Start with three things
I often ask a manager: What are three things you would really like this person to get better at? Not twenty. Start with three. Perhaps:
- delegation;
- punctuality;
- taking ownership;
- developing people;
- speaking up in meetings;
- making better decisions;
- following through;
- thinking before escalating; improving commercial judgement.
Then the important work begins. Because "show more initiative" isn't enough. We have to ask: What would more initiative actually look like? How would the employee know they were doing it? How would the manager know? What would we observe? What evidence would exist? That is the difference between an aspiration and something you can actually manage.
Make success visible
This is the purpose of what I call a What Success Looks Like document. It is not generic. It belongs to the individual. It asks: Where is this person now? Where do they need to grow? What do they need to start doing? What do they need to stop doing?
What are they already doing well that we want more of? Now development has a destination. Instead of simply telling someone: "You need to be a stronger manager." we can describe what stronger management would actually look like in their role. Perhaps it means:
They deal with routine staffing issues without automatically escalating them. They prepare properly for one-on-ones. They bring recommendations rather than simply problems. They follow through on commitments. They coach their team before taking over. They use evidence rather than opinion when discussing performance. Now we have something useful.
Use three levels
One way I make success more concrete is to describe three levels. Non-negotiable This is the minimum standard. It has to happen. Target This is what we are actually aiming for. Good performance. Mind-blowing This is my favourite. What would make the manager say:
"Wow. I wasn't expecting that. That's fantastic." That level matters because development should not only tell people what they must stop doing badly. It should also show them how they can shine. Too much performance management is framed entirely around failure. What are you doing wrong?
What must improve? What happens if it doesn't? Those conversations have their place. But people also need a picture of what genuinely excellent performance could look like.
Write it down
Once the expectations are clear, write them down. Not because I enjoy paperwork. I don't. Write them down because memory is unreliable. If an expectation matters, both people should understand: What have we agreed? What does success look like? How will we know whether progress is happening?
Then treat that as a bargain struck. A real agreement. Not a document produced once and buried in a folder. Because a What Success Looks Like document that nobody ever looks at again is just another piece of paper. And I don't want more paper. I want better management.
Come back to it in the one-on-one
This is where performance management starts becoming developmental rather than merely corrective. Before the one-on-one, the employee should reflect. What did I say I was going to work on? What have I actually done? What have I improved? Where haven't I improved? What evidence can I show?
Where do I need help? Now the employee is not sitting in front of the manager waiting to hear: "So, here's how I think you're going." They have already thought about their own progress. That creates a much better conversation. The manager and employee can then discuss: What's working?
What's improving? What's stuck? What's getting in the way? What happens next? That is performance management with the employee involved in their own development rather than merely being judged from across the desk.
Track progress over time
Suppose one of the agreed development areas is: "Take greater ownership." Three months later, the manager says: "I think you've improved." The employee says: "I don't think I used to be that bad." Now what? Instead, track some evidence. What commitments were made?
What happened? What decisions did they take? What issues did they resolve? What did they still escalate? What feedback has been observed? What changed? Progress becomes easier to see when you stop relying entirely on memory.
That is particularly important because gradual development can be surprisingly difficult to notice. People improve slowly. Then one day you realise: They can now do something they could not do three months ago. That matters. Capture it.
Evidence makes performance conversations calmer
This connects to one of my other favourite management principles: Evidence beats memory every time. If you tell somebody: "You aren't showing enough ownership." they may genuinely have no idea what you mean.
But if the expectation was made clear and you can look together at what has actually happened, the conversation is different. What were the agreed behaviours? What did they do? Where did they meet the standard? Where didn't they? What is the pattern?
Now you are discussing evidence against something previously agreed. Not personality. Not vague disappointment. Not whether the manager's memory is better than the employee's. Performance conversations become much less mysterious when the standard was visible beforehand.
The employee should know before you tell them
A well-run performance system should reduce surprises. If somebody is doing well, ideally they already have some sense of that because they can see their progress. If they are not meeting the agreed standard, that should not first become apparent during an annual performance review six months later.
The standard should be visible. Their progress should be discussed. The evidence should be available. The one-on-one should keep the conversation alive. Then if a harder performance conversation becomes necessary, it is grounded in a history both people understand.
Non-negotiable has to mean non-negotiable
Managers sometimes use language carelessly. They say: "This is non-negotiable." Then it does not happen. Again. And again. Nothing follows. What did everybody learn? It wasn't really non-negotiable.
If something is genuinely the minimum standard and it repeatedly is not being met, there has to be an appropriate response. That may mean:
- coaching;
- additional training;
- a clearer expectation;
- support;
- a warning;
- a formal performance process;
- reconsidering whether the person is right for the role.
The appropriate consequence depends on the circumstances. But pretending a repeatedly missed standard does not matter destroys the credibility of the standard. If it isn't actually non-negotiable, stop calling it that.
There should be consequences at both ends
Performance management should not be an endless search for failure. If someone stretches... Improves... Hits the target... Or reaches the mind-blowing level... notice it. Say something. Recognise the progress. Celebrate it.
Because the purpose of defining success is not to build an elaborate system for catching people out. It is to help people grow. What leaders notice gets repeated. If somebody has been deliberately working on delegation and you see them handle something differently, say: "I noticed that."
If they finally handled a difficult conversation they had been avoiding, acknowledge it. If their follow-through has become significantly better, point to the evidence. Development is much more motivating when people can see that the effort is producing something.
Why keep development completely secret? There is another assumption I sometimes challenge. Why does every element of personal development have to be treated like a confidential state secret? Use common sense, obviously. Sensitive performance matters are sensitive.
But imagine a team where one manager can say: "One thing I'm working on this quarter is delegation." Another says: "I'm working on speaking up more in meetings." Another: "I'm working on developing my second-in-command." What's wrong with that?
In a sporting team, we would regard it as perfectly normal to know what teammates are working on. One player might be working on fitness. Another passing. Another defence. People can encourage one another. Notice progress. Help. Why should business development always happen behind closed doors?
Handled sensibly, shared development can help create a culture where getting better is normal. Managing performance is not the same as waiting for poor performance Too many businesses only become interested in performance management when something has already gone wrong. Someone is underperforming.
Now we need a meeting. Now we need documentation. Now we need a performance plan. That is backwards. Performance management should start with: What does success look like here? Then: How are we helping this person move towards it? Then: How do we know whether progress is happening?
The difficult conversation becomes one possible part of the process. It should not be the entire process.
Clarify before you criticise
Before telling somebody they are not performing well enough, ask: Did we ever make the expectation clear? Did we agree it? Was it specific? Could the employee reasonably recognise success? Have we discussed progress? Have we given feedback? Have we collected evidence?
If the honest answer is no, you may have a management problem before you have an employee problem. That does not mean poor performance gets ignored. It means the manager should take responsibility for creating clarity. You cannot fairly expect somebody to hit a target they cannot see.
A simple performance-development rhythm
You do not need to turn this into a corporate bureaucracy. Try this:
1. Define what success looks like
Choose the few areas that matter most. Be specific.
2. Describe the levels
What is non-negotiable? What is the target? What would mind-blowing look like?
3. Agree it
Employee and manager both understand what is expected.
4. Employee reflects before the one-on-one
What did I work on? What happened? What evidence do I have? Where do I need help?
5. Discuss progress
What's improving? What's stuck? What have we learned?
6. Agree the next commitment
What will happen next? By when?
7. Track progress
Don't rely on memory.
8. Recognise improvement
Notice when the person moves.
9. Address repeated misses
If a genuine non-negotiable repeatedly is not met, have the appropriate conversation. Then repeat. That is how performance management becomes a developmental rhythm rather than an occasional corporate event everybody dreads.
Ask the better question
If you currently rely on job descriptions to drive performance, ask yourself: Does everybody know what their job entails? Useful question. Then ask the more important one: Does everybody know what success looks like in their job? And then: Are we actually helping them get there?
Because that's the bit that matters. A job description tells somebody where their responsibilities begin and end. A good performance-development system helps them understand what becoming genuinely good at those responsibilities looks like. It gives the manager something real to manage.
It gives the employee something real to work towards. And it gives both of them a much better basis for the conversations that follow.
