Nowa strona 1 » How to Distinguish Between Performance and Readiness

A practical guide for avoiding the common trap of conflating results with potential

Introduction: Why the Distinction Matters

Many talent reviews and succession discussions fall short because managers instinctively equate strong performance with leadership readiness. This conflation can result in over-promoting individuals who excel in their current roles but lack the adaptability, influence, or perspective needed for more complex challenges. At the same time, promising future leaders who aren’t in high-visibility roles may be overlooked.

This guide is designed to help HR leaders coach stakeholders on clearly separating performance from readiness—ensuring that talent decisions are forward-looking, fair, and aligned with business needs.

Anchor the Definitions: Performance vs. Readiness

Begin by explicitly defining each concept:

Performance is about how well an employee delivers in their current role. It’s tied to execution, KPIs, quality, consistency, and accountability.
Readiness is about how prepared an individual is to step into a more senior or complex role within a specific timeframe. It considers leadership capability, strategic thinking, adaptability, and ability to manage ambiguity and scale.

Both are critical—but they serve different purposes. One supports short-term delivery; the other shapes long-term organizational capability.

Use a Two-Lens Talent Framework

To make the distinction operational, introduce a two-lens framework:

Lens One – Past and Present (Performance): Evaluate what the person has achieved against expectations. Were results consistently strong? Did they manage their team well? Did they uphold company values?
Lens Two – Future (Readiness): Assess the individual's ability to succeed in a role with broader scope or complexity. Could they lead through change? Build followership across functions? Demonstrate strategic acumen?

Encourage managers to slow down and apply each lens deliberately, rather than blending the two into one vague label of “strong talent.”

Use Behavioral Indicators, Not Labels

Help managers shift from gut-level assessments (“She’s a star!”) to evidence-based evaluation. Ask:

What specific behaviors has this person shown that indicate leadership maturity?
Have they led others through ambiguity?
Can they influence beyond authority?
Do they seek out stretch experiences or avoid discomfort?

You can provide calibrated examples to help illustrate what readiness looks like versus strong execution.

Example:
A top-performing finance manager consistently closes the books accurately and on time. However, they resist delegation, struggle with cross-functional influence, and avoid ambiguous tasks. Their performance is high, but readiness is limited.

Another employee may be in a plateaued role but volunteers for strategic projects, mentors peers, and drives change. Their current performance may be moderate, but their readiness is high.

Create Structured Tools That Separate Ratings

In your talent review forms and systems, ensure that performance and readiness are rated separately using distinct scales and definitions. Avoid a single score or box that encourages blended thinking.

Use prompts like:

What has this person delivered in their current role? (Performance)
What roles could this person step into within 12–24 months, and what development would they need? (Readiness)

This separation forces more nuanced conversations and prevents false equivalency.

Coach on Common Traps and Biases

In preparation sessions with managers, address the typical cognitive shortcuts:

Recency bias: Overweighting recent results instead of patterns.
Halo effect: Assuming a high performer is automatically a strong leader.
Like-me bias: Overestimating people who share similar traits or work styles.
Over-valuing visibility: Assuming high-profile roles signal greater potential.

Remind managers that potential often reveals itself in how people handle stretch, failure, feedback, and team dynamics—not just in hitting today’s numbers.

Facilitate Balanced Talent Reviews

During calibration or succession discussions, act as a moderator to challenge overly simplistic conclusions. If a manager says “He’s ready for anything—just look at his numbers,” prompt them to explore:

What leadership behaviors have you observed that support that conclusion?
Has he demonstrated capacity for larger scope or complexity?
How has he responded to ambiguous or new situations?

Conversely, advocate for emerging leaders whose roles may not showcase their full capabilities yet—but who show learning agility, curiosity, or influence potential.

Reinforce Through Development Planning

Once readiness is properly distinguished, link it to tailored development actions:

For high performers with low readiness: Focus on stretch assignments, leadership exposure, and feedback.
For high readiness individuals with mixed performance: Explore fit issues, motivation, or new roles that better leverage their potential.

This closes the loop and sends a message that both performance and readiness are developmental—not fixed.

Final Thought: Building Talent with a Dual Lens

Performance and readiness must be seen as complementary but independent data points. One earns today’s trust; the other enables tomorrow’s succession.

When HR leaders institutionalize this distinction—with clear language, structured frameworks, and courageous moderation—they strengthen both talent accuracy and business continuity.