How do task groups react to poor performers? We integrate attribution theory with individual motivation theories in a novel, parsimonious model that makes nuanced predictions. Our model asserts that group members assess the poor performer's intent to help the group (i.e., pro-group intent) by first considering the poor performer's characteristics suggested by attribution theory: effort and ability. While attribution theorists have mainly assumed that low effort reflects lacking desire to contribute to group goals and that it is infeasible to acquire ability, motivation theories assume individuals set their goals to perform tasks and acquire skills based on both desirability (value) and feasibility (expectancy). As group members may well assume that a poor performer uses these criteria when forming a pro-group intent to contribute to group goals, low effort may also reflect the infeasibility of making the required contributions, and low ability may reflect a low desire to acquire new skills. Therefore, our model of pro-group intent predicts that desirability-feasibility assumptions moderate the effort-ability effect on reactions to poor performers and that evaluations of pro-group intent mediate this effect. Indeed, in five experiments (total N = 1,011), low effort only produced more negative reactions than low ability when a desirability attribution was made for effort, and a feasibility attribution was made for ability. In contrast, reversing these assumptions eliminated the effort-ability effect. This interaction was fully mediated by the performer's perceived pro-group intent. We discuss how our (meta-) intentional perspective informs existing accounts of poor performers, group processes, and motivation science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).