TLDR
- CIPD (Impact of performance management on employees, Mark Beatson, 20 October 2023; UK Working Lives survey of about 5,000 people): 48% of UK employees have objectives set, but only 28% get the full loop of objectives, monitoring, feedback and accountability.
- 89% of employees with systematic performance management say they achieve their job objectives, against 76% with none. The biggest lift came when feedback became part of the process.
- Performance-related pay barely moved task performance in the data. Only 21% thought their pay was affected by hitting objectives.
- The CIPD’s modelling puts better people management first, systematic performance management second, and adding performance-related pay a distant third.
A Monday question for People leaders in Tallinn, Stockholm and London: how many of your employees could tell you their three objectives for this quarter, when they last discussed progress on them, and what feedback they got? Setting goals is the easy half. Closing the loop is where most companies stop.
The CIPD put numbers on that drop-off. In Impact of performance management on employees (CIPD Voice, 20 October 2023), senior labour market analyst Mark Beatson looks at how UK employees’ performance is actually managed, using the survey of about 5,000 people behind the CIPD Good Work Index 2023.
1. What the CIPD actually found
In plain language:
- Objectives are common; the full loop isn’t. Nearly half (48%) of employees had at least specific objectives set for their job. Just over a quarter (28%) had systematic performance management: objectives set, monitored, feedback on how far they were met, and accountability if they weren’t.
- The loop is linked to better performance. 76% of employees with no performance management agreed “I achieve the objectives of the job, fulfil all requirements.” For those with systematic performance management it was 89%.
- Feedback is the step that matters most. The increase in positive outcomes was greatest when feedback became part of performance management. Similar results showed up for health and job satisfaction.
- Dialogue goes with better managers. Employees whose performance management included feedback or accountability rated their managers more highly on average.
- Pay for performance adds little. 21% of employees thought their pay was affected by achieving objectives, and there was no visible difference in task performance between those with and without performance-related pay.
One honest caveat: these are self-reported survey results and associations, not a controlled experiment. The CIPD itself notes the link could run both ways, with good managers making the process happen, or a good process lifting managers. Either way, the practical lesson is the same.
2. The mid-market hurdle: goals get set in January and found again in December
In a 200–600 person company, the pattern is familiar. Objectives go into a spreadsheet or an HR tool at the start of the year. Then the business moves on. Managers run 1:1s as project stand-ups, nobody checks progress against the original goals, feedback lives in chat threads, and the first real “how did you do against your objectives?” conversation happens at year-end, when nobody remembers what was agreed.
That’s the gap between the CIPD’s 48% and 28%. Half the workforce has objectives on paper; far fewer get them monitored, discussed and owned. You don’t fix that with a longer review form or a new bonus scheme. You fix it by making the middle steps, check-ins and feedback, a weekly habit with the goals in front of both people.
Two easy next steps
Want the method behind this? Get the People Performance Playbook PDF: just enter your work email. Or bring your current goal-setting and check-in rhythm to a 15-min discovery call and we’ll walk where your loop breaks between objectives and feedback, and how Revolut People goals and structured 1:1s can keep it closed all year.
The PDF goes to your work email. The call is 15 minutes, calendar only.
3. 6 fixes to close the loop from objectives to feedback
- Give everyone a few clear objectives. The CIPD found more than half of employees didn’t have specific objectives at all. Three to five per person, written so a stranger could tell whether they were met, is a better start than a long list. In Revolut People: goals sit on each person’s profile and can link to team and company goals, so everyone sees what they’re aiming at.
- Monitor progress where the work is discussed. Objectives that only get looked at in December aren’t being managed. Put goal progress on the agenda of every regular 1:1. In Revolut People: structured 1:1s with shared agendas sit next to live goals, so progress comes up without anyone hunting for a spreadsheet.
- Make feedback the non-negotiable step. This is where the CIPD saw the biggest lift. Agree a simple standard: specific, behavioural feedback on goal progress at least every few weeks, not just at review time. In Revolut People: feedback and 1:1 notes are captured in the same place as goals, so they’re there when the review comes round.
- Add light accountability, not blame. The CIPD’s fourth element is employees explaining when objectives aren’t met. Keep it a conversation: what got in the way, and do we change the goal or the plan? In Revolut People: goal updates and 1:1 notes leave a record of what changed and why.
- Invest in managers before tweaking pay. The CIPD’s modelling puts better people management ahead of the process itself, and performance-related pay well behind both. Spend the next budget on manager capability and time for 1:1s, not a new bonus formula.
- Measure the loop, not just the form. Track how many employees have objectives, how many had a progress check-in last month, and how many got feedback, not only how many reviews were submitted. Check your next cycle against the review cycle checklist.
The PDF goes to your work email. The call is 15 minutes, calendar only.
4. Where Revolut People fits, and where it doesn’t
Revolut People started as the in-house system Revolut uses to run performance. The part that maps to the CIPD finding is goals plus structured 1:1s: objectives that stay visible, and a regular conversation where progress, feedback and accountability actually happen, so the loop closes during the year instead of at the end of it.
To be straight about the limits: software won’t make a manager good at feedback, and the CIPD is clear that manager quality matters most. That takes training, time and leaders who protect the 1:1 slot. What it can do is remove the admin that crowds those conversations out, and keep goals, notes and feedback together. Related reads: McKinsey on feedback once a year or never, goals that don’t cascade, and Gallup on manager engagement and coaching time.
Bottom Line
The CIPD’s data says most UK employees either have no objectives or never get the full loop: only 28% get objectives that are monitored, discussed with feedback and owned. Those who do are more likely to say they hit their goals, feedback gives the biggest lift, and pay for performance adds little on top. For a mid-market People team in Estonia, the Nordics or the UK, the fastest win isn’t a new bonus scheme. It’s a few clear goals per person, checked in every 1:1, with feedback that happens during the year. Try it with one team for a quarter and count how many people can name their objectives at the end.
FAQ
What does the CIPD mean by systematic performance management?
In the CIPD’s analysis by Mark Beatson (20 October 2023), based on its UK Working Lives survey of about 5,000 people, systematic performance management has four parts: objectives are set, progress against them is monitored, the employee gets feedback on how far they were met, and there is accountability, meaning the employee has to explain if objectives were not met. Just over a quarter (28%) of UK employees reported all four.
How much difference does systematic performance management make?
The CIPD found 89% of employees with systematic performance management agreed they achieve the objectives of their job, against 76% of employees with no performance management. The increase was greatest when feedback became part of the process. These are self-reported survey associations, not proof of cause and effect.
Does performance-related pay improve performance?
In the CIPD data, just over a fifth (21%) of employees thought their pay was affected by achieving objectives, and there was no visible difference in task performance between those with and without performance-related pay. The CIPD’s modelling suggests better people management has the largest effect, systematic performance management a significant but smaller one, and adding performance-related pay very little.
What should a mid-market People team do first?
Make sure every employee has a few clear objectives, then close the loop: regular check-ins that monitor progress, specific feedback, and a simple accountability step. Invest in line manager capability alongside the process, because the CIPD found manager quality had the single largest effect on outcomes.
Is Revolut People available in Estonia, the Nordics and the UK?
Yes. Revolut People is available to businesses with a registered entity in the UK, the EEA or the US, which covers Estonia and the Nordic countries.