A manager sees five incomplete customer handovers and concludes that their Philippines-based assistant is careless. The assistant sees an outdated template, unanswered approval requests and two genuine omissions. Until both accounts are examined, a performance conversation is working with an incomplete picture.
Managing performance across an Australian–Philippine team means making expectations, evidence and support visible. Location should not substitute for an assessment of the individual's work. Nor should a delayed customer outcome automatically become a personal failure.
The following is an original operational framework for coaching and reviewing work. Any formal employment or contractual action needs the process applicable to the actual arrangement.
Confirm the standard and the person responsible for it
Identify who assigns work, who reviews it and who has authority to manage the engagement. Where a service provider employs the assistant, coordinate concerns with the appropriate provider representative. Avoid two managers issuing incompatible instructions or promising consequences they cannot authorise.
Select the specific responsibility being reviewed. “Be more proactive” is difficult to apply. “Flag an unresolved booking conflict to the scheduling lead before offering a customer a time” gives the person an observable action and a decision boundary.
Use the standard communicated when the work was assigned. If the business has changed its expectations, explain and teach the new standard before treating earlier work as a failure against it.
Our guide to designing a VA role around outcomes provides the starting brief. Add actual working hours and named time zones to response expectations, so a late Australian message does not silently create an overnight deadline.
Separate an individual gap from a blocked workflow
Review a defined sample containing satisfactory work as well as the work causing concern. For each disputed item, reconstruct the sequence: information available, instruction used, action taken, reviewer response and resulting correction.
In the hypothetical handover example, suppose five of twelve records were returned. Two used a template that omitted a newly required field; one waited for the manager's approval; two omitted information already available under the current instructions. Calling all five “assistant errors” conceals three different problems.
The next question is whether those two omissions reveal a training gap, misunderstood priority or inconsistent application of a known check. Ask the person to explain the records before deciding.
Choose evidence relevant to the work: the approved template, necessary record fields and dated actions. Avoid collecting unrelated customer material or treating a chat availability indicator as proof of effort. A message sent during a meeting or outside agreed hours may explain little about whether the assigned task was completed properly.
Make the conversation specific and two-way
FWO's underperformance guide recommends advance notice of the concern, relevant examples, an opportunity to respond, practical support and a reasonable improvement period. It also recommends offering a support person and recording the discussion with an opportunity to suggest corrections. These are useful management practices; the guide does not determine which law covers a particular offshore arrangement. Read FWO's best practice guide.
For a remote conversation, arrange a private call within agreed availability and check that everyone can hear clearly. Explain an acronym or unfamiliar customer process instead of interpreting hesitation as unwillingness. Allow time to review a complex example; an immediate verbal answer is not always the best evidence of understanding.
Describe the observation without attaching a personality label: “The confirmation field was blank on these two records.” Ask what happened and which instruction the person followed. If their account changes the facts, correct your notes before discussing improvement.
Put both sides of the improvement plan on the page
Turn the discussion into a short working agreement. The following original example addresses the hypothetical handover problem; it is not a disciplinary template or a prescribed legal process.
| Focus | Assistant's next action | Manager's commitment | Evidence to review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Required fields | Use the current check before submitting each handover | Replace the obsolete template and demonstrate one example | Sample showing the check applied |
| Missing decisions | Mark approval needed and notify the named reviewer | Answer within the agreed coverage window or nominate cover | Request and response history |
| Recurring omissions | Explain the check using a fictional practice case | Coach the uncertain step and answer follow-up questions | Practice result, then comparable live work |
Choose review dates around when the relevant work will actually occur. A calendar deadline has little meaning if the person receives no comparable assignments before it.
Write down which tasks remain within the person's authority and which need review during coaching. A temporary review step should have an owner and a review date; otherwise it can become a permanent bottleneck without anyone deciding that it is still needed.
Review the support as carefully as the result
At the follow-up, compare the same type of task against the same standard. Record what changed, what remains uncertain and which evidence supports each conclusion. Separate improvement from an untested area: no complex cases this week means no evidence about complex cases this week.
Check the manager's commitments too. Was the template corrected before the next assignment? Did the reviewer answer escalations? If coaching was cancelled, arrange it and reconsider the evaluation period instead of presenting the missing support as the assistant's failure.
Keep individual review notes accessible only to people who need them. A team discussion can address the obsolete template without broadcasting someone's performance record. Invite factual corrections and retain them alongside the original record so a disputed observation does not become an unquestioned fact.
Our weekly operations review guide covers wider process issues. Use that forum to fix shared obstacles; reserve personal feedback for the appropriate private conversation.
Decide the next step through the applicable process
When the agreed standard is met, confirm that clearly and explain the ordinary review arrangements going forward. If concerns remain, identify the exact gap and the support already delivered before deciding what further action is appropriate.
FWO cautions against assuming a fixed number of warnings and recommends considering applicable agreements, contracts and policies. Its guidance is not a shortcut to a lawful dismissal decision. FWO: managing performance and warnings.
For an offshore engagement, ask the responsible employer or adviser which obligations and procedures apply before formal action. FWO explains that overseas coverage depends on individual circumstances and that overseas workplace laws may also provide entitlements. FWO: employees working overseas.
Talk to Nexus about managing your offshore workflow with the role brief, examples of accepted work and the support your managers can provide. Those details make expectations teachable and reviews more useful.
