometimes appear similar from a management perspective, but legally they follow different rules.

Professional inadequacy concerns the employee's ability to perform the role satisfactorily. The employee may be trying to do the job but failing to reach the required standard. It is a personal, non-disciplinary ground.

Misconduct concerns behaviour that can be blamed on the employee: for example, deliberately refusing an instruction, repeatedly disregarding rules or failing to perform an obligation in circumstances where the conduct is considered wrongful.

The distinction matters because disciplinary action comes with specific rules and time limits that do not apply in the same way to professional inadequacy.

Do not turn poor performance into misconduct

A written warning is a disciplinary sanction⁴. If the real issue is that an employee lacks the ability to perform the role, automatically responding with disciplinary warnings can blur the nature of the problem. Poor performance is not necessarily misconduct.

The first question should therefore be: is the employee unable to meet the required standard, or are they failing to comply with obligations they are capable of meeting? The answer determines how the situation should be managed.

Do not overlook misconduct either

The opposite mistake can be equally problematic. Where the facts genuinely amount to misconduct, disciplinary rules apply. In particular, disciplinary proceedings generally cannot be initiated more than two months after the employer became aware of the relevant facts⁵.

Running a lengthy informal performance process without first identifying that the underlying issue is disciplinary can therefore create unnecessary risk.

Qualify each issue before deciding how to proceed

Performance issues and misconduct can sometimes coexist. The important point is not to force every difficulty into a single category, but to identify the legal nature of each issue before choosing the appropriate response. That assessment should happen at the beginning of the process, not when the dismissal letter is being drafted.

Three scenarios

What to do instead

Manage performance continuously, not only when dismissal is being considered. Set clear and realistic objectives. Record them. Give regular and accurate feedback. Document significant shortcomings when they occur. Keep a record of the support, resources and training provided. If circumstances change, adjust expectations accordingly.

The purpose is not to build a file against an employee. Good documentation serves both possible outcomes: it gives the employee a genuine opportunity to improve, and it gives the employer objective evidence if improvement ultimately does not occur.

Be accurate in appraisals. Diplomacy is useful; a written assessment that contradicts the manager's real assessment of performance is not.

A PIP can also be useful, provided it remains what its name suggests: a performance improvement plan. Objectives should be clear, realistic and measurable; the employee should know what needs to improve; appropriate support should be available; and the outcome should not be presented as predetermined.

Finally, separate performance management from the dismissal procedure. The first is about managing and improving the employment relationship. The second begins only when the employer decides that the situation may justify termination and follows the statutory process.

Frequently asked questions

Is a Performance Improvement Plan illegal in France?

No. French law does not require a formal PIP, but there is nothing inherently unlawful about using one. Properly designed, it can be a useful way to clarify expectations, document support and give the employee a genuine opportunity to improve. The important point is that the PIP should not predetermine the outcome or replace the statutory dismissal procedure if dismissal is ultimately considered.

Can poor results alone justify dismissal?

Not necessarily. Results can be important evidence, but the employer must be able to place them in context. Were the objectives realistic? Did the employee have the resources to achieve them? Were comparable employees able to meet them? Was appropriate support or training provided? Are the shortcomings attributable to the employee rather than to the organisation? Missing a target is a fact; professional inadequacy is a conclusion that must be supported by facts.

How long does the dismissal procedure take?

At minimum, five working days must normally separate the summons from the preliminary meeting². The dismissal letter cannot then be sent until at least two working days after that meeting³. These are statutory minimum periods, not a recommended project timetable, and the applicable collective bargaining agreement should also be checked for additional requirements. The notice period comes afterwards, unless the circumstances justify otherwise.

Can the employee bring someone to the preliminary meeting?

Yes. The employee has a right to assistance under the applicable rules, and the summons must provide the required information about that right. The preliminary meeting is not simply a box to tick: the employer explains the reasons why dismissal is being considered and the employee has an opportunity to respond before the final decision is notified.

What if the employee simply is not suited to the role?

That may constitute professional inadequacy and potentially justify dismissal. But the employer still needs objective evidence showing why the employee cannot satisfactorily perform the role. It must also consider its own obligations, including whether the employee received the necessary support and adaptation to the position. A genuine performance problem can justify dismissal; it does not remove the need to demonstrate it.

Who should manage this — the manager or HR?

Both have different roles. The manager manages performance: they set expectations, give feedback, identify difficulties and document what happens in real time. HR secures the framework and, where necessary, the procedure: it helps distinguish performance from misconduct, checks the evidence, ensures consistency and manages the formal process if dismissal is ultimately considered. For a French subsidiary without an internal HR function, this division of responsibilities still needs to exist. The worst time to discover that nobody has been documenting performance is when headquarters has already decided that an employee needs to leave.

How we help

my-people is the HR service offered by Convergent, a French employment law firm. We run the HR function for foreign companies operating in France — including performance documentation, difficult conversations and, where necessary, the procedure itself.

Because the service is delivered by an Avocat admitted to the Toulouse Bar, the information you share is covered by professional secrecy from the moment we receive it⁶.

Discuss your situation