DEAR CAPTAINS of Industry and Public Institutions

TITLE – Why We Must Agree on What Is and Is Not Performance

The key to both business and individual success lies in one fundamental principle – a clear and shared understanding of what is and is not performance. Without this clarity, confusion seeps into every corner of an organization. Goals become blurred, expectations diverge, and even the most well-intentioned leaders and teams end up speaking different languages.

Clarity of goals and deliverables depends on both superiors and subordinates being aligned – understanding not just what needs to be achieved, but how success will be defined and measured. Only then can we answer essential leadership questions. How do we deal with and get the best from top performers? How do we help and coach average performers to step up to their full potential? How do we manage and supervise low performers to reach expected standards? Yet across many Malaysian workplaces, we suffer from a serious distortion of what performance truly means.

Too many Malaysians have a twisted idea of performance. The majority who deliver at a mediocre level perceive themselves as excellent performers. Many rate themselves as “A” or “5-star” simply because they clock in at nine and leave at five, complete assigned tasks, and avoid mistakes. Many still carry the school mentality where scoring 100% equals A performance. In the business and working world, that is not excellence – that is performing as expected. In reality, most of these individuals would, at best, rate a C minus. How many of us can fully concentrate and perform at 100% every single day?

Worse still, we have become a nation that lies to each other about performance. Superiors evade managing tension and shy away from unpleasant conversations. Many avoid communicating weaknesses and bad habits clearly because they want to be seen as “nice bosses.” Every year, bonuses are distributed almost across the board, making nearly everyone believe they’ve gone the extra mile. To appear kind, we distort reality. The result is a workforce that no longer knows how to self-assess – where self-perception and reality stand as far apart as Kangar is from Kota Kinabalu.

While standard HR documents outline performance in polished business language, they often fail to get through to people. We need simpler, clearer, and more honest yardsticks that everyone can understand.

An excellent (A/5) performer delivers work at an extraordinary level, standing far above their peers. The next person is nowhere near their standard. You are the Steve Jobs, Nicol David, P. Ramlee, or Lionel Messi of your field – exceptional, consistent, and driven. You complete tasks well before deadlines and with superior quality. In a marathon, you are among the few who break away early and finish far ahead of thousands. You are trusted with turnkey projects, frequently headhunted, and often tasked with responsibilities beyond your job scope because you make excellence look effortless.

An above-average (B/4) performer consistently delivers more than 100%, though not yet at an extraordinary level. You can teach, guide, and coach others because your quality of work is reliably higher than that of most peers. Your superior rarely needs to monitor your progress and trusts you even in their absence. You complete tasks ahead of deadlines and add value to outcomes. Others see you as a good example to emulate, and you naturally become a source of knowledge within the organization.

An average (C/3) performer delivers work at 100%, fulfils their role independently, and consistently meets all job expectations. Your superior does not need to chase or monitor you because you can be trusted to deliver on time and at the required quality. The moment your superior has to chase you or show you how to do it, you are no longer a C performer – at best, you are a C minus. A true C performer is an organization’s asset: reliable, consistent, and trustworthy. You get things done and make things happen.

A below-average (D/2) performer delivers at or below 99% and requires coaching and supervision to meet basic standards. You occasionally miss deadlines or fall short of expectations, forcing your superior to monitor and follow up. D performers may show moments of brilliance, but their defining problem is inconsistency and weak discipline. Good intentions alone are not enough when consistent action is missing.

A poor (E/1) performer operates far below expectations, consistently failing to deliver results despite guidance and supervision. They require constant monitoring, show weak discipline, resist feedback, and exhibit habits such as lateness, excuse-making, and blame-shifting. Attitude issues further damage team morale and performance. In short, E performers lack the drive, discipline, and commitment to meet even basic standards. They should shape up or be shifted out.

If we want to build world-class organizations – whether in government, business, or education – we must first align our understanding of performance. Leaders must have the courage to speak truthfully and the wisdom to balance empathy with accountability. A capable leader manages tension, provides honest feedback, holds people accountable, and is willing to have tough conversations – and, when necessary, take tough actions.

Clarity in defining, measuring, and communicating performance is not a technical exercise; it is a moral duty. It ensures fairness, drives growth, and restores integrity to our workplaces. When everyone – from top management to new hires – understands what performance truly means, excellence becomes not an exception but a culture.

Let us, as Captains of Industry and Public Institutions, lead this movement toward clarity. Let us make performance real again – for our teams, our organizations, and our nation. We must remember Peter Drucker’s wise words: “What gets measured, gets improved.”

Anas Zubedy