The term performance is politically charged, socially controversial and often not very precisely defined in everyday company life. Despite this – or precisely because of this – the management consultancy Hays and the Institute for Employment and Employability (IBE) have made it the focus of their HR report this year. The central finding of the study “Promoting performance, not just demanding it”, for which 907 managers, HR managers and employees from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were surveyed: When it comes to performance culture, there is a wide gap between expectations and reality.
Demanding performance without encouraging it is not possible
44 percent of the companies surveyed systematically demand performance. But only 28 percent promote it systematically. This discrepancy runs like a common thread throughout the entire report. While 45 percent of HR managers assume that their company specifically promotes performance, only 16 percent of employees without management responsibility share this assessment. That’s a problem. Because performance is specifically promoted is important for achieving performance.
Jutta Rump emphasizes that supporting and demanding are inextricably linked: “In a performance-based society, the second side of the coin is always included – supporting and demanding. This HR report tries to make that very clear.” Sabine Koch, Director of Human Resources Management at the German Savings Banks and Giro Association and one of the experts who accompanied the report, sees it similarly. “Promoting performance should not go hand in hand with pressure, but rather with a positive culture that allows employees leeway.” Koch: “It seems important to me to promote willingness to perform and motivation and to set result-oriented goals.”
Leadership errors as a brake on performance – but only from the employees’ perspective
There is also a discrepancy when it comes to who is responsible for good performance. The employees see this more in the leadership, the top management more in other aspects. If performance declines, according to 53 percent of all those surveyed, this is primarily due to leadership errors. The figure is even higher among employees: 64 percent of them see leadership deficiencies as the main cause. The company management, however, only comes to 31 percent.
The pattern repeats itself when it comes to the topic of motivation: there, too, higher management levels prefer to look for the causes of declining commitment outside the company – in social trends, generational change or external crises. For employees, however, issues such as corporate culture, lack of recognition and limited career prospects play a role.
Herbert Zahnen, managing director of the special systems manufacturer Zahnen Technik and one of the company representatives who accompanied the report with their practical perspective, seems to be an advocate that the responsibility lies with the management: “Lack of clarity from the management leads to uncertainty among employees as to whether they are meeting expectations – with far-reaching consequences for motivation, self-esteem and willingness to perform.”
This brings us to the third difference: People usually only do something if they get something in return in the end and it is worth it. This could be, for example, career advancement – but many employees do not necessarily see this as a natural consequence of performance. “When it comes to the statement that there are fair opportunities within the company to advance through performance, employees only agree half as often as management,” says Rump. Expressed in numbers: 46 percent of company management see fair opportunities for advancement – among employees the figure is only 21 percent.
Performance: The generational stereotype is not true
Part of the current political debate is the accusation that the younger generation is no longer as willing to perform as the older ones. This opinion is also expressed in the study: 58 percent of those surveyed cite the changing understanding of performance among younger generations as the cause of declining motivation in the company.
People under 30 have no more demanding definition of performance. 74 percent of them associate the term with meeting the requirements of the respective job, 57 percent emphasize adaptability to a changing work environment – higher values in each case than in the other age groups. In addition, younger respondents are more likely to perceive an increased willingness to perform in their company than older ones.
Professor Dr. Enzo Weber, head of the research department for forecasts and macroeconomic analyzes at the Institute for Labor Market and Occupational Research (IAB) and co-responsible for the report, puts the numbers into perspective: “Contrary to media narratives, there can be no question of a general decline in performance orientation.”
What really drives performance: meaning over money
What is interesting is that although many respondents see leadership as responsible for performance, they see responsibility for willingness to perform partly on themselves and partly on the employer by offering certain structural conditions. According to the study results, the personal willingness to perform of those surveyed comes primarily from intrinsic sources. 48 percent name the experience of meaningfulness as the most important motivating factor, 47 percent identify with their own work. Financial incentives come in fourth place at 34 percent – after recognition (42 percent).
The age gap is striking: with increasing professional experience, meaning and identification become more important, while career-related and material factors decline. For younger employees, however, feedback, personal development and career opportunities are more important.
According to Jutta Rump, pressure is no longer a significant motivator: “Nowadays, performance no longer comes about just through pressure. People have become more self-confident and want better conditions for their performance. They deliver even under pressure in the short term, but not in the medium and long term. Willingness to perform is not a sure-fire success.”
In many cases, companies also lack knowledge of the performance of their own workforce: only just under 40 percent measure performance regularly, and a further 40 percent do this at least selectively. The most popular instrument remains the employee interview (73 percent), followed by target agreement systems (48 percent). According to the report, more modern approaches such as continuous feedback (i.e. a continuous feedback process), OKRs or 360-degree feedback are still far from being mainstream practice.
Culture is crucial for good performance
What promotes performance the most? The study’s answers are remarkably consistent. At the company level: clear responsibilities (38 percent) and fair performance evaluation (37 percent). At management level: appreciation and recognition (41 percent), promotion of personal responsibility (38 percent) and clear objectives (37 percent). At the organizational level: freedom in work design (39 percent) and flexible work models (38 percent).
“When the conditions are right, we feel it, because then we can be at our best and deliver our full performance,” says Rump. The study data shows how far many companies are from this – and where the adjustment screws lie.
Info
For the HR Report 2026 “Promote performance, not just demand it” The management consultancy Hays in collaboration with the Institute for Employment and Employability (IBE) surveyed 907 managers, employees, company managers and HR managers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. He can here be downloaded.
Sven Frost is responsible for HR tech, which includes the areas of digitalization, HR software, time and access, SAP and outsourcing. He also writes about labor law and regulations and is responsible for the editorial planning of various special human resources publications.
