Result vs. Performance
Take two managers. Each has a five-person team. Both delivered a result of 500 this quarter. Same number, same bonus, same feedback from leadership: “Good work.”
One has a star on his team. Peter, who runs at 135% and carries the whole number on his own. The rest of the team fluctuates – someone at 85, someone at 90. The manager knows this. He just doesn’t know what to do about it. So he does nothing. He praises Peter in meetings and hopes it holds up next quarter.
The second manager has no star. He has five people, each hovering around a hundred. No spikes. A boring spreadsheet. But everyone on the team knows what’s expected of them. Everyone knows where they’re improving. And when someone falls behind, the manager deals with it – not later, now.
Result: 500 vs. 500. Performance: a completely different story.
Same number, different world
Let’s look at the individuals more closely:
Team A: Peter 135, Barbora 88, Jana 90, Karol 87, Jano 100. Gap between best and worst: 48 points.
Team B: Laco 101, Roman 99, Zuzka 98, Dano 97, Vlado 105. Everyone near a hundred. Gap: 8 points.
Both managers get the same bonus. But only one of them is actually managing.
What volatility tells you
When I see large and recurring gaps between people on a team, I don’t read it as “we have different people.” I read it as “the leader isn’t dealing with them.”
People change. They improve when someone leads them. Or they stagnate when someone merely watches them.
High performance volatility tells me one thing: the leader doesn’t control the process, he just collects results at the end. He’s a spectator, not a player.
Low volatility says the opposite: someone is working with people daily, addressing gaps, setting expectations, correcting deviations before they become problems.
Deming said most performance problems come from the system, not the people. When the swings are large and persistent, the system isn’t working. And the system is the leader’s responsibility.
The star who will break you
Peter at 135% is a gift. It’s also a trap.
A leader who has Peter is tempted to let things ride. The numbers work out, leadership is happy – why change anything?
Meanwhile, Barbora is stagnating at 88 and nobody tells her why. Jana doesn’t know if she’s doing well or poorly because no one talks to her. And Karol is quietly looking elsewhere, because he senses that nobody here cares about his development.
And then comes the day when Peter gets a better offer from a competitor. Or simply decides he wants a change. It always happens, people like that always get poached. And the leader discovers he was never managing a team. He was managing one person. The rest just co-existed.
A practical conclusion
Stop measuring only results. Start tracking how much your people’s results differ from each other, and over time.
If one team member consistently falls short and you’re not addressing it, that’s not their problem. It’s yours.
If one team member consistently outperforms and you’re building your whole number on them – you don’t have a team. You have a star and a supporting cast.
Your goal as a leader isn’t to post the best possible result this month. It’s to deliver the most stable, predictable, and growing performance every month. Even when it looks less impressive.
That takes patience and persistence.
Patience in management is an underrated virtue.