The employee who kept arriving late

I can hear how frustrated you are. Four times in a month is a real pattern, and it makes sense that your patience is wearing thin. I can absolutely help you prepare for this conversation.

Before we get to what you’ll say, I’d like to understand the situation a little better, because the best conversations start with clarity about what’s actually going on. Can you tell me a bit more: how late are we talking, and what happens to the team when he’s late?

Thank you. That’s really useful. So there are two concrete effects: teammates covering his updates at the 9am handoff, and a worry about how it reflects on you as a leader.

Those are worth keeping separate from the lateness itself, and we’ll come back to both. Before you talk to Marcus, the first step of the Communication Protocol is Introspection: getting clear on your own experience first, so the conversation starts from understanding rather than accusation. Would you be open to spending a few minutes there?

That might turn out to be true, and if it is, you’ll be able to address it far more effectively with a clear head. But notice that “irresponsible” and “disrespectful” are conclusions about why he’s late. What you’ve actually observed is: late to the 9am handoff four times this month, by 15-20 minutes.

Let me share something the system asks everyone to sit with at this stage:

“Fear, anger, shame, and frustration are all indicators of a problem. They are not the problem itself. If you hold onto them, you won’t be able to explore other perspectives or get a deeper understanding of your own. Can you see the shape and size of a forest from inside it? Not as well as you can if you were able to view it from a hilltop. Treat these feelings like notifications on a phone and let them go momentarily so you can see what they were trying to tell you.”

So let’s look at the notification. When Marcus walks in late, what’s the feeling that hits first? Is it anger, or is there something under it?

That’s a really important discovery. Under the anger, there’s a concern about fairness: you’re not just annoyed at Marcus, you’re worried about what your silence is telling Priya and everyone else who shows up on time. That’s not pettiness; that’s you taking your responsibility to the whole team seriously.

Here’s why this matters for the conversation: “stop being disrespectful” and “I need the 9am handoff to work, and I need it to be fair to everyone” are two very different openings. The first is an accusation he’ll defend against. The second is a real problem you can solve together.

Now, one more introspection question. You’ve concluded he’s being irresponsible. Do you actually know why he’s been late? Has he said anything?

That’s an honest answer, and it took some humility to give it. So let’s name where you stand:

What you know: late four times this month, 15-20 minutes, teammates covering his handoff updates, brief apologies, no explanation offered.

What you’re assuming: that it’s carelessness: staying up late, not taking the job seriously.

What you don’t know: what’s actually going on. It could be your assumption. It could also be a childcare handoff, a health issue, a transit change, or something he’s embarrassed to raise.

You don’t need to know which it is before the conversation. That’s what the conversation is for. Do you feel clear enough on your own side of this to think about how to approach his?

The setting matters as much as the words: private, unhurried, and not in the heat of the moment, so not at 9:16 as he’s walking in. Ask for fifteen minutes later that day.

For the opening, the goal is to state what you’ve observed and what it affects, then hand him the floor before drawing any conclusions. Something like:

“Marcus, I want to talk about the morning handoffs. You’ve been late four times this month, and when that happens someone else has to cover your updates. Before anything else, I want to understand what’s going on for you. Is there something making mornings hard right now?”

Notice the shape: observable facts, the impact, and then a genuine question. No verdict. How does that sit with you? Is there anything in it that doesn’t sound like something you’d actually say?

Great question. Vague reassurance is one of the most common ways these conversations stall. Your job then is to gently stay curious rather than accept the deflection or escalate. A few questions to keep in your pocket:

• “I appreciate that. Can you help me understand what’s been making 9 o’clock hard, though? If something’s changed, I’d rather know.”
• “When you say you’ll do better, is there something specific you’d change, or does it feel out of your control?”
• “Is there anything about the schedule itself that isn’t working for you?”

The third one takes bravery, because you might learn the 9am meeting itself is part of the problem, and you should be genuinely open to that. Understanding him doesn’t mean agreeing with him, but you can’t solve a problem you haven’t actually seen. Would you like to practice this? I can play Marcus and give you a realistic run at it.

Then you’ve reached the best possible position: a real problem, jointly understood, with no villain. Now you build a solution together, and the system asks that a solution be actionable, testable, effective, and time-bound, and fair to everyone it touches.

Some shapes it could take, depending on what he says:

• Shift his slot: Marcus gives his update last, buying him ten minutes.
• Async fallback: if he’ll be late, he posts his update in the channel by 8:50 so nobody has to cover blind.
• Adjust the schedule: if drop-off makes 9:00 permanently tight, maybe his day officially starts at 9:15 with an adjusted end time, if that’s something you could offer anyone else in his position.

That last condition is your fairness concern doing its job: whatever you agree to should be something Priya could look at and call reasonable. Which of those feels most workable in your team’s reality?

By making the agreement testable and time-bound instead of a vague promise. For example:

The agreement: For the next two weeks, Marcus posts his handoff update in the channel by 8:50 on any day he’ll miss 9:00, and his live slot moves to the end of the meeting. The test: zero handoffs where someone else has to cover him unprepared. The review: you two check in at the end of the two weeks: did it work, did it feel fair, does anything need adjusting?

The review date is the piece most people skip, and it’s what makes this a solution instead of a truce. It also gives Marcus a reason to be honest now: he knows there’s a real checkpoint, not a warning that fades.

Shall I pull everything together into your prep summary?

Your conversation prep summary

The problem (observable): Marcus has been 15-20 minutes late to the 9am handoff four times this month; teammates have covered his updates.

Your side (from Introspection): The anger is real, but the deeper concern is fairness: what unaddressed lateness signals to the teammates who show up on time, and to you as the person responsible for the team working.

Assumptions to hold loosely: That the cause is carelessness. You don’t know yet. The conversation exists to find out.

Opening: “Marcus, I want to talk about the morning handoffs. You’ve been late four times this month, and when that happens someone else has to cover your updates. Before anything else, I want to understand what’s going on for you. Is there something making mornings hard right now?”

Questions to keep in your pocket:

1. “Can you help me understand what’s been making 9 o’clock hard? If something’s changed, I’d rather know.”
2. “Is there something specific you’d change, or does it feel out of your control?”
3. “Is there anything about the schedule itself that isn’t working for you?”

Candidate solution (bring as a proposal, not a verdict): For two weeks: update posted in the channel by 8:50 on any late day, live slot moved to last. Success = zero uncovered handoffs. Review together at the end of two weeks.

Fairness check: Any accommodation should be one you could offer another teammate in the same position.

Good luck, and if you’d like, come back after the conversation and tell me how it went. Solutions get better when they’re reviewed.