Care And Perform

Over the past few months, I have been talking to many CEOs, leadership teams and candidates about a phenomenon that keeps recurring, particularly in organizations that have been very successful over long periods of time.

The conversation begins with the company’s culture. Then it becomes clear it is about something else: The fit between that culture and the market environment.
Many of these organizations have impressive track records. They have constantly been growing, their teams are stable and their attrition rate is low. Their culture has been, and often still is, defined by cohesion, loyalty, and a strong sense of togetherness. This culture did not emerge by chance. It was a core driver of success.

But then the playing field changes. Markets become more dynamic, competition intensifies, decisions need to be made faster, and accountability for results moves to the forefront. This is the turning point where tensions begin to surface, because the internal culture remains oriented toward stability, protection and harmony, while the external environment suddenly demands speed, clarity and consequence. Suddenly the culture no longer fits the context.

In these situations, similar patterns appear again and again: Harmony is valued more highly than clarity. Consensus replaces decision-making. Loyalty outweighs performance and relationships matter more than results. Employees tend to avoid confrontation and postpone issues rather than resolving them.
These dynamics have a profound impact, especially at the middle-level management. Managers there tend to

• fail to execute initiatives consistently 
• put off taking decisive action
• set goals, but do not rigorously track them
• do not address performance differences 
• leave difficult topics unresolved

Leadership theoretically exists, but in practice, the right combination of clarity, consequence and accountability is often missing. At this point, organizations frequently ask the wrong question: Do we need more care OR more performance?

In my view, this is a false dichotomy. The most effective organizations do not choose one over the other. They manage to operate with both at the same time.
This requires redefining what care actually means. Care is not primarily about harmony. Care means taking people seriously and demonstrating that they are valued on the one hand, AND being clear – trusting they can handle clarity – on the other.

That includes:

• Speaking uncomfortable truths
• Setting clear expectations
• Differentiating performance honestly
• Not avoiding consequences

Conversely, true performance requires care as well: Care provides orientation and purpose, ensures fairness and fosters trust. It creates psychological safety in the sense of being allowed to speak up. Only in an environment of trust and clarity can the best performances happen. Care and performance are not opposites; they are mutually dependent.

The critical question for many organizations therefore is: How can we transition from a strongly harmony-oriented culture to an effective performance culture without losing our strengths? From my experience, this requires an integrated approach across strategy, leadership and systems.

A strong framework will have three core levers:

What does performance actually mean in this company, at this stage: at the individual level, at the management and team levels? As long as performance is not clearly defined, it remains open to interpretation and will be enacted inconsistently.

Transformation starts with leadership. Which managers can, want to, and will carry this change? Where are clarity, courage, or capability missing? Structured leadership assessments are a powerful tool here, especially one level below top management, to create a realistic picture.

Many leaders have been successful for years in systems that rewarded different behaviors. Now, leadership needs to be recalibrated from being “nice” to being truly effective: by setting clearer expectations and executing more consistently. By embracing confrontation and taking responsibility for results.

None of this means becoming “harder”, it means becoming more consistent. And critically such a change cannot be a one-off initiative. It must be anchored in goal-setting systems, performance reviews, HR processes, and promotion decisions.

Because culture doesn’t change through communication alone, but through consistent behavior – especially by leaders.

Ultimately, the tension can perhaps be summarized as follows:

• Care without performance leads to comfort zones.
• Performance without care leads to cynicism.
• Sustainable success emerges where both come together.