My experience as a headhunter taught me that measuring employee performance and satisfaction is easy to talk about — but much harder to do in practice. Why do I want to look at both performance and satisfaction at the same time? Because they are, in many ways, two sides of the same coin.
It’s difficult to succeed if you’re constantly dissatisfied. And on the flip side, a company where people feel good about their work is more likely to see strong results. Satisfied employees are typically more committed — and commitment is often a trademark of a successful organisation.
Of course, commitment alone is not enough. A successful company usually has strong leadership — leaders with the right skills, a clear vision, a sound strategy, and the ability to manage both the business and the people. A key part of good leadership is selecting the right people — and then creating an environment where they feel supported, develop, and thrive. That’s one of the most challenging tasks any leader faces.
The Risk of One-Sided Performance Evaluation
Leading people also means evaluating how they perform. Here, I feel the process can sometimes be too one-sided — focusing entirely on the employee’s actions and results. What’s often overlooked are the environmental factors within the company that directly influence the employee’s performance and satisfaction.
If the environment supports the employee, that is rarely a problem. But if it works against them, the consequences can be serious. The employee may struggle to meet expectations — not because they’re incapable, but because something around them is holding them back. In the worst case, they’re let go. Their manager concludes they’re not up to the job and hires someone new — without ever asking whether the real issue was external to the employee — without checking: could there be something we could improve in the situation?
I’ve seen many cases where underperformance or loss of motivation was not due to the person, but to internal factors in the company. That’s why I believe more attention should be paid to the environment around the employee — especially when performance drops. In many cases, small adjustments — in leadership, communication, or how the work is done — could lead to a better outcome for both sides. But to see this you must pay attention! And to pay attention, you must have a genuine interest in doing so!
A Real-Life Example
A well-known international company hired a new employee into a six-person team. Everything seemed promising in the interviews — the candidate thought he’d hit the jackpot. But no one mentioned the prominent position turnover, the toxic work atmosphere, or the team leader’s management style. The recruiting service provider that was involved in the recruiting process must have known, but said nothing.
Within two weeks, the truth came out. The team was in constant internal conflict. There was no cooperation, no support, no real information sharing — and no help from the manager. The atmosphere was so toxic people could not even go eat together. The new employee underperformed no matter how hard he tried. The team manager didn’t interfere. He only cared about total team output, not individual satisfaction or success. This was already the third hire into the same role within a year. The previous ones had left, for obvious reasons.
Here, the recruitment process failed the employee. So did onboarding, the team, the manager — and in the end, also the company culture. Because what happened in that department must have been known, yet no one acted. Plenty of environmental factors here, wouldn’t you say?
The Three Stages of Employee Evaluation
Employees are usually evaluated at three key stages:
- When they are recruited into the company
- While they are working in the company
- When they are leaving the company
- Recruitment
In recruitment, the focus is simple: does the candidate have what it takes? Employers often evaluate:
- Skills and experience
- Cultural fit and values alignment
- Motivation and aspirations
- Learning ability and adaptability
- Communication and collaboration
- Track record and achievements
- References
- Personality and behavioural traits
- Job stability and past commitment
“Cultural fit” is often on the checklist — but in many strongly performance-driven companies, deeper in-house environmental factors may not get the attention they deserve. Not necessarily because people intentionally ignore them — but because they may not realise how much these things matter.
The first real internal factor the employee encounters is onboarding. A good one can give them a flying start. A bad one can do real damage.
- During Employment
At some point comes performance evaluation — often annually. Focus areas typically include:
- Goal achievement
- Productivity and quality
- Team contribution
- Commitment
- Initiative and innovation
- Learning and growth
- Feedback from clients or stakeholders
- Engagement and motivation
- Leadership and influence (if relevant)
- Adaptability and resilience
- Promotion or succession potential
If everything goes well, fine. But when performance drops, the focus tends to turn to the employee — more rarely to the environment. The longer the underperformance, the more pressure piles up. But sometimes, small environmental changes could solve the problem — if someone noticed.
It can happen to anyone, anywhere in the organisation. Just as well to an executive as to an entry level employee. The real question is: how does the company react? Does it default to blaming the individual? Or is there a genuine attempt to understand all contributing factors?
I’ve seen cases where a small adjustment — in leadership, communication, clarity, clearer instructions, and support — turned someone from underperforming to engaged and productive. I even have first-hand experience of this in my youth when I worked as a summer student on a construction site. A healthy company culture can make this happen. When people see how their colleagues are supported, it often improves commitment across the board.
Outside of work, employees are walking advertisements. They speak well of their employer — or poorly. It’s your choice. So, this is also a company brand issue. Of course, sometimes termination is the only choice. But often, it’s not the only one — and maybe not even the best one. Mind you — this isn’t a new idea. Plenty of national and international surveys confirm it. The internet is full of examples.
A Checklist to Explore Environmental Factors
Before deciding someone has failed, ask: is it really a people problem — or is the environment part of the issue? Here are some starting points. If something stands out, take the time to dig deeper.
Leadership Support & Style
Does the manager adapt their style to the individual? Are they trusted, encouraging, and present?
Clarity of Role and Expectations
Is the job clear? Are the instructions and guidelines what they should be? Was onboarding done well? Does the person know how they contribute?
Cultural and Team Fit
Is the team culture compatible with the employee’s style? Are politics or norms interfering?
Psychological Safety & Communication
Can the employee speak up? Is it safe to ask for help or raise concerns?
Resources & Workload
Are the tools and support there? Is the workload reasonable? What’s blocking progress?
Recognition and Growth Opportunities
Is the person seen and valued? Do they have ways to grow?
Change in Environment
Have recent changes (e.g. leadership, strategy) disrupted performance? If these factors aren’t working, small fixes can sometimes make a big difference.
Something outside work
Sometimes the problem isn’t at work at all. A seriously ill child or spouse, or a fresh divorce at home, can mentally drain all your energy and joy — and affect performance. In a situation like this, firing the employee is hardly the right choice
- When Someone Is Leaving
This may sound simple, but here’s a quick way to check:
Are we sorry they’re leaving? – Would we have liked them to stay? – Or are we relieved they’re gone?
Whatever your answer, you probably know why you feel that way. And that’s your real evaluation.
Summary
The higher someone is in the organisation, the more risks and pressure there are when they underperform. The lower in the organisation the employees are, the easier it may feel to replace them. But I like to think that before a firing decision is made, there should be some room for sparring and supporting. Because most people underperform at some point. And with support or small adjustments, many bounce back — sometimes stronger than ever.
Firing someone often signals failure — both for the company and the person, with perhaps neither party even having a clear picture of what and why it happened. A new recruiting process is time-consuming and expensive. And there is no guarantee you find the person you are looking for. Even if you do, it will take time before the new employee will add value and perform — and what if the real reason for the previous employee underperforming was due to environmental reasons, not the employee — then you only repeat your error.
So before letting someone go, ask yourself this — especially if there’s any doubt:
“Is there anything we could fix around them — before we fix the person?”
Sometimes the answer is yes. And it may be the best decision you make.