By Blessing Kemlo
An employee can miss a target because of poor performance. They can also miss it because the target, the resources or the operating conditions were unrealistic. Good performance management must distinguish between the two.
Every organisation wants employees to perform well. Targets are established. Reviews are scheduled. Managers assess results, discuss areas for improvement and set expectations for the next period.
In principle, this is sensible. Employees deserve clarity, feedback and opportunities to improve. Organisations need to understand whether their investment in people is producing results.
But there is a question worth asking before a performance rating is finalised: Does the review explain the employee’s performance, or does it merely record the outcome?
The danger of treating results as the whole story
Imagine two employees with the same role and similar targets. One has stable systems, clear priorities, sufficient resources and a manager who makes timely decisions. The other works with unreliable systems, changing priorities, frequent staffing shortages and approvals that regularly delay their work.
At the end of the period, both employees are assessed against the same target. If one achieves the target and the other does not, the numbers show a difference in results. They do not, by themselves, explain the difference.
The second employee may need additional training. They may also be working in conditions that make the target difficult to achieve.
A review that ignores those conditions risks confusing an individual capability problem with an organisational design problem. The opposite is also true: difficult circumstances should not automatically excuse poor performance. The purpose of examining context is to reach a more accurate judgement, not to remove accountability.
Three things that should not be confused
Capability: Does the employee have the knowledge, skills and judgement required to perform the work?
Conditions: Does the employee have the resources, authority, information, time and support needed to apply those capabilities?
Contribution: What did the employee actually deliver, improve, prevent or enable during the review period?
These dimensions interact, but they are not interchangeable. An employee may have strong capability but lack the authority to resolve a recurring problem. Another may have excellent resources but need training. A third may meet every target while creating avoidable problems for colleagues.
A meaningful review should consider the whole picture.
The invisible work behind the target
Performance systems can overlook work that matters but is not captured neatly by individual metrics. An employee may help colleagues learn a new system, prevent a customer complaint, identify a risk before it becomes expensive or keep a project moving while responsibilities are unclear.
Some of this work may be part of the role. Some may represent additional contribution. Some may reveal that the organisation has an unresolved process problem.
If it is never discussed, management may reward the visible output while overlooking the work that made the output possible. This does not mean every helpful action should generate a bonus or a higher rating. It means managers should understand how results are achieved and whether the employee’s contribution is sustainable.
A better performance conversation
- What was expected? Were the goals clear, measurable, relevant and within the employee’s reasonable sphere of influence?
- What was delivered? Review the evidence, not just general impressions. Consider quality, timeliness, outcomes and relevant feedback.
- What helped or hindered performance? Examine workload, tools, changing priorities, dependencies, training and decision-making delays.
- What should change? Distinguish between actions the employee can take and actions the manager or organisation must take.
- What evidence will demonstrate improvement? Agree on specific next steps, support, milestones and a date to review progress.
These questions create a more balanced conversation. They also make accountability clearer because both parties understand what is expected of them.
Performance management is not a once-a-year event
A formal annual review cannot compensate for months of unclear expectations or absent feedback. Managers should address problems early, recognise good work when it occurs and revisit priorities when circumstances change materially.
Employees should also have an opportunity to explain obstacles, challenge inaccurate information respectfully and understand how decisions are made.
Where performance is consistently below expectations, the organisation should respond fairly and directly. Support and clarity do not remove consequences; they make those consequences more defensible.
Measure what matters, investigate what is missing
A performance rating is a summary. It should not become a substitute for judgement.
If an employee is struggling, the useful question is not merely, “Why did they miss the target?” It is, “What combination of capability, expectations, resources, decisions and behaviours best explains the result—and what must change?”
The answer may be additional training, clearer accountability, a different workflow, better management or a formal performance improvement plan. It should follow the evidence rather than an assumption.
At Govel Fraser, we believe better performance begins with better diagnosis. Organisations need to know not only what people produce, but also whether their systems enable people to perform consistently and responsibly.
The goal is not to make performance conversations easier by avoiding difficult truths. It is to make them more useful by finding the right truth.
Govel Fraser | Unlocking Dignity Through Opportunity.