What Effective Performance Management Really Measures
Clear responsibilities. Focused goals. The right behaviours. Measurable outcomes. Evidence that supports fair decisions.
Despite decades of HR investment, performance management still fails in many organisations — not because people resist the process, but because the wrong things are being measured.
Most performance systems focus on:
- generic behavioral statements
- goal forms that are hard to align
- subjective ratings
- annual reviews disconnected from daily work
The research is clear:
Effective performance management focuses on the details of what people actually do, how they do it, and the results that matter.
This page outlines the essential elements of performance that consistently predict contribution, quality, and capability growth — across clinical, technical and professional roles.
Clear Role Expectations — The Foundation of Performance
Performance begins with clarity of role.
Across multiple studies (Pulakos et al., 2019; CIPD 2022), the strongest predictor of good performance is a worker who understands:
- why the role exists
- the responsibilities it carries
- the decisions it owns
- the outcomes it contributes to
- how it fits within the team and organisation
Without this clarity, performance conversations become subjective and inconsistent.
With it, everything that follows becomes simpler.
Job Responsibilities — The Core of “What” Is Measured
Responsibilities represent the core “WHAT” of performance.
They describe:
- what the person must deliver
- where accountability sits
- the ongoing expectations of the role
- what “successful performance” looks like day to day
- the areas that matter most for contribution and quality
In a well-designed performance system, responsibilities—not goals—form the central basis of assessment. Why do responsibilities matter more than goals?
In many organisations:
- goals are rewritten versions of job descriptions
- focused on tasks rather than results
- poorly structured, not ‘SMART’
- detached from real responsibilities
- changed annually for the sake of the process
When responsibilities are clear:
- goals become extensions of responsibilities
- focus on current-cycle priorities, not the full job
- no need to translate job descriptions to goals annually
- performance expectations are clearer
- performance conversations easier and more consistent
- the process reflects what the role genuinely requires
Responsibilities provide the stable, role-aligned baseline for effective performance management
Goals - The Prioritized Extension of Responsibilities
Goals do not replace the job description. They express this period’s priorities.
Effective goals are:
- derived directly from role purpose, responsibilities and projects
- focused on outcomes, not effort
- aligned with team priorities
- clearly measurable
- not overly numerous
- reviewed regularly
Responsibilities vs Goals
Responsibilities = WHAT the job requires, consistently
Goals = WHAT is most important this cycle
The strongest evidence (Locke & Latham, 2019) shows that performance improves when goals are:
- specific
- measurable
- achievable with support
- aligned to responsibilities
- reviewed regularly
- have a clear time frame
Competencies in Performance Management — The “How”
Competency and performance are related but not interchangeable.
-
Competency = how a person applies capability and skill in real work.
-
Performance = what they deliver and contribute.
Competency is an input and enabler of performance — not a performance measure itself.
Therefore, competencies play two distinct roles in performance management.
Technical & Functional Competencies
Technical competencies do not belong in performance appraisal
They determine whether someone can:
- perform safely
- meet professional standards
- carry out role-specific tasks
- apply knowledge correctly
But they are not performance measures. We recommend;
- Do not include technical/functional competencies in appraisal scoring
- Keep technical competence in the competency system, not the review form
Where technical competencies do belong:
1. Performance diagnostics
If performance is poor, competency evidence helps identify the cause:
- role clarity issue
- skill gap
- behavior problem
- motivation issue
- process/system problem
2. Development planning – Evidence tells you what needs to be developed, not how to rate performance.
3. Safety, audit, and regulatory compliance – Technical competence is validated separately — as it should be.
This distinction prevents bloated performance forms and keeps ratings fair.
Core, Values-Based and Citizenship Behavior Competencies
These competencies do belong in performance management because they reflect how work is approached and delivered. They are behavioral, observable and aligned with culture and expectations across roles. They include:
- communication
- collaboration
- professionalism and integrity
- problem-solving and judgement
- reliability and follow-through
- safety and respect
- adaptability
- contribution to team climate
- values-in-action (“how we do things here”)
These behaviours directly influence:
- quality
- safety
- service
- project outcomes
- team efficiency
- client/patient experience
- leadership potential
Why these behaviours matter in performance:
- They predict outcomes across all industries (Schmutz 2019; DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus 2010)
- They shape culture and team effectiveness
- They are observable by managers
- They can be assessed consistently
- They align with organisational values
- They support fairer performance conversations
Development: Closing Gaps and Building Capability
Performance reviews should always connect to development plans — not as a formality, but as a continuation of the evidence gathered.
Development should align to:
- responsibilities needing stronger delivery
- goals not yet achieved
- behavioral competencies needing reinforcement
- technical competencies needing upskilling or verification
- career path aspirations
- succession readiness
Performance Conversations
The strongest-performing organisations use performance conversations to connect:
assessed competency gaps
development plans
learning resource recommendations
internal mobility opportunities
This creates a measurable link between feedback and growth.
A good system shows staff exactly what to focus on next and managers how to support them.
Evidence: for Fair and Consistent Judgement
To make performance management credible, organisations need evidence, not sentiment.
Evidence may include:
- examples of completed work
- progress against goals, projects
- behavioral observations
- performance journal entries (check-ins, feedback notes)
- competency assessments
- knowledge tests
- skills verification (for high-risk tasks)
Evidence must be:
- role-relevant
- observable
- consistent
- documented
- accessible
This reduces rater bias and supports fair decision-making.
Performance Model for effective management
The performance conversation becomes simple when the structure is clear:
WHAT
-
role responsibilities
-
goals (cycle priorities)
HOW
-
values-based, core, behavioral, citizenship competencies
SUPPORT
-
technical/functional competencies
-
capability requirements
-
training/qualification compliance
These inform diagnostics and development planning, not performance scoring.
This model aligns capability, competency, behavior and contribution without confusing them — and supports performance processes that are fair, consistent, and sustainable.
FAQ
What is the most accurate basis for measuring performance?
The most reliable basis is role responsibilities, because they define what the job exists to deliver.
Goals then extend these responsibilities for the current cycle. Responsibilities + goals give the clearest “WHAT” of performance.
Should technical or functional competencies be included in performance ratings?
No. Technical competence enables performance but does not measure contribution. It should be validated separately (through competency assessment), and used only for diagnostics and development planning.
Which competencies should be part of performance management?
Only values-based, core behavioural, and citizenship competencies belong in performance reviews.
These represent the “HOW” of performance: communication, collaboration, professionalism, judgement, reliability and alignment with organisational values.
What’s the difference between responsibilities and goals?
Responsibilities = the ongoing, stable expectations of the job
Goals = the priority deliverables for the current cycle
Goals should be derived from responsibilities, not replace them.
How should performance evidence be collected?
Evidence should be:
- role-relevant
- observable
- documented
- linked to responsibilities, goals or behaviours
- gathered continuously, not once a year
Using a structured Journal reduces bias and supports fair decisions.
Why do many performance systems fail?
Because they measure the wrong things: vague behaviours, personality traits, goals that are not measurable, or technical skills managers cannot reliably assess.
Effective systems measure what the role requires, what was delivered, and how it was done, supported by evidence.
Can competencies replace job descriptions?
No. Competencies describe how work is done; job descriptions define what must be delivered.
Both are required for accurate performance evaluation.
What if our job descriptions are outdated or unclear?
Then goals often become vague or overloaded.
Updating job responsibilities is the highest-impact improvement you can make to performance management.
How often should goals be reviewed?
Quarterly is optimal for most roles.
High-variation roles (clinical, operational, project roles) may require monthly reviews.
How do responsibilities, goals and competencies connect?
- Responsibilities → WHAT
Goals → WHAT (current cycle priority)
Behavioral competencies → HOW
Technical competencies → CAN DO (validated separately)
This creates a complete, evidence-based performance picture.
Does this model work for clinical and technical roles?
Yes. It is fully aligned with high-risk industries where technical skill must be validated outside the appraisal process, while behavioral and responsibility-based performance remains consistent across all role types.
Can managers use competency evidence in performance reviews?
Yes — technical competencies are the single best predictor of successful job performance. They are enablers. Use them for poor performance diagnostics and development planning to close gaps – not as performance scores.
How can performance issues be identified early?
Ensuring staff have the competencies needed for the role -via onboarding and regular competency assessment, and addressing the gaps. Through continuous note-taking, issue flagging and evidence capture in the Journal. Patterns appear long before the review cycle, making interventions timely and fair.
How does this model support succession planning?
By separating the “HOW”, “WHAT” and “CAN DO”:
- behavioural consistency affects readiness
- responsibilities/goals show contribution
- technical competency assessments show capability gaps
This produces more accurate readiness decisions.
How does this model reduce bias?
By grounding conversation in:
- documented responsibilities
- observable behaviours
- evidence in the Journal
- role-aligned goals
It removes reliance on memory, liking, or manager impression.
Related Resources
References
Core Performance & Competency Research
Pulakos, E.D., Hanson, R.M., Arad, S. & Moye, N. (2019). Performance Management: A Practical Guide for HR Professionals. SHRM Foundation.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2019). Goal Setting Theory: The Controversy and Its Resolution. Psychology Press.
(Original research from 1990; updated analyses available 2019.)
Schmitt, N. & Chan, D. (2014). Personnel Selection: A Theoretical Approach. Sage.
(Foundational for ability, behaviour and performance linkages.)
CIPD. (2022). Evaluating Performance Management. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
DeChurch, L.A. & Mesmer-Magnus, J. (2010). “The Cognitive Underpinnings of Effective Teamwork: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.
Schmutz, J., Meier, L.L. & Manser, T. (2019). “How Team Processes Relate to Team Performance: A Cross-Level Mediation Model of Team Reflexivity and Task Uncertainty.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 489–501.
(Strong evidence linking communication & coordination with quality/safety.)
Gartner (CEB). (2018–2021). Performance Management Reset and Manager Burden Research.
(Used to support evidence around check-ins vs annual reviews.)
Gallup. (2020). State of the Global Workplace: Manager Effectiveness and Performance Impact.
(Consistent findings on behaviour, expectations & engagement.)