Opinion Piece: Series: Rethinking Performance Part 1

Series: Rethinking Performance - Part 1

The first article in the Rethinking Performance series, written by Camille Rabier from 21^st Century, argues that most performance systems remain incomplete because they assess what is delivered more readily than how it is achieved. It sets up the central challenge for the series: how behaviour can be translated into something usable within performance evaluation.

Why performance systems are incomplete

Most performance systems produce only a partial view of performance. They capture what was delivered, but not how it was achieved, whether it can be sustained, or whether it strengthens or weakens the organisation over time. These dimensions reflect behaviour, a core element of performance, yet they are not represented in how performance is currently defined and assessed. This is not by intent, but because behaviour is not specified in a way that allows it to be consistently observed, assessed, and compared. As a result, behaviour is rarely integrated into how performance is measured and evaluated.

Yet, if behaviour is so critical to performance, the question is not whether it matters, but why it is so rarely reflected in how performance is assessed. One of the clearest signals of this misalignment lies in the role of values. Organisations explicitly define how work should be done through values, yet these rarely influence how performance is actually evaluated, revealing the limits of how performance is currently defined and assessed.

Why values reveal the limits of performance systems

Values articulate how work is expected to be done, while performance systems define what gets assessed. If values are intended to shape performance through behaviour and long-term value creation, they should inform how performance is evaluated. When they do not, a fundamental misalignment emerges. Values therefore sit at the intersection of expectation and performance evaluation, but they do not translate into assessment, revealing the gap between what organisations say matters and what they actually measure, differentiate, and reward.

The reason lies largely in how values are specified: they are not designed to function as evaluation criteria.

• Values are expressed as principles, broad by design and intended to apply across a wide range of situations.
• Performance systems, by contrast, require precision. They rely on criteria that can be observed, assessed, compared, and defended.

This creates a mismatch: although values can guide behaviour, only observable and consistently interpretable evidence can be evaluated. In their current form, values do not meet this requirement, as they are open to interpretation, difficult to evidence consistently, and rarely defined at the level required for reliable assessment.

As a result, they cannot be used directly within performance evaluation because of a limitation in how they are articulated. Consequently, the behaviours underpinning outcomes remain weakly defined and are assessed inconsistently across individuals and contexts.

When performance is defined by what can be measured, not what matters

In the absence of evaluable behavioural criteria, performance systems default to what can be measured reliably, and outcomes become the primary basis for assessment. Although outcomes do not fully represent performance, they are the most visible, comparable, and defensible aspects of it, and therefore best meet the requirements of evaluation systems. This results in only a partial view of performance, capturing what is visible, but not necessarily what is valuable - and especially not what is sustainable.

When the behavioural component is absent from how performance is assessed, several predictable dynamics emerge:

• Extractive performance: the same results can be delivered through overextension, hidden trade-offs, or reliance on others, weakening the organisation over time.
• Behavioural optimisation: individuals adapt to what is measured and prioritise visible outcomes.
• False equivalence: individuals delivering similar outcomes are treated as equivalent, despite achieving those outcomes differently.
• Inconsistent judgement: without clear behavioural criteria, managers interpret expectations differently, reducing overall credibility.
• Erosion of enabling behaviours: activities that sustain long-term performance decline because they are not recognised or reinforced.
• Short-term bias: by favouring outcomes that are immediate and visible, performance systems undervalue contributions that support longer-term capability.
• Cultural dilution: over time, stated values lose credibility when they are not meaningfully linked to evaluation, recognition, or reward.

These are not individual shortcomings or cultural failures, but the natural outcomes of a system that measures only part of what performance actually is and, in doing so, overlooks how performance is created and sustained over time.

From statement to metric: a design problem

The issue is not that organisations fail to identify or define the right behaviours; they do exactly that through their value systems. The problem is that those behaviours are not translated into a form that can be used in evaluation - namely something observable, assessable, and comparable. For expected behaviours to influence performance outcomes, they must first be defined in a way that makes them usable within a performance system: they must be translated into observable behaviours.

A practical progression could look like this:

Value -> Behaviour principle -> Observable behaviours -> Everyday actions

This translation, or operationalisation, does four things:

• Defines what the value looks like in practice through behaviour principles.
• Translates these into observable behaviours, reducing reliance on individual interpretation and subjective judgement.
• Enables behaviour to be assessed more consistently across managers and teams.
• Links behaviour to everyday actions that can be observed and compared.

Once values are defined at this level, they can be integrated into performance systems. They are now expressed in observable and comparable terms, allowing organisations to differentiate performance based on evidence rather than perception. This provides a foundation for defensible decisions in performance ratings, promotions, and rewards, enabling differentiation based on both what is delivered and how it is delivered. Without this translation, values remain symbolic and inconsistently applied within performance decisions.

When values are translated into observable behaviours, they become part of how performance is evaluated, ensuring that behaviour informs, but does not replace, outcome-based assessment. This makes the performance system more representative of actual contribution, and therefore more robust and defensible.

Conclusion

The challenge is therefore not recognising the importance of behaviour but making it usable within performance systems. Until behaviour can be translated into evaluation, performance remains only partially defined and understood, capturing outcomes but not the conditions under which they are created or sustained.

Part 2 examines why behaviour is so difficult to evaluate, and what it takes to translate it into criteria that can be applied more consistently within performance systems.

Total Words: 1054