Question 1: What is the specific issue, and can I describe it in observable, factual terms?

Write it down. Not "attitude problem" or "not a good fit" - but what specifically happened, when, and what the impact was. If you cannot describe the issue in factual terms, you are not ready to take action on it. Vague concerns lead to vague processes, and vague processes fail.

What to do if you can't answer this: Document a specific incident before proceeding. Speak to the employee informally first if appropriate.

Question 2: Is this a performance issue, a conduct issue, or something else entirely?

These are different categories and they require different processes. Performance relates to the employee's capacity or output - whether they can do the job. Conduct relates to behaviour - whether they are meeting expected standards. Getting this wrong at the start leads to the wrong process, which creates its own legal exposure.

A third category to consider: is this actually a capability issue arising from a health condition, disability, or personal circumstance? If so, different obligations apply under the Fair Work Act and potentially anti-discrimination legislation.

What to do if you are unsure: Pause and seek HR input before categorising.

Question 3: Has the employee been clearly told what is expected of them - and when?

An employee cannot be held accountable for a standard they were not told about, or a standard that was communicated unclearly. Before any formal action, confirm: were the expectations documented, communicated, and understood? If you have had a recent restructure, change of manager, or role change, the answer may be more complicated than it first appears.

What to do if you can't answer yes: Have the expectations conversation first. Document it. Then monitor.

Question 4: Have there been informal conversations before this point - and are they documented?

Under the Fair Work Act's unfair dismissal provisions, a fair process generally requires that the employee has been put on notice of the concern and given a genuine opportunity to improve before formal action is taken. Informal conversations are a legitimate early step - but only if they happened, and only if there is a record.

An email to yourself, a note in your diary, a brief file note dated at the time - all of these count. A manager's recollection six months later, unsupported by any record, does not.

What to do if there is no documentation: Document what conversations have occurred and when, even retrospectively, and be accurate about what you told the employee at the time.

Question 5: Is there any reason the employee might have a different understanding of the situation?

This is not about whether the employee is right. It is about whether there is information you do not have. Has the employee raised a concern, a health issue, or a personal circumstance that you have not fully explored? Has something changed in their role or working conditions recently?

Taking formal action without understanding the employee's perspective is a process failure, even if the underlying concern is valid. The Fair Work Act requires that the employee be given an opportunity to respond - and that response needs to genuinely inform your decision, not just be received.

What to do: Before escalating, have you asked the employee directly what is going on?

Question 6: Could this situation involve a protected attribute, a workplace right, or a complaint the employee has recently made?

This is the general protections question - and it is the one that catches managers most often.

Under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act, it is unlawful to take adverse action against an employee because they have exercised a workplace right. Workplace rights include: making a complaint about their employment, taking leave, raising a safety concern, asking about their entitlements, or being a union member.

If an employee has recently raised a concern, made a complaint, taken personal or parental leave, or done anything that could be characterised as exercising a workplace right - and you now want to take action against them - you need to be very clear that your proposed action is entirely unrelated to that fact. The burden of proof in a general protections matter sits with the employer to disprove the protected reason.

What to do if yes: Stop. Seek HR or legal advice before proceeding.

Question 7: What outcome am I actually trying to achieve?

This sounds obvious but it is often not asked. Are you trying to improve performance? Correct conduct? Manage someone out? Protect the business from a legal risk? The answer shapes the process. A manager who wants to help an employee improve uses a different process than one who has decided the employment should end - and conflating the two creates exactly the kind of process failure that generates successful claims.

Be honest with yourself about what you are trying to achieve. If the answer is "I want them gone," that does not mean you cannot proceed - but it does mean you need a process designed for that outcome, not a performance improvement plan used as a paper trail for dismissal.

Question 8: Does the employee know this is serious?

One of the most consistent findings in unfair dismissal cases is that the employee did not understand the gravity of the situation. They thought the first warning was a chat. They thought the PIP was a formality. The threshold for what counts as adequate notice is context-dependent, but as a general rule: if you are thinking about dismissal, the employee needs to have been clearly told, in plain terms, that their employment is at risk.

What to do: Review what you have communicated to date. If the seriousness has not been made explicit, do it - in writing - before taking any further step.

Question 9: Is there a consistent approach - would you treat another employee in the same situation the same way?

Inconsistency is both a legal risk and a management credibility problem. If you have been more lenient with another employee in a similar situation, you need a clear reason why - one that does not relate to any protected attribute. Courts and tribunals look at how employers handle comparable situations. If the answer to this question makes you uncomfortable, the process needs to be examined before it proceeds.

Question 10: What is the next specific action I am going to take, by when, and who else needs to be involved?

Clarity on the next step is what separates a triage from a spiral. Before you escalate, you should be able to answer: what exactly is the next action, who is taking it, by what date, and does HR or anyone else need to be involved at that point?

If you cannot answer these questions, you are not ready to escalate. You are ready to think more.