LAGOM Insights:
Thought Sparks for
Business Success.

Performance does not disappear because people suddenly want less. It disappears because organizations quietly make it unlikely. And organizations, whether we like it or not, are the result of management decisions.

Performance culture is back on the agenda. In leadership offsites, in strategy decks, in executive discussions, it’s being rediscovered almost as if it were a lost virtue. The diagnosis sounds familiar everywhere: too little initiative, too little ownership, too little energy. The conclusion follows almost automatically, we need to become performance-oriented again.

But this framing already contains the error. Performance culture is not something that can simply be “reintroduced.” It is not a campaign, not a slogan, not a quarterly initiative. It does not vanish overnight either. What actually happens in most organizations is much less dramatic and much more structural: performance culture erodes gradually, and often it erodes because of the way leadership systems are designed.

The assumption that employees fundamentally do not want to perform is one of the most persistent myths in management thinking. Most people want to contribute. They want to shape outcomes, make decisions, see the impact of their work. The real bottleneck is rarely motivation. It lies in the conditions under which performance is expected to emerge.

For decades, research in organizational psychology has shown that performance increases when people experience autonomy, develop competence, and feel connected to others. Remove autonomy, and initiative declines. Not out of defiance, but out of logic. If effort rarely translates into influence, people adjust. They conserve energy. They wait. They comply.

Many organizations unintentionally create exactly these conditions. They ask employees to take ownership, but require every decision to be aligned and escalated. They encourage entrepreneurial thinking, but penalize visible risk. They promote independence, but design approval processes that make independent action nearly impossible. The contradiction is subtle but powerful. Over time, people internalize the message: initiative is tolerated rhetorically, but constrained structurally.

Passivity, in this context, is not a personality trait. It is a learned response to a system. Control plays a central role in this dynamic. From a leadership perspective, control feels responsible. It creates predictability and reduces uncertainty. It signals diligence. But ownership cannot coexist with excessive control. Ownership requires space, and space implies unpredictability. Organizations that attempt to maximize both end up with neither. They achieve compliance without commitment.

Studies on team performance repeatedly highlight psychological safety as a core factor for high-performing teams. The ability to speak openly, take risks, and make mistakes without fear of losing status turns out to be more decisive than talent alone. Yet many organizations still treat mistakes primarily as indicators of risk rather than signals for learning. In such environments, caution becomes rational. And caution rarely produces extraordinary results.

When performance begins to decline, many companies respond with pressure. More KPIs, tighter targets, more performance reviews, more visible metrics. The underlying assumption is that intensity will reignite energy. But performance culture does not respond to pressure alone. It responds to design.

If decisions are frequently revised from above, if authority is unclear, if responsibility is assigned without real room to act, no motivational speech will reverse the effect. Performance does not follow expectations. It follows conditions.

The blind spot in most performance debates is diagnostic. From a management perspective, declining initiative looks like a mindset problem. From a systems perspective, it is almost always a design problem. Organizations try to change behavior without changing the architecture that produces that behavior.

The uncomfortable question leadership must eventually confront is not why employees are performing less. It is where the system makes performance unlikely. Where are decisions pulled upward? Where are risks implicitly sanctioned? Where is visible activity rewarded more than actual impact? Where is responsibility distributed without corresponding authority?

This shift in perspective is demanding because it redirects accountability. It suggests that rebuilding performance culture is less about inspiring individuals and more about redesigning structures. Expanding decision spaces instead of expanding control mechanisms. Treating mistakes as learning signals rather than threats. Rewarding meaningful outcomes instead of visible busyness.

Performance does not emerge where it is demanded. It emerges where it becomes possible. And that possibility is largely shaped by leadership choices.

The most important insight may be deceptively simple: people do not need to become more performance-driven. Organizations need to become more performance-enabling. When the system supports autonomy, trust, and real responsibility, performance tends to follow naturally.

Management does not kill performance culture through bad intentions. It often does so through well-meaning control, excessive alignment, and structural caution. Reversing that trend requires courage, not to push harder, but to redesign the system in which performance is supposed to thrive.