Figure A.1 illustrates a model I use when helping companies determine how to manage performance differences. It uses the analogy of the pelotons that form in a long bike race such as the Tour de France. Pelotons are the fastest form of long-distance bike riding because they allow riders to draft off each other. Riders take turns at the front similar to how geese take turns flying at the front of the flock to break the wind. It is not possible to form a peloton without having a group of riders, and the pace of the peloton is influenced by every member of the group. The same concept is true for the performance of groups in an organization. This makes the analogy of a peloton useful in understanding different levels of performance.ⁱⁱ The percentages provided in the following descriptions are general estimates and vary widely across groups.

• Breaking away riders have sprinted out in front of the larger group. The speed of these riders is driven by internal self-motivation, although they are also influenced by the speed of other breakaway riders. In a multiday race the breakaway riders change constantly. No person can achieve breakaway status in every single stage of the race.
  • Breakaway performance describes employees whose contributions are having a major impact on the overall performance of the group. These employees may have found ways to add value no one had considered before or have achieved phenomenal levels of results through a combination of motivation, skills and perhaps a bit of luck. The value created by breakaway performance in some jobs is more than five times greater than the value of average performance.¹ One company I worked with referred to this category of performance as “legendary” because it inspired stories about what it was possible to achieve. People capable of performing at this level may quit an organization if the work environment is limiting their success. This includes having to work with low-performing people. Employees achieving breakaway performance want to be recognized for their outstanding contributions and given additional resources and opportunities to do even more. This category typically encompasses less than 10% of the workforce.

  

• Leading riders are at the front of the peloton. The speed of these riders is partially influenced by looking at the breakaway riders that they hope to catch. The other factor that influences their speed is how fast the people are riding in the peloton behind them. They may not catch the breakaway riders, but they want to stay at the head of the pack.
  • Leading performance describes employees whose contributions exceed expectations but that are not at breakaway performance levels. Employees often move back and forth between breakaway and leading-edge performance levels. Leading employees tend to set the pace in terms of defining what good performance looks like in the company. Managing leading performance is about letting employees know they are viewed as critical talent and investing to help them reach even higher levels of performance. This category tends to be about 25% to 35% of the workforce.
• Foundational riders are in the middle of the peloton. Some of these may be former breakaway or leading riders who have dropped back to rest and recover from the previous days’ rides. Their speed is heavily influenced by the riders immediately in front of them and behind them.
  • Foundational performance describes employees whose contributions are valuable to the company but that are not considered exceptional. This group often contains long-tenured, loyal employees who are critical to supporting ongoing operations and service continuity. Employees often move back and forth between this category and leading performance. Some may have exhibited breakaway or leading performance in previous jobs before they were promoted to more challenging positions. Managing foundational performance is about showing meaningful appreciation for what these employees contribute and giving them access to development resources to achieve higher levels of performance. This category tends to be about 40% to 50% of the workforce.
• Lagging riders are at the back of the peloton. They may be intentionally going slow to save energy or may be struggling to keep up. The speed they ride influences the speed of the riders in front of them. This in turn influences the speed of the entire peloton.
  • Lagging performance reflects employees who are still effective in their role but are not effective enough. This could be a result of being in a role that does not play to their strengths or a consequence of trying to do the right things in the wrong way. It might also be caused by things outside of work distracting them from being fully effective. These are not bad employees. They are good employees who are failing to fulfill their role expectations. In many cases these employees possess critical skills that the organization needs. Managing people at this performance level is about increasing self-awareness about what they need to improve, providing a path for improvement, and giving them confidence in their ability to get back on track. This category is usually about 10% to 15% of any large workforce.
• Straggling riders have fallen well behind the peloton. Some stragglers may catch up with the peloton, but others may drop out of the race entirely.
  • Straggling performance is not just below expectations; it is counterproductive. Employees in this category may be in a job that does not align with their skills, be facing issues outside of work that are preventing them from doing a good job, or have beliefs that conflict with the values of the organization. Managing these employees requires being clear on what they need to improve and holding them accountable for improving within a set amount of time. It is unproductive and unfair to force other people to rely on them. If they do not improve then they should be moved into another role or out of the organization entirely. These individuals should be shown respect even if they are being transitioned out of their jobs, both because it is the right thing to do and because other employees will form impressions of the organization based on how they are treated. Many work groups will not have any employees in this category, and it rarely includes more than 5% of an organization.

Most business leaders can sort employee performance into these five categories fairly easily. Providing five categories tends to provide enough range to distinguish among performance levels but is not overly complex. Overly simplistic models with two to three categories tend to overlook important performance differences between employees. Overly complex models with more than seven categories can lead to managers overemphasizing small performance differences between employees to justify placing them into different categories.

It is important to recognize that not every group will have the same distribution across categories. For example, occasionally more than 50% of a small team could be in the breakaway performance category, although such “all-star” teams rarely last, because members often move on to new roles.² It is also possible that in smaller teams all employees could perform at the same level. When assessing performance, managers should be challenged to critically compare the performance of team members through dialogue with their leaders and peers. But they should not be required to place specific percentages of employees into different groups. It is not effective nor fair to require managers to make evaluations that do not reflect their honest views.