Performance gap
A performance gap is a measurable difference between what is happening and what needs to happen — stated as observable behavior, not as a training topic. “Managers lack feedback skills” is a guess; the statements below are measurable.
The two-level gap
Level 1: The business result
| Metric | Current (simulated baseline) | Desired | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90-day new-hire turnover | 22% (17 of 78 new hires, trailing 12 months, HRIS) | 15% | Within 12 months |
Why this metric: it is the number the intake conversation surfaced (see reframing question 2), it is already measured, and exit-interview coding links it to feedback (“no idea how I was doing” — see interview notes, M3/S1/S2). At an estimated $9,400 per departed new hire, moving 22% to 15% avoids ≈5–6 exits per year (7 points × 78 new hires ≈ 5.5 exits, ≈$47–56k/year) — before engagement effects.
Level 2: The behavior that drives it
Gap statement: Managers currently give structured feedback in about 1 in 5 one-on-ones (self-report, pulse survey of all 70 managers); the target is 4 in 5 within 6 months.
| Observable behavior | Current (simulated baseline) | Desired (6 months) | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hold a one-on-one with each direct report at least every two weeks | 31% of managers (22 of 70) | 80% | Pulse survey manager self-report (analysis, Finding 4); calendar audit |
| Give structured feedback in one-on-ones (specific behavior + impact + agreed next step) | ~1 in 5 one-on-ones (~20%) | 4 in 5 | Pulse survey manager self-report |
| Staff experience useful feedback fortnightly | 2.4/5 pulse item | 3.5/5 | Staff pulse survey (analysis) |
What the gap is not
- Not an awareness problem. Managers can describe what good feedback looks like (interviews M2, M3); they don’t do it. Knowledge-only training would not close a doing gap.
- Not primarily a new-manager problem. Usefulness scores barely differ by manager tenure (2.3 / 2.3 / 2.6 — analysis, Finding 3); “train the 25 new managers” would miss roughly two-thirds of the affected teams.
- Not a willfulness problem. The documents show a system that doesn’t ask for feedback work: no scheduled time, spans of 12–18, a ratings-only review form, and scorecards weighted 0% on team development (document review).
Full current vs desired picture
| Dimension | Current state | Desired state |
|---|---|---|
| One-on-one cadence | 31% of managers at fortnightly+; no policy definition, no tracking | 80% at fortnightly+; cadence defined, rostered, tracked |
| Feedback structure | ~20% of 1:1s contain structured feedback; no template | 80%; template + job aid in use |
| Formal feedback points | Annual review only, ratings-only form | Quarterly pulse + annual review with 2 qualitative questions |
| Spans of control | Median 13, range 12–18, growing | Reviewed; flag to leadership (board-level) |
| Manager incentives | Scorecard: 0% team development | Team-development items added (leadership decision) |
| Staff experience | 2.4/5 “useful feedback in last 2 weeks” | 3.5/5 within 2 quarters |
| 90-day turnover | 22% | 15% within 12 months |
Next: root-cause analysis (BEM) explains why each row looks like this.