The goal is to boost revenue, cut costs, and finally complete long-standing, unfinished projects. However, those expecting higher performance during the year-end push should not increase the pressure; instead, they should provide clarity. After all, better results are not achieved through constant new appeals for higher performance, but rather through clear expectations and firm, binding agreements.
Late October. Costs must come down, revenue needs to rise, and time is running out. Many companies are in the final sprint of the year—a last-ditch effort to achieve what failed to materialize over the previous ten months. Corporate goals remain ambitious, and the pressure on every individual is mounting. This brings with it the temptation to simply turn up the heat and demand even greater performance. Yet, after months of discussion, there was a consensus that such demands require a corresponding cultural foundation. Consequently, many companies announced a new “performance culture” at the start of the year. The core tenets: plain speaking over harmony, results over comfort zones. No more “cozy” management styles—an approach that may have worked well during years of growth, but one that falls short when economic headwinds intensify. Ultimately, what matters is the outcome. To achieve it, everyone must pull in the same direction and truly commit. In work environments defined by pressure and complexity, this is far from easy—especially for human resources, whose primary role includes mediating between management’s performance expectations and the individual aspirations of employees. At least, that is how the Federal Association of Human Resources Managers (BPM) frames it in this year’s HR theses.
Ambitious goals are no substitute for good leadership
In the past, many things have gone off track here: objectives have become unclear or opaque, incentive systems have proven ineffective, and employees have grown confused—no longer able to articulate what their actual job entails or what is expected of them. In a 2024 survey of C-suite executives, consultants from Oliver Wyman found that 61 percent of the decision-makers polled rated their organization’s performance management as weak. This points to issues with leadership behavior regarding how performance is understood. The consultants conclude that a modern performance culture does not rely solely on more rigorous performance measurement; rather, it requires emotional intelligence, trust, and clear communication. A study conducted this year by the Gallup Institute provides further detail: only 30 percent of the managers surveyed believe their direct supervisors possess the necessary skills to effectively demand higher performance standards. In practice, performance management is still frequently interpreted as an annual exercise—one focused on setting ambitious goals, establishing financial incentives, and awarding bonuses. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, such requirements must be supported by consistent leadership communication if they are to be properly understood and accepted.
Anyone who believes that a few additional KPIs are enough to ensure the necessary level of commitment is sorely mistaken. Numbers alone cannot lead people; commitment only emerges through direct, open dialogue. It requires honest feedback and the establishment of clear expectations—even when results fall short. Communication is, therefore, an essential component of a functional performance culture. If you expect results from your teams, you must provide them with concrete guidance, rather than remaining vague or simply passing pressure down the line. Key questions in this context include: What should truly be prioritized—and what should be deprioritized? What interdependencies must be considered to avoid conflicting goals? What scope for action and decision-making exists, and for whom? It may sound simple, but it is anything but. Under pressure, leaders often tend to fixate rigidly on the numbers, losing sight of the broader context in which those goals are to be achieved. Especially when it comes to short-term performance measurement, the real key often lies between the lines of the performance dashboard.
What characterizes a good performance culture?
A high-performing culture is not created solely through ambitious goals, additional metrics, or financial incentives. Employees require clear priorities, understandable expectations, and regular feedback. Leaders must articulate which outcomes are critical at any given time, which tasks should be deferred, and the extent of the autonomy employees have to take action and make decisions. Only when goals, responsibilities, and available support are well-aligned can employees truly commit to taking ownership of results.
Being very busy is by no means the same as being high-performing.
Especially during phases of change, clear communication—the ability to effectively convey information and expectations—becomes a genuine, productive resource. Whether this effort falls on fertile ground, however, depends to a large extent on the performance culture that has taken root within the organization over the preceding years. In other words: how strong or weak is the leadership perceived to be? Are targets viewed as realistic or unrealistic? And are there contradictions between the goals that have been set and the actual possibilities for achieving them?
Common practice reveals just how deeply ingrained certain habitual behaviors have become—behaviors that inadvertently continue to fuel a performance-driven culture characterized by a lack of communication. A typical example is when a boss dumps additional tasks onto a team leader without any explanation or context. In such a situation, it would be essential to contextualize these new responsibilities and collaboratively establish fresh priorities. Especially during the year-end rush, the mental strain is already so intense that such unexplained demands inevitably trigger indignation and resistance. To prevent the boss from piling on even more work—particularly as performance pressure mounts—employees often feign a state of frantic busyness. Everyone acts as though they are swamped and couldn’t possibly take on another task, even when they might actually have spare capacity. In doing so, they shield themselves from year-end stress and manage to coast along, taking things easy for a few more weeks.
Why does high employment not automatically mean high performance?
Visible busyness says little about whether a company’s key objectives are being met. In the absence of clear priorities, employees may find themselves juggling numerous tasks simultaneously without achieving any significant results. Furthermore, under intense pressure to perform, appearing overwhelmed can become a defensive strategy: those who constantly seem busy are less likely to be assigned additional tasks. Consequently, managers should evaluate performance based on agreed-upon outcomes rather than on hours worked, the level of activity, or a packed calendar.
Expectations are not a one-way street
Managers should also act as moderators when different parts of an organization need to work together to achieve common goals. Simply appealing to team spirit is not enough; doing so would almost guarantee conflicts over objectives. In such situations, what is required are shared goals, clearly defined responsibilities, and—above all—a realistic understanding of what each side can expect from the other. What needs to be achieved, and by when? What progress is actually feasible?
This is especially crucial during periods of transition. After all, employees are already constantly dealing with conflicting directives, shifting priorities, and unclear areas of responsibility. Simply announcing ambitious goals without explaining how they can be achieved leads to one thing above all else: frustration. Effective leadership, therefore, not only clarifies what is expected by the end of the fiscal year but also outlines the support available to reach those objectives. This helps to strengthen trust.
Of course, this is arduous. It takes time, necessitates uncomfortable conversations, and does not necessarily make managers—or HR—any more popular. Yet, clarity brings with it a highly desirable side effect: anyone who precisely defines performance expectations for their employees must also be prepared to have their own leadership performance scrutinized. After all, managing expectations is not a one-way street.
How do leaders articulate clear performance expectations?
Clearly define performance expectations, specifying the desired outcome, the deadline, and the required quality. This includes establishing priorities, identifying tasks to be intentionally deferred, clarifying responsibilities and dependencies, and defining the scope for independent decision-making. Furthermore, leaders should explain what resources and support are available, as well as how decisions will be made in the event of conflicting objectives. Managing expectations is a two-way process: those who demand concrete results from their employees must, in turn, be prepared to be evaluated on the quality of their own leadership and their adherence to the agreed-upon framework conditions.
About the author
Silvia Hänig is the founder and managing director of the strategic communications consultancy iKOM. Working across various industries, she provides advice on communication and HR strategies, corporate and employer relations, and the effective internal and external positioning of C-level executives and HR leadership. With approximately 25 years of professional experience in both the industrial and consulting sectors, she views communication as a core leadership responsibility. Following her studies in business administration, Hänig held senior communication and marketing roles within the technology and consumer goods industries—most recently serving as deputy managing director at Waggener Edstrom prior to founding her own company in 2005. In addition to her consulting work, Hänig is actively involved in the field of female investing on a voluntary basis. She also serves as a lecturer at the Quadriga University of Applied Sciences.
Source: humanressourcesmanager.de
