Perhaps a customer service associate started making mistakes.
Mayhaps a project that seemed like it was a winner suddenly tanked.
Perchance a government department that consistently hit its KPIs suddenly started missing them.
Possibly a construction site that was on track suddenly started falling behind schedule.
Presumably a real estate project that looked like a sure success suddenly stopped attracting buyers.
What’s the first question that pops into most organizations’ minds at that very instant?
“What’s wrong with the employee?!”
It can be a myriad of matters, ranging from motivation, discipline, lack of care, or just a rough attitude. It’s an easy question to ask. When things aren’t going well, after all, our first inclination is to examine the person at the center of the work. It feels equally easy to answer, too. Unfortunately, it’s often the wrong question to ask. In our last piece, we examined the oldest myth in performance management – the one about great performers simply being born with more talent. While talent plays a role, it’s not the full picture. You can develop skills, acquire knowledge, improve abilities, and gain experience nowadays more than ever before in the history of humanity. So, if performance isn’t just about raw talent, though, what is it about? The answer is a bit more intricate and poses several interesting questions, more than many people like to admit, because often, questions don’t give answers, but open up more of the same. Performance isn’t created in a vacuum. It’s not the sum total of how smart, hard-working, or driven someone is. Performance is moreso the result of dozens of forces (seen and unseen) acting upon a person on a daily basis. This has been repeated thousands of times, but it’s valuable to look at it from different angles.
For example, think about growing a plant. If a plant isn’t growing well, we don’t assume it’s a “bad plant,” with a “bad attitude” or a “lack of drive.” We examine everything that has to do with the plant: the soil, sunlight, water intake, temperature exposure, and whether anything is getting in its way. However, when an employee isn’t performing well, we tend to examine the person first. Sometimes that’s appropriate; that much is true. Other times, more often than not, the environment has already created the conditions for poor performance, and this is the myth that we aim to bust in this article: employee performance isn’t primarily determined by attitude. All of the internal elements matter: attitude, effort, accountability, and resilience. Yet, in addition to all these, we also have external elements: bosses, peers, organizational systems, cultures, and outside influences. Understanding the role these external forces play doesn’t mean absolving employees of their responsibility, but rather explaining their performance in relation to all of them. Once we can explain performance by taking into account every layer that can sway it one way or another, we can finally do something about improving it.
Layer 1: The Individual – Capability Is Only the Starting Point
You can’t talk about employee performance without talking about the employee (duh). Each employee comes into a workplace with a unique set of knowledge, technical skills, experience, personality, motivation, and natural talents that undoubtedly play a role in how well they perform. To ignore that fact would be as foolish as saying talent doesn’t matter at all…which is where something breaks in a lot of organizations, and the collective thought bubble pops. If someone isn’t performing, the quick assumption becomes the person lacks something, and they need MORE of something else: more motivation, more discipline, more commitment, more resilience, more passion, more energy, more footwork, like the workout videos of old. Now the environment has become a weird gymnastics exercise of jumping through mental hoops to reason something that might be true, but may not, into a definitive state of truth. One of the most surprising findings from recent research on workplace wellbeing is how much of an employee’s performance is affected by things that their manager may never see. Research from Humankind found nearly 73% of employees felt personal stress was hurting their ability to focus, engage, be motivated, make good decisions, and perform well at their job. Whether it was finances, poor sleep, childcare duties, health concerns, or emotional burdens, these personal factors were quietly depleting the cognitive bandwidth individuals have to deploy at work. None of these struggles will ever show up on a performance review.
A manager doesn’t see the parent who spent the night up with a sick child.
A manager doesn’t see the employee who’s losing sleep over bills.
A manager doesn’t see the hours spent in transit to a job, taking care of aging parents, managing relationship drama, or coping with illness.
What a manager does see is work that’s slowing down, deadlines being missed, less enthusiasm, and lower productivity. By the time that these performance indicators appear, the underlying causes may have been developing for weeks or months.
This is not to say organizations should be tasked with fixing every one of a person’s personal challenges (that’s neither realistic nor appropriate), but it does mean that we must stop deluding ourselves into thinking that individuals somehow become different human beings the moment they enter our buildings. Employees don’t leave their lives at the door; they merely get better or worse at hiding them. Even if there’s nothing overtly going on in a person’s life, we fall into another trap when discussing performance. We often assume that if someone has enough talent, performance will automatically follow, but that’s not how real, everyday life functions. We’ve covered previously how Gallup has long pushed for the argument that while natural talent is a relatively stable proclivity, knowledge and skills can be acquired over time, rendering talent-only advantages null.
Thus, while hiring individuals with a high natural ability does increase your chances of having a top performer, it’s far from a guarantee. Likewise, a person with only average natural abilities may exceed expectations if they’re placed in the right role, have the right skills, and work within the right environment. The same principle is emphasized by management professor Morten Hansen in his research of thousands of professionals. Hansen discovered that how people work accounted for more of the difference in performance than almost anything else. While talent mattered, it was far from the single largest differentiator. High performers didn’t simply outwork the competition; often, they were outworking their competitors more strategically, since capability only sets potential; it doesn’t guarantee performance. Two people with very similar backgrounds and intellectual capabilities can perform in vastly different ways. If we’re only focusing on the person, those discrepancies can seem baffling, yet in truth they are being influenced by forces that we have yet to examine. This is because, after the person, perhaps the single biggest factor affecting performance is their manager.
Layer 2: The Manager – The Greatest Performance Multiplier or Subtracter
If you ask someone why they love working for their company, they’re likely to mention their team or their opportunity to learn & grow. If you ask someone why they left, you’ll notice that a very consistent answer emerges: “my manager.“
Oh, the age-old truism that people don’t leave companies, they leave managers. It’s not universally true, of course, but there’s a reason this saying endures. Managers are our window onto the company. They are responsible for our expectations, the feedback we receive, our access to opportunities, the obstacles we must overcome, and the emotional temperature of the place we work each day.
Two employees can be in the same company, earn the same salary, work with the same policies, have the same benefits, and yet have drastically different experiences because they have different managers.
Psychologist Amy Edmondson has devoted decades of research to identifying a critical ingredient of high-performing teams: psychological safety. In a nutshell, it’s the belief that people can be their genuine selves at work without fear of embarrassment or punishment, can take risks without fear of repercussion, and can challenge one another without damaging personal relationships.
Notice what psychological safety is not: it’s not a lowering of standards. It’s not about avoiding accountability. It’s not about making people comfortable all of the time. Instead, it is about enabling them to contribute without fear of appearing incompetent, even if it feels inherently risky. This is a crucial distinction, because fear changes our behaviour. When we’re afraid of appearing incompetent, we stop asking questions. When we’re afraid of being criticized, we stop pitching new ideas. Eventually, our performance begins to dip because fear has begun to eclipse curiosity.
In fact, a well-known Google study called Project Aristotle, which investigated the reason behind their consistently high-performing teams, came to a strikingly similar conclusion. After scrutinizing hundreds of teams, Google’s researchers found that the most important factor in success, more so than any other, was the degree to which teams were psychologically safe. The other factors (dependability, role clarity, meaning, and impact) were all secondary, built on the foundation of safety.
We invest considerable money and effort trying to find and hire exceptional individuals. Yet, very few of us invest the same resources in creating conditions that allow those individuals to actually achieve their exceptional potential. Moreover, psychological safety is just one factor. There are many others, such as recognition, constructive feedback, trust, autonomy, and role clarity, just to name a few.
Employees who have to second-guess priorities, wait days for simple approvals, or are terrified of making small errors spend the bulk of their mental energy protecting themselves rather than doing meaningful work. Good managers work hard to minimize that friction, while bad managers create it.
In short, the management of performance doesn’t just happen in annual performance reviews. It’s influenced every day by the culmination of dozens of seemingly small interactions between a manager and their reports. Eventually, those interactions ripple out beyond individual relationships and shape the team itself.
Layer 3: The Team – Why Great Individuals Can Still Become Average Teams
Consider five of the most exceptionally gifted individuals and gather them together in one room. Common sense would suggest this would inevitably result in an exceptional team. In reality, things get complicated.
We’ve all experienced teams that, while absolutely flush with talented, experienced professionals, somehow stumble from one deadline to the next. Their meetings become an exercise in repetition and good ideas fester in the far corners of their minds, never shared, never discussed. Elsewhere, teams comprised of average employees somehow manage to turn out exceptional results like high-speed conveyor belts.
When the environment that a tight-knit group builds together starts to shape their work experience, performance starts shifting from individual to collective. By the very nature of work in an organization, no team can avoid this, and every one nurtures its culture, willingly or unconsciously. Over time, everyone learns what gets rewarded, what gets ignored, and what gets punished. Most of these lessons don’t make their way into employee handbooks, but they often exert a far stronger influence on behaviour than any formal policies.
Every team has rules, but what’s more interesting is how many were never written down.
Maybe it quickly becomes apparent that it’s not worth disagreeing with the boss.
Perhaps people learn that asking for help is interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Possibly they notice the loudest voice in the room always wins the discussion, regardless of the actual quality of the ideas presented.
Mayhaps people learn that taking risks is celebrated only when they succeed, but punished harshly when they fail.
Perchance it becomes obvious that keeping your head down and avoiding difficult conversations is the safest way to get ahead.
None of this has to be codified in an internal policy. People simply observe it, adapt to it, and then, over time, pass it along to new team members. This is why culture can spread like wildfire. Almost nobody changes because someone announced new values at an all-hands meeting, but everyone changes when they watch how behaviour is rewarded or punished.
Psychologists call this social proof.
People look to those around them to signal how to behave, particularly in times of uncertainty. In workplace settings, that means employees often adopt the norms of their colleagues long before they consider their company’s stated policies.
If everyone in a team talks freely in meetings, then new team members are usually inclined to speak freely as well. If everyone in a team falls silent when something goes wrong, new team members learn that silence is golden.
Another invisible force comes in what researchers call emotional contagion.
Emotions spread, and that affects team performance. If you’ve ever worked in a team environment, you’ve undoubtedly seen it. A perpetually pessimistic person can single-handedly drain the energy of an entire department. Conversely, an optimistically positive and solution-oriented teammate can boost everyone’s motivation during challenging times.
Managers certainly affect the emotional climate of their teams, but the teammates amplify it day by day. A culture of trust or fear becomes a self-reinforcing loop. This leads into another point taken from Project Aristotle.
Google’s Project Aristotle identified dependability right after psychological safety in their findings.
Trusting your teammates goes beyond their ability to emotionally support you; it involves relying on their execution. Few things sink a team’s performance faster than unpredictability. When employees are unsure about whether their teammates will come through on their assignments, they start to contingency plan or hoard information just in case. Self-protection, rather than collaboration, becomes the default.
The reverse is also true: when employees are confident their teammates will come through, coordination is smoother, and meetings are more efficient as trust replaces excessive oversight.
This is perhaps the least understood ingredient in the recipe for high-performance teams: they don’t eliminate conflict – they eliminate unhealthy conflict.
High-performing teams do disagree. They do question assumptions, debate ideas, ask uncomfortable questions, and clash in their value systems. However, they do so in a way where disagreement isn’t a personal affront. Disagreement becomes a function of the problem-solving process.
That’s what psychologist Amy Edmondson found over and over again in her studies as well: teams that had a high level of psychological safety didn’t necessarily commit fewer errors than others; they actually reported more errors because they were way more willing to admit they had made a mistake. The result wasn’t decreased performance; it was faster learning.
Ironically, cultures that punish mistakes foster conditions where mistakes grow costly and become harder to fix. Hidden problems are invariably more dangerous than problems in plain sight.
As you might have noticed, by this point, a pattern is emerging.
So, what does all of this lead to?
Individuals matter. ✔️ Managers matter. ✔️ Teams matter. ✔️
Yet there is something bigger. They all exist within something larger – the organization.
Layer 4: The Organization – The Structures Behind the Results
Companies love to measure outcomes: sales, revenue, productivity, customer satisfaction, profit margins. What companies don’t really love to measure is the systems that drive those outcomes.
Systems
This is an issue because employees don’t operate in isolated moments; they operate within systems, and those are the quiet forces that make succeeding easy or painfully hard.
Think about how many performance issues are actually system issues hiding in plain sight:
An employee misses deadlines.
Is it poor time management?
Or was that employee’s priorities changed three times in a single week?
A project is dragging.
Is the team unmotivated?
Or does every single decision need to go through a four-department approval process?
Innovation has disappeared.
Are your people less creative?
Or have they learned that challenging the status quo is more risky than rewarding?
It’s all too easy to chalk performance problems up to individual accountability because individual behaviour is visible. Systems are much harder to see, but they often exert much more influence.
Management pioneer W. Edwards Deming famously asserted that 95% of organizational problems are systemic in origin. Accountability matters, yes, but he insisted that people cannot perform better than the systems they are asked to work within.
Just think about your local governmental bureaucracy.
It functions chiefly by rulesets. We need rules. Rules are good – they provide consistency, mitigate risk, offer direct A-to-B avenues for solutions, and enable scalability.
However, we reach a tipping point for every added approval, every unnecessary report, every meeting, every administrative layer, every conflicting process. When rules outweigh the necessity for which they exist, they begin creating friction. They shift focus away from delivering value and toward navigating the organization itself. Eventually, the process itself becomes the focus, not the work.
Role Clarity
Very few things sap performance faster than confusion around what’s expected.
Who’s making this decision?
What does successful work look like here?
Which of the two conflicting priorities should I tackle first?
When expectations are unclear, even talented employees will pause before acting for they fear doing the wrong thing. Studies have shown that clear roles correlate strongly with employee engagement, confidence, and overall performance. Role clarity frees employees to focus energy on solving problems instead of figuring out the answers.
Politics & Culture
Life is a series of politics at play, and organizations are part of daily life.
With that in mind, however, issues arise when politically motivated behaviour are more rewarded than productive behaviour.
If a promotion system reliably favors visibility over contribution
If challenging colleagues’ ideas is riskier than agreeing
If employees are incentivized to compete with one another instead of solving problems collaboratively
If protecting your own department is rewarded more than helping the organization as a whole
The organization trains people that success is a result of politics, not formal policy.
This leads to a distortion of culture.
Culture, much like politics and behaviour, is learned. Despite an army of mission statements, posters, core value initiatives, and well-wishing sticky notes, organizational culture isn’t created by what organizations say they are, but what they do.
Culture is built on what organizations repeatedly tolerate, reward, punish, or ignore. That’s why two companies can claim the exact same values, but have wildly different experiences for their employees. Organizational culture isn’t the motto on the wall; it’s what happens when no one’s watching. These hidden structures influence performance daily, often without managers’ awareness, since they are felt & lived, rather than examined in a performance sheet.
Yet, even organizations with excellent managers, healthy cultures, and efficient systems have one final, insurmountable challenge: people are, at heart, human beings who exist long after clocking out.
Layer 5: The World Outside Work – The Part Performance Reviews Never Measure
There is one last layer to performance, which organizations know conceptually, but often fail to account for realistically: life. It almost seems self-evident, yet, a pervasive, almost subconscious bias exists in the workplace that assumes employees somehow leave their personal lives at the door.
They didn’t – your employees didn’t stop being parents the moment they logged onto Microsoft Teams. They didn’t stop worrying about a sick loved one just because it was Monday morning. Financial worries don’t cease at 9 AM. Anxiety, grief, burnout, sleep deprivation, relationship troubles, and the many other stresses of being human don’t simply fade away as business hours commence.
The point is that people don’t perform in a vacuum; they perform as people. Recent research from places like the Harvard Business Review underscores the impact of external stresses. Studies have demonstrated a direct link between personal stress and difficulties with focus, decision-making, motivation, and engagement.
By the time an employee’s performance visibly dips, mental energy needed for problem-solving, collaboration, and creative thinking may have already been diverted to managing these personal issues for weeks or months. Of course, this doesn’t mean employers need to become therapists or feel personally responsible for their employees’ personal problems. Boundaries are important, and so is recognizing that between 9 and 5, we don’t automatically morph into machines.
Organizations that understand this do a better job of not trying to manage people’s lives, and a much better job of not creating undue stress in the workplace.
Flexible work schedules.
Employee assistance programs.
Access to mental health resources.
Realistic workloads.
Predictable schedules.
Empathetic managers.
These aren’t magic cures or arcane sorceries. They simply remove a potential unnecessary source of pressure at work, and they are incredibly important for one specific reason: performance isn’t a flat line.
No one, not even the highest performer, is running at peak capacity every moment of every day for every year. People have seasons, and there are periods where they have tremendous energy, creativity, and focus. Then there are periods where life’s demands briefly require a greater portion of their attention.
High-performing organizations recognize the difference between a temporary dip in performance and a systemic problem. They don’t treat every deviation as a failure; they ask a much more helpful question: “What has changed?”
Sometimes the change is skills or motivation. Other times, it’s work overload. Lastly, on other occasions, it’s just life, and because each of these changes requires a different solution, differentiating is critical.
Treat every issue as an attitude problem, and you won’t fix very many things. Treat every issue as a systems problem, and you’ll neglect individual responsibility. Effective performance management sits somewhere in between. It acknowledges accountability for an employee’s work, while simultaneously recognizing that no work exists in a void because when you zoom out, you see that every layer impacts the other.
A talented employee will be limited by poor management.
A brilliant manager will be hampered by a dysfunctional system.
A great system will see reduced productivity when the people within it are struggling with overwhelming personal challenges.
No one element creates performance alone, rather it’s the interplay of an entire ecosystem that creates it.
Final Thoughts
Organizations have sought the silver bullet for performance for decades: hire better people, pay more, set big goals, measure everything, and reward the top performers.
All of those things count, but they’re only one part of the picture. Performance isn’t a function of talent alone, nor is it just a product of attitude or effort. Performance emerges from the interaction between an individual and their environment.
The individual
The manager
The team
The organization
The outside world
Every one of these levels either builds on an individual’s potential or subtly works to undermine it. This is why explaining poor performance simply as employee error is so incomplete. If a garden doesn’t grow, we don’t just blame the seeds. We look at the soil, the light, the water, the environment.
Organizations should be willing to ask the same questions not because employees shouldn’t be held accountable (they most certainly should be) but because blame without understanding never results in sustained change. The most effective leaders don’t ask, “Who caused this?” They ask, “What conditions created this result?”
Changing your perspective from who did it to what created it changes everything. It shifts performance management from blame to removal of obstacles and turns the manager from an evaluator to a coach. Moreover, it prompts organizations to build systems for employee success instead of relying on individual grit to overcome the odds, and most important of all, it reminds us that performance isn’t usually an individual effort but a collective one at that.
*********
Performance problems rarely have a single cause. Learn to examine the people, managers, teams, and systems behind the results. Build a more complete approach to performance management with Certified Employee Performance Management.
Employee Performance Management (EPM) is the structured, ongoing process of setting expectations, tracking results, and developing people so that individual effort connects to organizational goals. It is not the annual review form. The review is one meeting inside a much longer cycle that runs from goal-setting through coaching, measurement, evaluation, and reward.
This guide covers:
What Employee Performance Management is, and how it differs from a performance appraisal
How EPM operates across organizational, departmental, individual, and personal levels
Why organizations invest in EPM, and what happens when they don’t
The EPM architecture: the building blocks that connect strategy to a single employee’s daily work
How to run an effective appraisal meeting, including feedback techniques
How EPM connects to talent management, career planning, and succession
Common mistakes organizations make when implementing EPM
What Is Employee Performance Management?
Employee Performance Management is a structured process of planning, measuring, and improving how an individual employee contributes to organizational results. It typically involves setting objectives and KPIs, tracking progress, evaluating results against standards, giving feedback, and using what’s learned to guide development, pay, and career decisions.
Ask a room of employees what “performance” means to them and the answers tend to split down the middle. Some see it as a way to earn a bonus or a promotion. Others describe it as a bureaucratic, time-consuming exercise. In between sit people who say it clarifies their objectives, motivates better work, or builds their competencies. All of these reactions are valid, and they usually reflect how well — or how badly — an organization has built its EPM system. A well-designed system produces the motivating, clarifying version. A poorly designed one produces the bureaucratic, box-ticking version.
That gap is the entire reason EPM exists as a discipline: the same underlying idea — measuring and improving people’s work — can land as either a genuine driver of performance or a resented compliance exercise, depending entirely on how it’s structured.
Performance Management Operates at Multiple Levels
Performance management isn’t a single activity; it operates at different altitudes, each with its own focus and its own tools.
Strategic (organizational) level. Deals with the achievement of overall organizational objectives. This is where mission, vision, values, and 3-to-5-year goals get set, and it’s sometimes called corporate, business, or enterprise performance management.
Operational (departmental) level. Puts the accent on achieving departmental objectives inside the organization, translating strategy into functional plans. Dashboards are the tool of choice here.
Individual level. An integrated system meant to improve the performance of each employee, with responsibilities aligned toward the achievement of shared goals. This is the level most people mean when they say “performance management.”
Personal level. Full self-management across life areas — a structured approach an individual applies to their own balance and development, separate from any organizational system.
A useful test: an executive board meeting to review strategy is strategic; monitoring overtime or deploying work activities toward individual objectives is individual; department restructuring based on established goals is operational; tracking your own steps per day is personal. Confusing these levels — running individual-level conversations with strategic-level tools, for example — is one of the fastest ways to make an EPM system feel disconnected from real work.
Why Employee Performance Management Matters
EPM earns its place in an organization when it changes behavior, not just when it produces a score. Done well, it:
Improves quality of work by defining clear expectations for each role
Brings better understanding of work processes, so employees know not just what to do but why
Aligns the efforts of each employee to corporate strategy, closing the gap between the boardroom and the desk
Reduces subjectivity in decision-making around pay, promotion, and development
Assures continuous learning and improvement of individual performance over time
That last point matters more than it looks. The same measurement activity can serve very different purposes: measurement for improvement and measurement for understanding your role build trust; measurement mania, measurement for control, and measurement for sanctioning erode it. Two organizations can run an identical KPI dashboard and get opposite results, depending on which of these purposes the dashboard actually serves.
The shift in communication style tracks the same divide. Annual evaluations built on one-way, unilateral, manager-to-employee communication tend to feel punitive. On-going performance discussions built on two-way, bilateral dialogue and feedback tend to feel developmental — even when they’re measuring the exact same KPIs.
The EPM Architecture
Employee Performance Management doesn’t function as one form or one meeting; it’s a set of connected building blocks that carry strategy down to an individual’s daily work and back up again as evidence.
At the top, the Strategic Plan at organizational level and the Operational Plan at functional level feed a Competencies Framework and a Behaviors Framework, both anchored in a formal Performance Management Policy.
Those frameworks, together with the job description, are used for establishing performance criteria — the objectives, KPIs, competencies, and behaviors an individual will be measured against — which in turn shape that person’s career plan.
Through the year, performance is tracked via an individual performance (IP) scorecard, a daily log, competencies and behaviors observations, and informal feedback — the raw material for the formal IP evaluation.
That evaluation feeds a development plan (linked to a training policy and training plan) and a set of reward-and-recognition decisions: a rewards policy, a pay-for-performance plan, succession management, and employee engagement.
Four levels sit underneath this architecture:
When this architecture is built correctly, a single employee’s daily task log can be traced all the way up to a strategic objective — and a strategic objective can be traced back down to the specific behaviors expected of the person doing the work.
The Employee Performance Management Cycle
At its core, the EPM cycle runs through five stages: planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding.
Performance setting meeting. The manager and employee set performance objectives, set development goals, and agree on the resources the employee will need. This is where standards get communicated and both assessor and assessed are prepared for what’s coming.
On-going performance evaluation. Through the year, actual performance is measured against the standards set. This isn’t a single event — it’s continuous monitoring, informal feedback, and course-correction.
Mid-year review. Results to date are discussed, formal feedback is given, and improvement opportunities are planned. Both manager and employee prepare for this meeting in advance. Its results do not influence the year-end evaluation — it exists purely to course-correct.
End-of-year appraisal. Past performance is discussed, potential is identified, and career path and development aspects are addressed.
Reward. When standards are reached, the cycle closes with recognition — tied to a rewards policy and, often, a pay-for-performance plan. When standards aren’t reached, the cycle instead produces improvement measures and feeds back into planning for the next cycle.
Underneath every step, four roles carry distinct responsibilities:
The manager discusses objectives, KPIs, and standards with the employee; aligns responsibilities; provides resources; evaluates performance and gives feedback; conducts appraisal meetings; and fills in scorecards.
The employee contributes to setting their own objectives and the methods to reach them, prepares self-evaluations, and contributes to setting their own development measures.
Senior management establishes business strategy, validates appraisal results, manages disagreements between employee and manager, and validates the decisions that come out of appraisals.
HR coordinates the administrative process and provides support and counsel to both sides.
Measuring and Rating Performance
Most EPM systems combine three inputs into a single performance score: results (KPIs), competencies, and behaviors. Two common ways to combine them:
Weighted average: KPI score × x% + Competencies score × y% + Behaviors score × z%, where x + y + z = 100% — for example, weighting results at 70%, competencies at 20%, and behaviors at 10%
Results themselves are usually scored against a target band — results meeting target (typically above roughly 95% of target), results in a tolerance interval (roughly 90–95%), and results far from target (below roughly 90%). Overall performance is then translated into a rating scale, commonly a five-point scale running from Unsatisfactory through Needs Improvement, Meets Expectations, and Exceeds Expectations, up to Exceptional. Competencies and behaviors are frequently rated on a similar five-point frequency scale (Never through Always).
These scores are also the raw material for talent-review tools like the 9-box grid, which plots current performance against future potential to guide succession and development conversations.
Running the Appraisal Meeting
The appraisal meeting is the most visible part of EPM, and also the part most likely to go wrong if it isn’t structured. A well-run meeting typically follows this shape:
Opening: create a positive climate, review the meeting’s objectives, and agree on its structure
Performance analysis: go topic by topic through results and appreciation, discuss causes and consequences, and only move to the next topic once agreement is reached — without negotiating the facts
Improvement initiatives: set concrete steps by mutual agreement, support the employee in achieving future performance, and put the agreement in writing
Useful questions to structure that discussion include how the employee reached their targets, what factors helped or hurt the results, how they assess their own performance, which competencies they used most (and least), and what they’d suggest to remove obstacles going forward.
Feedback quality inside that meeting matters as much as the structure. The research is blunt about the stakes: companies with regular employee feedback see meaningfully lower turnover, and highly engaged employees report getting feedback far more often than disengaged ones — while employees who are ignored by their manager are roughly twice as likely to disengage. Most employees say they want more feedback than they’re getting; most managers believe they’re already giving enough.
Good feedback, whether reinforcing or redirecting a behavior, tends to follow the same shape: describe the specific behavior, explain its impact, listen to the recipient’s reaction, and land on a concrete plan for what happens next. Vague praise (“you’re doing a great job, keep it up”) and personal criticism (“don’t you know anything about this?”) both fail for the same reason — neither one tells the employee which specific behavior to repeat or change.
EPM and Talent Management
Performance data doesn’t stop at the appraisal. It feeds directly into talent management: career planning, coaching and mentoring, internal talent mobility, succession management, and leadership development. An employee’s demonstrated competencies and results are the evidence base for their career plan and for whether they’re a candidate for succession into a more senior role. Succession management, in turn, protects the organization against the risk of losing critical knowledge and capability when someone leaves — building a pipeline rather than scrambling to fill a vacancy after the fact.
Common EPM Mistakes
A handful of failure patterns show up repeatedly:
Treating it as an annual event. A system built around a once-a-year form, with no on-going monitoring or mid-year check-in, turns into a post-mortem rather than a tool for real-time course correction.
One-way communication. Performance management delivered top-down, without dialogue, feels imposed rather than owned — and employees disengage from targets they had no hand in setting.
Measurement without purpose. When KPIs are tracked for control or sanction rather than improvement, the system breeds defensiveness instead of better performance.
Vague feedback. Praise or criticism that doesn’t name a specific behavior gives the employee nothing to repeat or change.
Disconnected levels. When individual objectives aren’t visibly linked to departmental and strategic goals, employees can’t see why their work matters — and the architecture that’s supposed to connect strategy to daily work breaks down.
No follow-through. An evaluation that doesn’t feed a development plan, a reward decision, or a career conversation is data collected for no purpose.
Most of these trace back to the same root problem: a system designed around administering a form, rather than around the ongoing manager–employee dialogue the form is supposed to support.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between performance management and a performance appraisal? The appraisal is a single meeting — usually the end-of-year evaluation. Performance management is the full cycle around it: planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding.
How often should performance be reviewed? Most modern EPM systems combine a formal planning meeting and a formal year-end appraisal with an interim mid-year review and continuous informal feedback in between — rather than relying on one annual conversation.
What’s the difference between a competency and a behavior in this context? Competencies are the skills and capabilities an employee brings to a role. Behaviors are how they’re expected to act day to day in pursuit of their targets, usually defined in an organization-wide behaviors framework that applies to all personnel.
Who owns the performance management process? Senior management sets strategy and validates outcomes, HR coordinates the administrative process and offers support, and the manager and employee jointly own the day-to-day objective-setting, tracking, and feedback.
How does EPM connect to pay? Through a pay-for-performance plan that’s explicitly linked to the individual performance evaluation — one of several outputs, alongside development plans, training plans, and succession decisions, that come out of a properly closed EPM cycle.
*********
Editor’s Note: This guide draws on the Certified Employee Performance Management Professional course curriculum (The KPI Institute, 2022) and the HR Performance Management System Toolkit (The KPI Institute, 2021).
Most organizations love the idea that strategy happens at the top: executives develop it, and employees on the ground execute it. Things somewhere in the middle just work. We wave our hands, and like magic, processes fall into place.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Somewhere in the middle is exactly where most strategies succeed or fail.
Across all industries and studies, one pattern rears its head again and again: well-designed strategy rarely translates into actual output. It isn’t so much that the vision is wrong, per se; it is simply a matter of losing it along the way, of it being diluted or misunderstood.
That gap between intent and output lies where middle managers work. Enabling or neglecting them often dictates whether change will take hold or fade under its own weight.
In this article, we delve into this critical role by drawing on diverse views on change management, strategy execution, and leadership behaviours. Each section looks at this issue from a different angle; all reflect the same truth: middle managers aren’t merely intermediaries-they are the mechanism by which strategy takes shape in organizations.
The Strategic Translation Layer: How Middle Managers Turn Vision into Action
While an organization’s strategy defines what it wishes to achieve, it is middle managers who help transform that vision into something understandable and executable.
They occupy a unique position in organizations: positioned above are executives focused on strategy and priority-setting; below them, employees face the challenges of day-to-day operations. It is this dual orientation that grants them the detail executives often lack: context.
They are attuned to what leadership wants and what employees can realistically achieve.
Their ability to both translate strategy into executable plans and adjust plans to the realities of the work lies in their interpretation and adaptation of information from above and below. It is quite akin to alchemical transformation.
Studies and research consistently cite the translation role as critical. Employees’ understanding and belief in strategy correlates with performance gains, whether measured by revenue, engagement, job satisfaction, or customer experience. However, almost every time, without fail, understanding tends to stem not from the top but from above.
The irony is that strategy often never reaches the middle clearly. Managers often say they are not entirely confident in communicating strategy because they don’t fully understand it themselves. This deficit can ripple outward; the entire organization becomes unclear when the middle is unclear.
In sum, strategy fails not at the design stage, but at the translation stage, and this translation layer usually resides with middle managers.
From Resistance to Alignment: How Change Spreads Organically Inside Organizations
Despite having a strategy at the top, people will rarely fall in line spontaneously. Change within organizations is not a rational, top-down endeavor; rather, it is inherently social and emotional.
Initially, there is likely a division among middle managers. Some champion the new strategy, others defend established procedures. Each response is a common feature of this stage. However, with time, a subtle change occurs.
Initially reluctant middle managers may come to realize that even deeply cherished practices and systems will not persist in their current form without adaptation; innovation may actually be the means of preservation. As this occurs at the individual level, influence begins to be driven by credibility rather than by authority alone.
When a well-respected middle manager adopts a new perspective, it serves as an influential model, drawing followers and shaping the organization’s discourse around the strategy. The transformation begins to gain organic momentum, spreading not through directives, but through personal relationships and evolving consensus.
Eventually, the organization may realize that innovation and tradition are not necessarily antithetical and that alignment can provide the foundation for bridging them.
Organizational change is an emergent phenomenon rather than an announced decision. It evolves in the middle layers of leadership. As a result, organizational change rarely occurs rapidly; however, it is usually the long, slow process within middle management that results in the enduring transformation of an organization’s overall culture.
Why Strategy Fails: The Under-Discussed Problem of Alignment
Executives tend to view strategy execution as a technical problem – a matter of disciplined execution. In reality, it is almost always an alignment issue.
A) Vast studies have consistently shown that many of a strategy’s failed initiatives were not based on flawed ideas but on an inability to ensure consistent implementation. The literature frequently reports strategy implementation failure rates ranging from 50% to 90%, although these estimates are debated and vary across pieces of research.
This metric doesn’t reflect intellect or diligence; it reflects a breakdown in alignment and clarity.
Often, leaders see the strategy as transparent, while employees, and particularly middle managers, experience it as ambiguous or fragmented. This disconnect, a wide chasm between top-level confidence and the reality below, renders the strategy powerless. Instead of directing action, it becomes abstract material in presentation slides.
B) Another factor leading to failure is prioritization: where strategy is unclear, every initiative appears vital. Where all initiatives are vital, no single effort receives the attention it deserves.
It is middle managers who, day in and day out, must navigate this contradiction; they are the individuals making real-time choices about where effort and resources will be directed. They don’t merely execute strategy, but adapt and interpret it.
Indeed, alignment matters far more than planning. No strategy, however ingenious, can survive long-term failure to align the organization. Strategy fails not because of popular opposition, but because of differential experience with it across different parts of an organization.
The Reality of the Middle Manager’s Role: Pressure, Ambiguity, and Overload
It’s a lot more comfortable to use words like “bridge” to describe middle managers than to be comfortable with what this feels like.
Middle managers operate in two directions at once:
They are recipients of directives on strategy, mandates for transformation, and performance targets.
They are also simultaneously dealing with team members’ issues, capacity constraints, execution realities, and their own team’s morale.
That combination creates a structural tension that is difficult to resolve.
A primary factor in this challenge is role ambiguity. How much autonomy middle managers actually possess often becomes unclear.
Are they strictly implementation-focused, or is the implementation adaptable to the reality of the work? How accountable should middle managers be for things beyond their direct control?
Lack of clarity about how much discretion they have inevitably leads to overload. Without clear boundaries, it becomes impossible for middle managers to distinguish between urgent and important, leading to more reactive rather than strategic prioritization of activities.
The capability gap is another widely overlooked issue. Moving from operational leader to translator of strategy requires a fundamentally different skill set. This mental shift is rarely formally part of a middle manager’s promotion and development plan. Middle managers are frequently promoted based on their ability to execute and are expected to become capable strategic communicators and leaders of change immediately.
The result is the expected: stress, fatigue, strain, burnout, and disengagement.
It does not just affect individual middle managers. Lower productivity, scattered priorities, increased staff turnover, and a weaker alignment between middle management and the overall strategy are all byproducts of middle manager overload within an organization.
In other words, the pressure on the middle layer is a systemic challenge, not just for individual managers.
Making Strategy Work: Enabling Middle Managers
Given the importance of the middle manager layer, the question arises: why do organizations underinvest in it?
In most cases, the answer is a combination of inertia and an overemphasis on strategy design, with a laissez-faire approach to execution, assuming it will happen automatically.
However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The most effective method to improve strategy execution isn’t more strategy – it’s stronger enablement for those who translate it into reality.
1) The first crucial step is clarity of role and expectations.
Managers need to understand precisely what will be asked of them, which decisions they own, which must be escalated, and what successful execution looks like in practical terms.
Uncertainty and ambiguity lead to either constant over-escalation or boundary overstepping.
2) Second, capabilities must be developed.
Strategic execution requires much more than the ability to complete tasks. It relies on strong coaching and change management skills, so investment in development in these areas cannot remain just a nice-to-have option if consistent execution is the objective. It is mandatory, if one cares for the success of their business, that is.
3) Third, leadership alignment is critical.
If, on the one hand, middle managers are viewed as merely messengers, they cannot provide valuable feedback to those who designed the strategy, and their engagement in the process will be low.
If, on the other hand, they are valued for the insights they can provide on the ground, they will provide valuable input to the strategic planning process.
4) Fourth, the organization needs feedback loops that work in both directions.
Managers need to effectively communicate execution challenges upwards, while leadership needs to clearly articulate the strategic rationale downwards.
Without an effective two-way feedback structure, a series of distortions emerges, leading each successive level to hear a modified version of the intended strategy.
5) Finally, rewards are important.
Organizations signal to their employees what is valued by reinforcing both operational execution and transformation. Recognition for change leadership rather than just task completion ensures that the challenging work of strategy implementation is integrated into everyday performance.
With these conditions, middle managers transform from overburdened intermediaries into powerful drivers of organizational direction.
Final Thoughts
When reviewing the research and evidence, one theme consistently emerges: the middle management layer is not an auxiliary level in the organization but rather the engine through which strategy actually takes effect.
Middle managers take high-level direction and transform it into tangible actions, process ambiguity into decisions, resist resistance, and disseminate understanding throughout the organization through relationships rather than purely by authority.
Strategy becomes stuck when this layer is not supported. When enabled properly and with a clear understanding, strategy advances with great celerity.
Most successful organizations prioritize investing in the enablement of their middle managers-the people who bring their strategy to life every day-rather than focusing solely on better strategic design.
This is because, in the final analysis, at the end of it all, strategy failure does not occur in the boardroom but in the middle.
Bridging the gap between strategy and execution requires more than intent—it requires the right frameworks and capabilities. Enroll in the Certified Strategy and Business Planning Professional and Practitioner program by The KPI Institute to learn how to align strategy, planning, and performance for meaningful organizational results.
Remote work and the implications of continuing the process, including its potential impact on employee performance, are widely discussed. However, there is no right answer, and it is not one-size-fits-all.
The future of work includes flexibility, employee experience, agility, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI)—these significant shifts impact where and how employees work. With an increase in remote work options, we have seen positive trends in work-life balance, employee empowerment, inclusivity, and an increase in diverse talent. These factors are also known to increase employee productivity and retention. According to BCG, a considerable population of employees are ready to leave their jobs if they find their flexible work arrangements unsatisfactory. Based on their survey, approximately 90% of women, caregivers, individuals identifying as LGBTQ+, and those with disabilities, deem flexible work options as crucial in determining whether they will continue or resign from their current employment.
Remote work productivity is subject to debate due to various factors that must be considered. Some suggest remote work can increase productivity due to a flexible schedule, no commute, and fewer interruptions. While many employees thrive in a remote work environment, some find it challenging due to the discipline it demands.
Remote work was on the rise even before the COVID-19 pandemic. A July 2023 report from Stanford University found that working remotely has doubled every 15 years. Then, when the pandemic occurred, although devastating, it provided a new perspective for those previously constrained, forced to relocate, or live in less favorable locations to work for a specific company and advance their career. Worldwide ERC states that around 56 million Americans moved to new residences between December 2021 to February 2023 due to COVID-19-related shutdowns and the surge in remote work and online education. With such a huge increase in their number over the past few years, this begs the question: do employees working remotely demonstrate productivity?
Taking a deeper look into the study by Standord University, researchers shared that remote work employees’ productivity differs depending on perceptions—the nature of the research and the conditions under which it was conducted. The report revealed that workers believed productivity was higher at home (approximately 7% higher), while managers perceived it lower (around 3.5% lower). Another example, according to a poll by the video presentation applications mmhmm, 43% prefer office work and 42% favor working from home for peak productivity. Moreover, 51% of employees stated that working asynchronously or having the flexibility to set their schedules contributed positively to their productivity. Perceptions aside, the Stanford analysis found a 10% to 20% reduction in productivity across various studies.
The bottom line is today’s company culture is crucial. Ensuring work-life balance and putting the employees in the driver’s seat are the best ways to retain and increase productivity because they will feel valued and empowered. In a 2022 Microsoft employee engagement survey, 92% of employees say they believe the company values flexibility and allows them to work in a way that works best for them. An even higher percentage (93%) are confident in their ability to work together as a team, regardless of location. People have different preferences—some individuals opt for a hybrid approach, while others choose either remote or in-person work exclusively.
Regardless of the work setup, company leaders and human resources (HR) or human capital management (HRM) executives should ensure that they can still make a lasting impact on employee performance. One measure involves establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) that assess innovation, program, project, and product success—the output, not the physical location. Another crucial step is developing a strategy that includes all future work options, such as in-person, hybrid, and remote choices. Employees tend to be more productive if there is a level of empowerment that allows them to decide where to do their best work.
Planning in person events makes a difference. Leaders who bring new hires and internal transfers, new to the team, on-site for several days should see an uptick in productivity post-gathering. In-person team or company-wide gatherings 1-4 times per year provide employees an opportunity to reset and socialize. Moreover, managers should bring teams together for major program and project kick-offs. When onsite in person, people being present makes a difference. Discourage using Teams or Zoom when employees are in the general vicinity. I have seen companies spew the importance of in-person just to fly employees into a specific location and have people take meetings from their desks or in a different on-site building-conference room, defeating the purpose of in-person interaction.
Having organizations foster all work options is critical and foregoes having to decide which is best. There is no right or wrong answer to this challenge; it should be considered a new way of working and requires future-forward ways of thinking, just as we do with emerging technologies.
About the guest author:
Dr. Malika Viltz-Emerson is a Senior Global Human Resource Leader at Microsoft. She has over 20 years of experience in human capital management. Her mission is to identify and address the real-world challenges and opportunities for employees and the company, and design and implement optimal solutions that leverage the latest tools, technologies, and processes.
Does your organization adopt an employee or customer-centric operating methodology? For decades, the main focus of businesses in the Middle East has been on the customer, embracing mottos such as “The customer is always right” or “Customer comes first,” with the primary objective of attaining high customer satisfaction to expand market share. While this remains a universal goal, the approach to achieving it varies among companies, with some prioritizing employees over customers.
Employee performance management has gained increased attention in recent years compared to previous decades. This shift is largely a result of a changing mindset in both the private and public sectors regarding core business principles and operating methodologies. Companies have started to be more aware that what leads to customer satisfaction is a happy workforce, prompting them to focus more on managing employee performance.
Business magnate Richard Branson encapsulates this shift with his statement: “Clients do not come first. Employees come first. If you take care of your employees, they will take care of the clients.” This shows us the importance of transitioning towards a more employee-centric business model to keep employees satisfied and engaged while achieving business goals. For all these reasons, employee performance management plays a pivotal role.
To better understand what employee performance management entails, it is important to examine its sub-processes:
Employee performance planning: The planning phase is a prerequisite, establishing the groundwork for the entire process. It is imperative to clarify roles, responsibilities and competencies by having the proper job descriptions and competencies framework developed based on the market’s best practices.
Employee performance measurement: This phase teaches the creation of scorecards at the employee level, guiding the assessment of competencies and behaviors. It also delves into the advantages and disadvantages of creating a final performance index for each employee, incorporating clearly defined criteria such as objectives, KPIs, competencies, and behaviors.
Employee performance review: This phase details organizing and conducting employee performance review meetings, ensuring value for managers and employees. During meetings, managers transparently discuss employee performance, acknowledge achievements and progress, and highlight improvement areas.
Employee performance improvement(talent management): This phase emphasizes the right course of action after the performance review meeting and the enablers of performance improvement. It guides the addressing of low-, medium-, and high-performing staff members, underscoring the importance of a monitoring process to ensure the effective implementation of corrective actions.
Performance recognition: This process guides the creation of rewarding models for acknowledging high-performing individuals and teams, enabling the design of a sustainable reward system encompassing financial and non-financial rewards.
In 2023, several aspects of performance management, especially employee performance management, have evolved. This shift is a response to the so-called “post-pandemic new normal,” forcing businesses to rethink survival strategies for 2024 and beyond. Six main trends have emerged:
A noteworthy change is the evolution of the job landscape. Financial security, which once deterred employees from leaving their jobs, is no longer the sole factor. Jobs now offer employees opportunities for growth, continuous feedback, flexible working hours, remote or hybrid work options, and comprehensive benefits, enhancing their work-life balance. These trends underscore the imperative for businesses to shift towards employee-centricity to achieve strategic objectives and foster sustainable business practices with reduced turnover.
Employee performance management will witness further changes, particularly in performance review and goal-setting. The workplace will increasingly focus on personal and professional goals, transforming performance reviews from a process into project-based evaluations, enhancing the workspace and contributing to a more sustainable business.
To prepare you for the year ahead, The KPI Institute can equip you with the industry-leading tools and skills required to nurture employee performance. Sign up for the Certified Employee Performance Management Professional and Practitioner courses now and secure your slot here.
