The Myth: Feedback Automatically Improves Performance
We’ve been told for decades that feedback is an agent for improved performance. If that were true, annual reviews would produce high-performing teams, generic comments would influence behaviour, and being told you “need to do more communication” would make you communicate better.
None of that has been shown thus far to work in any capacity. Furthermore, organizations don’t appear to be starved for feedback. In most, performance reviews happen annually, managers talk to people one-on-one regularly, there are post-project discussions, and feedback is “offered” in casual conversations. Employees continue to rack up “satisfactory” performances with write-ups, and employees’ careers are littered with commentary in the vein of “needs development in A, B, and C,” yet continue to repeat their same errors and get stuck in the same traps. The issue stems from the inability to give people the kind of feedback they might be receptive to.
This in particular is a really crucial distinction: feedback, on its lonesome, is just information.
Information becomes development in four areas:
Understanding
Acceptance
Retention and Translation to Behaviour
Action
Fail any of these four, and feedback may have been delivered, but it hasn’t been useful. This is where a deeply cherished organizational myth crumbles. So many leaders believe that they have “delivered the feedback” and thus have “done” the change development side themselves; the remainder is up to the employee.
Research clearly shows it does not work that way. In 1996, research conducted by Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi undertook a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies of feedback interventions. While many feedback interventions were helpful, the research found that nearly a third of feedback interventions actually caused people to do worse.
This then begs the question: if feedback was so good for people’s performance, why would it be negative one-third of the time?
Such a realization clarifies why simply giving feedback isn’t the issue; rather, it’s the quality of that feedback across these different areas, as only good feedback develops behaviours.
Why Most Feedback Fails to Improve Performance
Unfortunately, most workplace feedback is not very useful. If you’re in a managerial position, think about what your employees hear every day:
“You need to be more strategic.”
“Improve your communication skills.”
“Take more ownership.”
“That didn’t turn out well.”
On the surface, these are all well-intentioned pieces of feedback. They acknowledge that something needs to change, but they don’t answer the most important question:
What, precisely, do I need to do differently?
Without this question, feedback is mere judgment and becomes an exercise in frustration. Imagine telling a person to “do a better job of taking care of their health.” Should they get more sleep? Exercise? Eat differently? Reduce stress? Drink more water?
The advice is not wrong; it is simply so broad that it is impossible to act on and will just be taken as something given in bad faith.
The same is true of workplace feedback. Telling your employee to “communicate better” leaves them with no direction on what behaviour to modify, when & how it needs to change, and how success will be assessed. Employees typically end such meetings knowing they didn’t meet expectations, but still unclear on what “different” looks like.
Clarity gives people confidence while vagueness makes them hesitate, and hesitation has a cost.
Employees unable to see what “good” is may second-guess their decisions, delay taking action, become silent rather than speak up, or fall back on familiar work patterns rather than try something new. We thus run into this weird scenario where the goal of feedback-to-performance-improvement can actually decrease this ratio.
Timing causes another major problem.
The annual or semi-annual performance review is the norm in many organizations. By the time the manager and employee gather to discuss an employee’s work, the events in question may have transpired months earlier.
Human brains are not wired to learn from events distant in the past; details, along with context, are lost, and emotions often overlay objective observation. Instead of an opportunity for improvement, the performance review turns into a historical document, and changing one’s behaviour yesterday is impossible. The more employees can effectively influence their behaviour tomorrow, the higher the quality of their outcomes will be. That is why organizations around the world are shifting from treating feedback as an event to treating it as a process.
Gallup, for example, asserts that feedback has an expiration date: the closer it comes to the event it is about, the more helpful and actionable it is. Employees who receive frequent meaningful feedback are significantly more engaged than those who receive it only once a year.
Sense & Direction – another common mistake involves turning feedback into a one-way street.
The manager delivers the feedback, the employee receives it, neither party is certain whether they understood each other, and the meeting ends.
As it should be obvious, learning doesn’t tend to work this way. Employees have to ask questions, be sure expectations are clear, reflect on their own point of view, and discuss the desired results; otherwise, assumptions, not clarity, will prevail.
Emotion (or lack thereof).
Nobody likes to feel that they have done something wrong. When feedback intended to encourage development is interpreted as evidence of incompetence, recipients’ defenses go up. People are more likely to work on solutions when they are not afraid of being judged by their manager. Ultimately, the purpose of feedback is to help the person grow, not to prove the manager was right.
Moving beyond evaluation and toward development is the first step in feedback, and, ironically, one factor has proven more valuable than anything else: stop thinking about the past and begin planning for the future.
The Science Behind Feedback That Actually Works
If bad feedback does not lead to performance improvement, the immediate thought is, what does?
As shocking as this may be to some readers, the answer is not, in fact, “more feedback.”
What happens in a lot of instances is that companies, when bad feedback doesn’t produce positive results in the organization, try giving more feedback, more feedback check-ins, reviews, or telling people the managers should provide feedback more regularly.
Although this would naturally spring up from good intention, more feedback won’t do any good as the problem isn’t frequency. Bad feedback is still bad feedback, however much you try and disguise it or apply layers of make-up over it. The crux of the problem lies in how we conduct a feedback conversation.
One of the very fascinating results of the studies being carried out into feedback research is that conversations that deal with past activities may result in managers obtaining just the reverse result. The objective of the discussion about a failed outcome seems to be to identify what exactly the problem was, to address why the results of a certain output did not quite match the standards, and to allocate blame.
So, if it is to make us understand the exact reasons behind a specific issue, it is surely easier to avoid its repetition? Well, most of the time it isn’t so.
Research conducted in 2020 found that conversations that focus solely on addressing the output from the previous stage can cause issues between a manager and employee regarding why it is likely not up to the mark. Quite contrary to creating a shared mindset, it becomes an act of making the employees defenseless towards their conduct and a tendency to self-assess the positive sides and look for external explanations for failure, increasing this discrepancy in their minds, which leads them to accept less and be less likely to adopt the feedback given to them.
If we want to have a better grasp of such findings, we need to ask ourselves: how do performance review meetings start most of the time?Do any of these lines sound familiar?
“Let us discuss this past performance and rectify the shortcomings.”
“Why was this project a failure?”
“Explain to me why you were not up to par with your deliverables.”
“What could you have done differently to achieve better results?”
“Can you explain why your performance did not meet expectations?”
“Let’s go over the areas where you fell short and discuss how to improve.”
Even though these are not bad questions, they place the focus of attention on proving oneself, not on learning in context. Once one starts doing that, they can only move their focus from learning towards showing themselves to others; in proving that they are competent or to explain their actions. After all, that’s the way one’s brain is formed.
The interesting thing, though, from this research is that managers do not need to withdraw this kind of feedback completely, but rather should aim to move their focus to discussions of the subject matter & its progress. What mostly determines whether employees accept and intend to change through a feedback process is a forward-focused discussion.
When an employee feels that a feedback discussion about their performance pertains to the future course rather than past failures, they become more receptive (also, this encourages the employee’s intention to implement the changes). So the subtle alteration could have immense significance.
To better illustrate this, ponder upon the following options:
“Your presentation lacked engagement, and the audience became unenthusiastic.“
Vs
“What steps can we take to enhance the presentation to fully capture the attention of the audience right till the end of the presentation?”
Whereas the previous sentence will attempt evaluation, the other one, in contrast, would be development. One is backward-leaning, whereas the other is forward-facing. The one that is toward a bright future focuses the discussion on the future, not only on issues or deficiencies of the past.
The reason many leaders emphasize the need for managers to become coaches is that coaches develop and coach people. Managers, rather than just criticizing a situation, can ask the following questions: “What is the thing that we learned here?“, “What will we try this time round differently?“, “Is there any assistance or resource required to have an impact this time?“, “How can we make our future attempt a successful one?”
Effective Feedback Is About Behaviour, Not Personality
What’s another key element common to all great feedback?
It addresses observable behaviours, not a person’s inner traits.
That may sound obvious enough that you wonder if we need to say it out loud, but the two often get tangled into one in the real world. Here are a few examples:
“You aren’t a great communicator.”
“You’re disorganized.”
“You don’t take ownership.”
The problem is you’ve now just defined who the person is, what their traits are, which are often deeply ingrained or even impossible to alter in real time. Think about trying to tell someone they “aren’t” good at communication; how would you even begin to prove that statement wrong? How can you work on what such a statement wants from you?
Now let’s think about how such assertions could be changed:
“During today’s client meeting, several key questions weren’t addressed before moving to a decision. Next time, I’d like you to pause and invite additional perspectives before wrapping up.”
“The report was submitted two days after the agreed-upon deadline. Let’s take a look at what might have been standing in your way and figure out what we can do differently for the next project.”
Actual change occurs when we use the right words and the right amount of words, to boot. Using both the right words and the proper amount requires going in-depth and pinpointing particulars. When we do that, you’re going to want to pinpoint things that can actually be changed, because behaviour is observable, measurable, replicable, and above all else, changeable.
Personality isn’t what needs improving – performance is. In other words, great feedback doesn’t make judgments about character or intent; instead, it describes what they did, explains why it mattered, and offers suggestions for what to do next & how to achieve it.
No employee should leave a performance discussion feeling unsure if they can even do their job. They should walk away with a clear understanding of exactly what success looks like the next time around. This is the key difference between criticism and coaching, and the key reason why the most effective feedback possesses characteristics that elevate it far beyond simply being “honest.“
Five Characteristics of Effective Feedback
Hopefully by now you’re noticing one thing fairly plainly: feedback isn’t so much about constructive versus damaging feedback. That is nonetheless a relevant difference and an important one to keep in mind, but feedback, what it should be at its core, means facilitating higher conduct from others.
However, if that is the case, we then have to think about another aspect: what makes one bit of feedback more likely to be seen and acted upon as an alternative, rather than met with quiet resentment and forgetfulness?
Though the precise context in every workplace may differ, researchers agree there are five elements more likely to have success.
1. It’s Timely
Feedback is time-sensitive.
The longer a manager waits to engage on a particular topic, the less valuable that conversation becomes. Details and context are lost, and both parties have to recall facts relying on hazy memory. As a coach, would you wait until the end of the season to give one piece of advice on positioning to one player? As a drama teacher, would you wait until a child’s annual recital to mention a few words of advice for playing correctly?
While these examples seem silly, there is a grain of truth there: we don’t learn that way.
Small adjustments in experience improve performance the most effectively when they occur as experience is unfolding. In light of this, some of the best-performing organizations have increasingly embraced the notion of “ongoing” rather than “formal” feedback practices.
They have shifted from the expectation that feedback primarily occurs in quarterly, bi-annual, and annual reviews to encouraging short check-ins on a daily and weekly basis. A five-minute chat between a team leader and report following an interaction with a client, a project kickoff, or the completion of a key milestone often adds far more value than a lengthy review two months later.
To this, we should mention an added benefit of timely feedback: it has an effect beyond improving recall – it impacts momentum too.
2. It’s Specific
One of the quickest ways to make feedback useless is to keep it too vague. Statements such as “You need to work on your communication” or “Be more proactive” may seem like they convey information but are highly unlikely to provide an employee with the specific behaviour they need to adjust.
Specific feedback defines behaviours that are observable and concrete. Instead of saying,”Your communication could use some work,” you can rephrase it in a manner that actually carries realistic improvement capability:
“In today’s client meeting, you did an excellent job answering their specific questions. However, you moved to a decision without asking for other stakeholders’ input, and a few people left the meeting with unanswered questions. In future meetings, be sure to pause after asking a question and wait for other people’s questions before making a final decision.“
Now the employee has a clear understanding of what the problem was, why it was a problem, what success looks like, and how they can achieve it. The guesswork is all but removed.
3. It’s Actionable
Identifying a problem doesn’t mean solving a problem. If it worked like that, snipers would make the best doctors.
Think about a personal trainer telling a new client, “You should get in better shape.” This is little more than a truism. Good trainers tell us what exercises to do, when to practice, how often, and what to track over a period of time. The same applies at work, where great feedback will answer the question ”What next?”
It should be noted that this kind of change might involve experimenting with how you run meetings, plan a presentation, ask questions during client discussions, or break projects down into smaller stages.
4. It’s Psychologically Safe
The trick to good feedback is the existence of psychological safety – a space in which feedback can exist without its recipients feeling mortified, culpable, or punitively chastised; if people are convinced that errors are equivalent to accusation or punishment, they will inevitably be either cautious or deceptive.
The key is a framework that does not reduce standards, nor obviate the necessity of conflict (conflict IS good when one understands how & why). It is a framework that signals the desire to develop through the feedback exchange, and in determining this climate, managers are critical.
By their very nature, curiosity offers a better way to communicate than accusation; questions teach more than assumptions; and listening matters more than lecturing. Furthermore, feedback is more effective when recipients believe the purpose is to develop, not to disgrace, so the intention is to learn when the feedback is intended to help you succeed, not to catch you out making mistakes.
5. It’s Future-Focused
As we’ve iterated a few times in this article, effective feedback enables forward progress. You may remember how past failures often create more than one story about why they happened. These can turn a conversation into an argument that quickly spins into finger-pointing and defensiveness, rather than learning.
A future-focused discussion shifts the entire goal.
Instead of asking: “Why did you do that?”
Ask: “What will you do differently next time?”
Instead of saying: “That strategy failed clearly.”
Ask: “How can we approach the next project to achieve a different result?“
This is a much softer approach that moves the conversation from “who” to “what,” and avoids rewriting the past, shaping the future instead. It sets people up for future success, not failure.
Replace Performance Reviews With Performance Conversations
There’s no greater example of the distinction between providing feedback and fostering improvement than the annual performance review at work.
For decades, companies have used an annual check-in to review performance, highlight gaps, pinpoint areas for improvement, and plan for the coming year. The logic is straightforward: gather observations for an entire year, get together for one meeting to rule them all, deliver feedback, and performance improves.
It feels like magic & sorcery, almost surreal…because it is!
At the time of the meeting, events may already be months old, and employees likely don’t recall the circumstances surrounding it. Managers may bring up very recent issues and ignore the whole year’s data. Both parties struggle to draw insights out of situations that have already passed and cannot be changed. Far too often, however, employees anticipate these conversations and prepare to endure them, rather than get anything valuable out of them.
Now compare that to organizations that weave feedback into their daily work. Here, instead of a single meeting a year, managers coach employees on an ongoing basis:
They praise positive performance as it is happening
Make corrections to minor habits before they become significant issues
Provide employees with opportunities to reflect and learn from their experiences
Embed feedback as an integral part of how the team gets things done, not an event that interrupts it.
Now, this is not to say that organizations should eliminate performance reviews wholesale. They do serve important purposes as documentation of employee achievement, conversation points for career growth, and discussions to align expectations and support administrative decisions.
The review, however, should not be the key mechanism for employee development. Instead, true growth occurs through the many minor interactions between formal performance evaluations. The most effective managers don’t merely review work – they actively contribute to its shape.
Final Thoughts
Feedback Doesn’t Change People ➔ Better Conversations Do
Giving feedback is just the first step in a long series up the stairs of improvement.
The real performance increase comes from the next steps.
Did you tell someone their feedback while the context was still clear?
Did you focus on specific behaviour rather than personality judgment?
Did you give the other person something specific they could do to improve?
Did you create a psychologically safe space for conversation?
Did you help the person understand what success actually looks like for them next time around?
If the answer to any of these questions is no then your feedback will not translate into any lasting growth, rather just another conversation that’s lost from memory by Friday afternoon. The best leadership practices not only evaluate but build capacity in people to step up and try to deliver on something new.
Realistically speaking, most people don’t act because somebody just told them they should. Most people grow because somebody shows them how they could become better, and then supported them with the confidence required to get there.
There’s one at every workplace. That employee everyone describes as a “natural.”
“They just have it,” “They’re born for this,” “They’ve always been a high performer.”
The John XBox or Jane Hollywood of a company. Somehow, they never falter nor waver. When someone is landing everything perfectly, it’s natural to focus on an inherent quality like talent, intelligence, discipline, a strong work ethic, or an ineffable X factor the rest of us apparently weren’t born with. Just as it’s natural to attribute struggle to a lack of those qualities, such as “They’re just not cut out for the job” or “They don’t have what it takes.”
It sounds like it makes sense. Oftentimes, too much sense, and in this case, that is right on the money, for this is one of the most prevalent myths of performance management.
Talent exists, undeniably, but performance alone seldom comes close to telling the full story. Consider this – have you ever seen an incredibly strong performer jump teams and inexplicably become mediocre? Or someone who struggled under a manager excel under a different one? To go even further, maybe an entire department magically improved after the head of the department changed, yet all of the people in that department were the same?
Those kinds of scenarios simply shouldn’t happen if performance were just an inherent personality trait. Yet they do, and they happen in almost every single company there is.
Why?
Well, because performance doesn’t travel with employees inside their briefcases. It’s a consequence of continuous interplay between an individual and the ecosystem in which they work, and in this, too, too many companies get it wrong.
The Dangerous Habit of Labeling People as “High Performers”
We love our labels. We stick them on people as if they’re goods on a shelf:
High performer.
Low performer.
Top talent.
Underachiever.
They’re very handy mental shortcuts which allow us to compartmentalize humans into well-defined categories. The difficulty is that humans aren’t quite as easy to define as rows on a spreadsheet. To say someone is a high performer is to implicitly attribute performance to their stable characteristics, akin to eye color. However, performance isn’t a static characteristic but a dynamic and conditional one.
A software engineer who is performing wonderfully in a dynamic startup may be flailing in a large, monolithic organization where there are six layers of approval for any change.
A world-class salesperson may be a dismal failure when asked to sell a product they don’t believe in.
A competent project manager can completely underperform in an environment where they are constantly being micromanaged.
A highly creative designer may seem average in an organization that values strict adherence to templates over original thinking.
An experienced leader can look surprisingly ineffective when placed in a team that lacks trust and psychological safety, making honest communication impossible.
Did all of these people suddenly lose their abilities just like that? Were their skills Thanos-snapped?
Absolutely not, but their environments definitely were, and herein lies an extremely expensive error on the part of organizations: they consistently seek to fix underperformance by replacing people rather than fixing the environment people work in. Now, this is not to say that any person can be made to perform well in any job. Certain jobs will require certain interests or native abilities; therefore, hiring the right person still matters. With that said, once a person has been hired well, we are still very much left with the task of setting up the right environment to let them succeed. Now, these aspects are two very different issues.
Talent Matters, But Not in the Way We Usually Think
Perhaps one of the more thought-provoking differences comes from Gallup’s work in talent. According to them, talent is “any relatively natural pattern of thinking, feeling, or behaving.” Skills and knowledge can be developed or trained.
Often, we bundle it all together into one word: “talent”
Someone is great at giving speeches? “They’re talented.”
Someone effortlessly builds strong relationships wherever they go? “People person.”
Yet that doesn’t seem to answer the actual questions that arise regarding talented people:
What % of that is actually talent?
What % is built through years of experience?
What % is deliberate practice?
What % is confidence through success and repetition?
What % is working in the right kind of environment to allow those things to flourish?
When you begin to ask those questions, the cause of high performance is far less simplistic and turns out to be a multi-faceted phenomenon. Talent clearly affects potential, can make some tasks seem easier, speeds learning, allows faster progress compared to peers, etc, but potential isn’t performance. Potential still requires a certain amount of opportunity, environment, instruction, and practice to consistently lead to excellent performance.
Words Shape the Way We Manage People
Here’s an interesting tidbit: a 2023 study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes found that just labeling an attribute as “talent” rather than “skill” caused people to frame that attribute differently. Namely, when managers and HR personnel referred to a trait as talent, it seemed more fixed and less malleable. This made them more skeptical about whether an employee would improve over time and more prone to hire someone else than develop their existing employee.
Let us ponder these findings for a moment: if we believe top performance is largely something that you either have or you don’t, coaching feels futile, does it not? Training feels like an expense rather than an investment. Development feels like a nice-to-have, an optional extra. After all, why work with someone who “just doesn’t have it”?
This is little more than a small tweak to language, but a large tweak with significant effects on the management systems we build, and maybe that’s the problem with the “natural” performer story: not that it recognizes great performance, but that it silently suggests it cannot be built.
Employee Performance Is an Outcome, Not a Personality Trait
Here’s a thought experiment that feels relevant for our subject. Suppose two companies hire exactly the same employee: same background and education, same amount of experience, same personality profile, same motivation to succeed, and same range of abilities and aptitudes. For all intents and purposes, the employees feel the same. Six months later, one company believes he has leadership potential and expects a great deal more. The other company has already put him on a performance improvement plan.
So what has changed? What has led us to this particular conclusion? ➡️ The environment around the employee. ⬅️
This is not a hypothetical scenario either, since organizations experience it every day. Employees move to other companies, and suddenly they flounder, or flourish if the environment is right. A team that was failing under one leader suddenly soars under another. Organizations undergo reorganizations, and productivity simultaneously improves, or gets worse, when it’s pretty much the same set of people doing the same set of jobs. There would be no way to account for such phenomena if performance was wholly inherent in the individual. Once we recognize performance as a resulting variable, however, these phenomena become easily understandable. We are tempted to look for performance within the individual as though it were a stable attribute or personality characteristic. That’s not really how this works, since performance is more like the solution to an equation, while the individual is one element of the equation. An individual’s skills, knowledge, experience, and desire contribute an element that can be measured and can fluctuate or grow or shrink over time. The individual’s “potential” contributes an element, too, but the conditions within the environment contribute other elements.
Removing these external obstacles to performance, you can watch even ordinary people exceed all your expectations. Adding them, you can watch even outstanding individuals fail miserably. This is not to suggest that everyone can perform optimally in any role, nor that organizations are responsible for every failure of an individual’s performance. However, this mindset suggests that looking only at the individual rarely tells the full story. Unfortunately, that’s all many organizations bother with.
The Best Employees Don’t Just Work Hard: They Work in Better Conditions One of the most enduring myths about high-performing businesses is that they’re just full of talented people. Their hiring departments simply don’t miss. Somehow, they manage to fish the best possible recruits out of the entire hiring pool every single time, without fail.
Obviously, hiring is important; in many ways, it’s the most crucial decision a business can make. That’s where the similarities end, though, between all these companies.
Here’s a practical example: think of a Formula 1 racing team.
Even if they have the best driver in the world behind the wheel, that team isn’t winning races with a faulty engine, slow pit stop crew, worn-out tires, and an uncertain strategy. The fastest car alone won’t make an average driver a winner because performance arises from the interaction between the individual and the environment they work in.
Work in any company, SMEs or large corporations, is no different. An exceptional employee with uncertain goals, conflicting objectives, out-of-date processes, and frequent interruptions will not perform at their highest potential.
However, an employee who may not be as extraordinarily skilled could nonetheless excel when clarity of expectations, quick decisions, and mutual trust prevail. This also explains some of the misunderstandings surrounding high-performance teams: at first glance, these groups operate effortlessly; projects move quickly, people naturally collaborate, problems get sorted out before they snowball into full-blown crises. It is understandable, thus, to conclude that these teams are simply packed with more talented individuals than other groups.
In the majority of cases, this is simply not true. Rather, these groups have something else going for them: trust.
Information flows faster, errors are caught earlier, knowledge is shared, conflicts are resolved, and the team progresses quicker not due to rash behaviour, but rather because they spend less time questioning each other’s work.
Talent drives individual contributions, but trust determines the overall performance of those contributions as a team.
The Talent Trap: Why We Love Simple Explanations
Humans are great storytellers and even better simplifiers.
Does someone succeed? OH, they’re talented.
Does someone falter? Oh, they’re lazy.
Such bare-bones reasoning takes the pressure off of having to tackle more complex motives.
Yet simple stories don’t often describe how the workplace operates.
Meet Bill, an individual sales representative whose quarterly sales goals have started to consistently fall short. Now why is that? What is the real reason that Bill went from hero to zero?
Maybe it’s poor performance, but then again, the organization DID implement a new CRM and no one knows how to operate it.
Maybe it’s due to marketing changing their process for qualifying leads.
Maybe it’s a shift in pricing that made their products less competitive.
Maybe their sales territory was reconfigured, and that caused it.
Maybe they have a new manager.
Maybe the demands of their customers have changed.
Maybe it’s everything, everywhere, all at once.
Performance is often the outcome of numerous causes all working on each other simultaneously. Labeling a person as a good or bad employee can hardly ever capture a realistic, useful picture.
Research that Morten Hansen has conducted over several years examined the variables of individual employee performance and led to the same conclusions. He found that an individual’s performance has much more to do with how they perform – their habits, practices, and attitude toward the work – than with any other variable, like demographics, job tenure, or merely working more hours. This suggests performance is neither haphazard nor fixed; instead, performance is the result of countless decisions, many of which an organization is making all the time.
What Great Managers Understand That Others Don’t
One of the largest differentiating factors between average and high-performing managers is not necessarily the way they measure performance, but the way they conceptualize it. When an employee is performing poorly, average managers may jump to, “What’s wrong with this employee?” Great managers are likely to ask something else first: “What’s getting in the way of this employee performing well?”
One assumes that the problem lies in the employee, while the second assumes that there might be something to explore before concluding that. This “something else” could be capability, motivation, fit for the role, training, lack of clear expectations, the leader assigned to them, or any of a multitude of factors. It may be that someone is put in a position in which their talents rarely get a chance to make a difference. High-performing managers know that those other factors aren’t excuses; they are variables.
Ignoring them will never solve them.
In fact, if the purpose of performance management is indeed better performance (rather than simply better documentation), a manager would be wise to learn the impact of all the variables.
Stop Looking for Perfect Employees. Start Building Better Performance.
Organizations grow performance; they don’t just hire it. Talent, experience, and skill are all equally important for different facets of a job or task.
However, they all matter within a larger ecosystem. Brilliant hires can lose motivation just as easily as unexceptional people can rise to exceed all expectations. A great team working cohesively will often eclipse a collection of equally brilliant individual players. This situation has been witnessed time and time again, and proven through decades of research into organizational behaviour, yet somehow, organizations almost always resort to the same diagnosis when perceiving any shortfall in performance: “We need to hire better people.”
On the one hand, sometimes, this is true. There is no denying that on more than one occasion, you simply need a better person for that job. On the other hand, every now and then, the truly right person has been put in the wrong job, and no amount of mentoring or coaching can compensate for fundamental misalignment.
If hiring the “right people” becomes the standard operating procedure for addressing performance gaps, organizations risk skipping over a much more complex (and, truthfully, a much less convenient) question:
“Have we actually created an environment in which talented individuals have the chance to flourish?”
Performance Management Starts Long Before the Performance Review
One of the supreme ironies in the business world is that we approach performance management as a process that starts when an employee receives their annual performance appraisal. By then, the decision has already been made.
Performance management starts when you hire the employee, then continues through onboarding, expectations, communications, coaching, trust, leadership, learning, rewards, and all the microinteractions that never make it to the appraisal form. Simply put, the review doesn’t create performance; it just reports it, and that’s a crucial difference because it transforms performance management from a judgmental process into a growth one, and these are two almost completely different things.
One process asks, “How did you perform?” and the other asks, “What do we need to do to help you perform better?” The second question is almost always the more helpful one, because the primary purpose of any organization is to improve performance. Accountability is an essential part of a healthy ecosystem, but simply performing measurements in relation to it is not enough.
The companies that consistently outperform all others recognize this intuitively. They aren’t focused on identifying that mythical, perfect, Herculean employee; rather, they are focused on systems that can help average employees excel, and excellent employees stay excited.
The Biggest Myth Was Never About Talent
We began our foray into this article’s main topic with a counterintuitive notion:
“High performers are born, not made.“
As a collective, humanity has had the Maybelline “Maybe she’s born with it” mentality since we could pick ourselves up from the ground. There are, of course, natural strengths people bring that help them succeed in certain roles, and it would be a disservice to ignore those as much as it would be to discount the importance of talent altogether. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, talent is but a sliver of a larger system. Performance is an intersection of people and the context in which they perform. It depends on leadership, trust, learning opportunities, quality feedback, role clarity, and systems that clear a path versus those that silently raise obstacles.
It’s no surprise, then, that the term “high performer” is somewhat of a red herring. The label invites us to view performance as an identity instead of an output. As soon as we typecast somebody, we ask questions less about what led to that result and more about whether that person is indeed a high performer.
Was it a great insight?
Great leadership?
Decades of training?
An inspiring colleague?
A set of clear objectives?
All of these combined?
Organizations that continue to pose the question invariably get better; organizations that have stopped get better at chasing talent.
Final Thoughts
If performance isn’t simply a matter of talent, then the obvious question follows: what determines employee performance?
The leaders in our organizations? The company culture? Trust? Motivation? Training? Workload? Autonomy?
In reality, as we’ll discuss in the next installment of this series, many “unknown forces, often self-inflicted by the organizations that employees inhabit,” play an enormous role.
Identifying and understanding those forces is the initial stage for creating the conditions for superior performance, rather than something that occasionally appears for high performers. Once organizations stop asking “who are our highest performers,” they can then turn their attention to a more pressing and important question: “What kind of organization helps average people do excellent work?”
*********
Move beyond labeling employees as high or low performers and learn how to build the conditions for better performance. Explore the systems and practices behind effective employee performance management with Certified Employee Performance Management.
In high-stakes industries like oil and gas, human resources (HR) is more than an administrative function; it’s the engine of operational stability. With over 18 years of corporate experience, Mariham Magdy has built a career navigating the high-pressure demands of this field. As a facilitator for The KPI Institute, she leads the Certified Employee Performance Management Professional, empowering practitioners to bridge the gap between individual output and departmental goals.
A versatile expert, Magdy also delivers the other certifications: Certified KPI Professional, Certified Strategy and Business Planning Professional, Certified Balanced Scorecard Management System Professional, Certified Agile Strategy and Execution Professional, and Certified Strategy and Performance Maturity Assessment Professional. Moreover, she is an award-winning researcher, receiving the Best ROI Article 2018 award from the ROI Institute for her contributions to the field.
In this feature, Magdy shares her approaches to professional development. She explores how leaders thrive in fast-paced environments by treating individual strengths as milestones in a larger narrative. By moving beyond one-size-fits-all briefings, Magdy provides a roadmap for integrating employee well-being into performance discussions to ensure that measurable results never come at the cost of the individual.
Can you describe your current role and how your daily responsibilities relate to HR strategy and performance management? I’m deeply involved in a wide range of HR functions. I’m a strategic HR leader in end-to-end recruitment, ROI-driven talent initiatives, and organization design. By integrating sophisticated selection tools like Competency Based Interview (CBI) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), I align human capital with business objectives. My expertise spans HR governance, total rewards, and leadership development (GLA 360), ensuring operational compliance and a sustainable competitive advantage for global clients.
Have you worked in fast-paced or high-pressure environments? If so, can you describe your experience? If not, how do you think employee growth should be included in performance discussions without losing focus on operational results?
Yes, I do have extensive experience thriving in demanding settings, particularly within the oil and gas industry, which is known for its dynamic and high-pressure nature. I have over 18 years of corporate experience, starting from building HR departments from scratch to managing all HR functions.
My experience spans from handling HR operations in the oil and gas sector, including offshore personnel coordination. This has required me to respond swiftly and effectively to unexpected challenges, ensuring both operational continuity and support for the team. Furthermore, leading strategic management and planning initiatives has allowed me to align HR practices with business needs in rapidly changing environments, while implementing performance systems and KPIs that have ensured organizational goals are met even under pressure.
Moreover, delivering training to various management levels in fast-paced sectors has allowed me to maintain quality and engagement, even when timelines are tight.
With your experience in HR, consulting, and training, how do you see the connection between individual development and organizational goals?
In today’s dynamic business environment, organizations are constantly seeking ways to align their strategic objectives with the evolving needs and aspirations of their workforce.
I see the connection between individual development and organizational goals as a catalyst for sustainable growth and innovation for both the organization and the individual. When people see clear pathways for advancement and understand how their growth aligns with broader company goals, they are more likely to innovate and go the extra mile.
Our role then as organizations and learning and development (L&D) professionals is to integrate personal development plans with organizational KPIs. Thus, leaders can transform their teams into engines of achievement and resilience.
When setting performance expectations, what approaches help clarify goals while reflecting each employee’s strengths?
Imagine a team meeting at the start of a new quarter. Instead of delivering a one-size-fits-all briefing, the manager gathers everyone and begins with a question: “What does success look like for each of you, and how can your unique talents help us get there?”
As each team member shares their perspective, the manager listens intently, making note of individual strengths and weaving them directly into the team’s targets. By breaking down overarching objectives into personalized, strength-based tasks, everyone feels seen and valued. Over time, these goals become more than mere metrics; they transform into milestones in an ongoing story where each person’s specific abilities move the team forward.
I always love to apply Steve Jobs’ philosophy with my team: “We don’t hire smart people to tell them what to do, we hire smart people to tell us what to do.”
How do you identify the competencies that matter most for employees in different functions, such as training, consulting, or corporate HR?
Identifying the right competencies for employees in diverse functions like training, consulting, and corporate HR starts with understanding both the unique demands of each role and the broader goals of the organization.
The key is to combine data-driven methods—such as analyzing top performers and collecting feedback from stakeholders—with an appreciation for the evolving landscape of each function. We also have to review job requirements, stay attuned to industry trends, and invite input from employees themselves to ensure that competency frameworks remain relevant and empowering across all areas.
How do you align employee behaviors with performance criteria while keeping assessments flexible and practical?
Leaders should start by clearly articulating what successful behaviors look like in the context of specific roles and team objectives. These criteria should be transparent and directly linked to the company’s values and goals, ensuring that everyone understands how their work and behaviors contribute to the big picture.
To keep assessments practical, organizations can incorporate regular check-ins, peer feedback, and self-reflection opportunities. This creates a dynamic feedback loop where employees are empowered to adjust their approach and see how their behaviors drive results. Flexibility then comes from recognizing that excellence may manifest differently across individuals and situations. As such, performance criteria should allow room for creativity and personal strength.
Based on your experience, what role do informal feedback and day-to-day interactions play in helping employees reach their performance goals?
Let’s imagine a typical scenario that we witness: a busy office where, between project deadlines and team meetings, small conversations happen in the hallway or over coffee. These everyday moments of feedback, often spontaneous and genuine, create a culture where improvement feels natural and supportive rather than intimidating. When employees know their efforts are recognized in real time, they’re more likely to adjust behaviors, reinforce positive habits, and stay motivated.
Informal feedback acts as a compass, keeping everyone on course toward their performance goals, one conversation at a time.
How do you balance structured evaluation processes with opportunities for personal growth for employees?
Structured evaluations, such as annual reviews, goal setting, and competency frameworks, provide clarity and consistency in measuring performance. However, these formal processes must be complemented by avenues for personal growth that acknowledge each employee’s unique talents and aspirations. This could be by encouraging employees to pursue stretch assignments or by allowing space for mentorship, skill-building workshops, and self-directed projects that foster creativity and initiative.
I believe that managers can use performance check-ins to discuss both progress on specific targets and areas where the employee wishes to grow. This dual focus helps employees feel valued for their achievements and empowered to shape their own professional journeys.
When planning development initiatives, what factors guide your choices about which skills or behaviors to focus on?
I prioritize skills and behaviors that not only address current performance gaps but also anticipate future challenges, such as technological changes or shifting client expectations. Gathering input from employees and managers helps ensure that our focus areas are relevant and impactful. This creates opportunities for growth that are meaningful and aligned with our business objectives.
How do you measure progress in employee development beyond standard metrics?
I look for signs such as increased initiative, adaptability to new challenges, and a willingness to take on stretch assignments. Qualitative feedback from peers and managers, examples of creative problem-solving, and evidence of willingness to mentor others are strong indicators of development.
Additionally, I consider how employees pursue self-directed learning, seek feedback, and contribute to a positive team culture. These factors help paint a fuller picture of professional growth that metrics alone cannot capture.
From your perspective, what trends in performance management are influencing HR practices in Egypt and the wider region today?
In Egypt and the wider region, performance management is increasingly shifting toward continuous feedback and development-focused conversations rather than relying solely on annual reviews. There is also a growing emphasis on leveraging technology platforms to streamline performance tracking and data-driven decision-making, which makes the process more transparent and accessible for both employees and managers.
Additionally, there is a trend toward integrating employee well-being and engagement metrics into performance discussions, reflecting a more holistic approach to talent management. As companies are increasingly recognizing the importance of aligning individual and team objectives with organizational strategy, they are focusing on building a culture of continuous learning and adaptability to remain competitive in a rapidly evolving market.
How do you manage the balance between meeting immediate targets and developing longer-term skills in your teams?
I encourage team members to identify learning opportunities within their current projects, so that skill-building becomes part of daily work rather than a separate activity. I also support both the achievement of business objectives and the cultivation of future capabilities within the team
When employees have high autonomy, what practical steps help maintain accountability and alignment with performance expectations?
When employees have high autonomy, it’s important to establish clear goals and regularly communicate expectations to ensure accountability and alignment. Setting measurable criteria, along with frequent check-ins or progress reviews, helps maintain focus and provides opportunities for feedback.
Additionally, fostering a culture of transparency—where team members openly share updates and challenges—encourages mutual responsibility and ensures everyone remains aligned with performance standards.
From your experience, how should feedback be structured to support learning and measurable performance outcomes?
By including well-being and engagement measures, organizations can promote continuous learning, adaptability, and a culture of shared responsibility. Effective feedback in high-autonomy teams should be clear, timely, and actionable, focusing on specific behaviors and measurable outcomes while fostering open dialogue and a growth-oriented mindset.
What strategies work best for keeping motivation and engagement when teams face heavy workloads or tight deadlines?
When teams encounter heavy workloads or tight deadlines, maintaining motivation and engagement hinges on several key strategies. It begins with the clear communication of priorities, which helps individuals focus on the most critical tasks and reduces overwhelm. To sustain this focus over time, breaking large projects into manageable milestones and celebrating small wins can sustain momentum and reinforce progress.
Additionally, regular check-ins support sustaining the efforts in order to acknowledge effort, offer support, address challenges, and create a supportive environment that values both results and well-being.
Throughout your career, which leadership practices have had the greatest impact on employee performance in demanding work settings?
We can summarize leadership practices that have the greatest impact on employee performance in three simple steps: setting clear expectations, communicating priorities effectively, and fostering an environment of open dialogue.
Additionally, recognizing and celebrating incremental achievements sustains engagement and reinforces progress even during high-pressure periods. Promoting transparency around workload and inviting team input also empowers employees to co-create solutions, building trust and a sense of shared responsibility.
**********
Inspired by Mariham Magdy’s perspective on aligning employee growth with organizational performance?
