Why Only One-Third Of Your Team Is Delivering Great Work, And How To Change That
Why Only One-Third Of Your Team Is Delivering Great Work
A new study reveals that managers across 484 companies believe only 35.7% of their employees are delivering great work. This isn't just a performance problem—it's the biggest untapped opportunity in corporate America.
Leadership IQ's new research surveyed 7,225 managers with one simple question: "What percent of your employees do you think are delivering great work right now?" The results should alarm and inspire every leader. Nearly two-thirds of managers (62%) believe that fewer than half of their employees are performing at their potential.
For most executives, this finding lands somewhere between devastating and puzzling. After all, these aren't problem employees being discussed; these are the solid performers, the ones who show up, complete assignments, and keep operations running. Yet managers see them as capable of so much more.
Study: Only One-Third Of Your Team Is Delivering Great Work
The conventional wisdom suggests that great performance requires superhuman talent—the Michael Jordan or Serena Williams of the corporate world. This belief creates a dangerous blind spot: it assumes great work is reserved for the naturally gifted few, leaving organizations to accept mediocrity from everyone else.
The reality is far more encouraging. In nearly every organization studied, the difference between good work and great work isn't supernatural ability—it's a set of simple behavioral choices that anyone can make.
Consider this real example: A CEO struggling with technology adoption noticed two distinct groups during the rollout of a new ERP system. The "good work" employees supported the change, saying things like "Okay, I'll give it a try" or "I'm excited to learn this new skill." The "great work" employees did something subtly different. When they heard negativity from colleagues, they actively encouraged others, redirecting conversations toward the positive and helping teammates focus on what they could control.
The difference required no additional training, no special talent, and virtually no extra time. It was simply a choice to take one step beyond personal compliance toward helping others succeed.
An engineering firm focused on accuracy provides another telling example. Good performers who found mistakes would report them to supervisors and propose solutions; solid, responsible behavior. Great performers did all of that, then took one additional step: they shared their mistakes with the entire team, creating learning opportunities that prevented others from making the same errors.
Again, the distinction wasn't about technical skill or intelligence. It was about choosing to elevate the performance of others, not just completing individual tasks.
These patterns repeat across industries and roles. Good work means accepting assignments; great work means volunteering for them. Good work means supporting changes; great work means championing them and bringing others along. Good work means completing tasks; great work means helping teammates succeed.
The mathematical implications are staggering. Organizations currently operating with roughly one-third of their workforce performing at peak levels are leaving massive value on the table. Consider the potential impact if that percentage moved from 36% to 60% (that's a 67% increase in great performers).
The research suggests this isn't wishful thinking. In many cases, employees already possess the skills and knowledge needed for great work. They simply lack clarity about what great work looks like in their specific context, or they operate within systems that inadvertently discourage the initiative and collaboration that characterize peak performance.
The most successful organizations in the study had leaders who could clearly articulate the difference between good and great work using what researchers call "word pictures,' (i.e., specific, observable behaviors that distinguish performance levels).
These leaders didn't rely on vague concepts like "exceeding expectations" or "going above and beyond." Instead, they painted clear mental snapshots of what great work looked like in action. When a new software system required adoption, they could describe exactly how a great performer would respond differently than a good performer.
This clarity serves two crucial purposes: it gives employees a concrete target to aim for, and it helps managers recognize and reinforce great work when they see it.
The research reveals that most performance gaps aren't about ability, they're about environment. Organizations with higher percentages of great performers share several characteristics:
They define great work behaviorally, not just by outcomes. Rather than focusing solely on numbers and deliverables, they identify the specific actions that create impact beyond individual tasks.
They connect daily work to organizational impact. Employees understand how their contributions matter and how great work in their role drives broader success.
They remove barriers to great work. Many well-intentioned policies and procedures inadvertently discourage the initiative, risk-taking, and collaboration that characterize peak performance.
They provide frequent coaching, not just annual reviews. Great work develops through ongoing guidance and real-time feedback, not periodic formal evaluations.
The study's findings suggest that hidden within most organizations is a reservoir of untapped potential. The question isn't whether employees can do great work—it's whether leaders are creating the conditions for it to flourish.
This represents a fundamental shift in how executives think about performance management. Instead of assuming that great work is rare and difficult to achieve, leaders can recognize it as an accessible choice that becomes more likely when people understand what it looks like and feel supported in pursuing it.
The companies that figure this out first will gain an enormous competitive advantage. While their competitors accept that only one-third of employees can deliver great work, these organizations will systematically move that number higher by making the invisible visible and clearly defining the small but powerful behaviors that separate good from great.
The 36% problem isn't really a problem at all. It's an opportunity disguised as a challenge, waiting for leaders bold enough to unlock the potential that's been there all along.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
On a Search for an Old E.V., Jay Leno's Car Obsession Came Up Clutch
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together. As an energy reporter on the Business desk of The New York Times, I often cover the transition to electrify the world around us, including automobiles and heating and cooling systems. But until I spoke with the historian at the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles, I did not know that electric cars rattled down city streets as far back as the mid-1890s. A century ago, roughly a third of taxi drivers in New York City shuttled passengers around in electric cars. I set out to write an article about these cars, and a time before lawmakers gave deference to the oil industry by offering numerous tax breaks, paving the way for gasoline-powered vehicles. But finding an original E.V. that I could ride in proved difficult. Most of them sit in museums and personal collections. Enter the comedian — and car collector — Jay Leno. My editor suggested I reach out to Mr. Leno after learning about his 1909 Baker Electric, housed in his famous garage. Mr. Leno's team gave an enthusiastic 'Yes' in reply. When I arrived at his warehouse garage in Burbank, Calif., in April, Mr. Leno had his Baker Electric charged and ready to hit the streets. The 116-year-old car, which had been refurbished, looked like it had just rolled off the showroom floor. Still, the wooden high-top body, 36-inch rubber wheels and Victorian-style upholstery whispered the car's age. It was basically a carriage with batteries, enabling drivers to free horses from their bits and harnesses. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Collaboration and Indirect Regulatory Lag
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: Samuel Altman, CEO of OpenAI, testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law May 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee held an oversight hearing to examine A.I., focusing on rules for artificial intelligence. (Photo by) Steve Jobs often downplayed his accomplishments by saying that 'creativity is just connecting things.' Regardless of whether this affects the way you understand his legacy, it is beyond the range of doubt that most innovation comes from interdisciplinary efforts. Everyone agrees that if AI is to exponentially increase collaboration across disciplines, the laws must not lag too far behind technology. The following explores how a less obvious interpretation of this phrase will help us do what Jobs explained was the logic behind his genius The Regulatory Lag What most people mean when they say that legislation and regulation have difficulty keeping pace with the rate of innovation because the innovation and its consequences are not well known until well after the product hits the market. While that is true, it only tells half of the story. Technological innovations also put more attenuated branches of the law under pressure to adjust. These are second-order, more indirect legal effects, where whole sets of laws—originally unrelated to the new technology—have to adapt to enable society to maximize the full potential of the innovation. One classic example comes from the time right after the Internet became mainstream. After digital communication and connectivity became widespread and expedited international communication and commercial relations, nations discovered that barriers to cross-border trade and investment were getting in the way. Barriers such as tariffs and outdated investment FDI partnership requirements—had to be lowered or eliminated if the Internet was to be an effective catalyst to global economic growth. Neoliberal Reforms When the internet emerged in the 1990s, much attention went to laws that directly regulated it—such as data privacy, digital speech, and cybersecurity. But some of the most important legal changes were not about the internet itself. They were about removing indirect legal barriers that stood in the way of its broader economic and social potential. Cross-border trade and investment rules, for instance, had to evolve. Tariffs on goods, restrictions on foreign ownership, and outdated service regulations had little to do with the internet as a technology, but everything to do with whether global e-commerce, remote work, and digital entrepreneurship could flourish. These indirect legal constraints were largely overlooked in early internet governance debates, yet their reform was essential to unleashing the internet's full power. Artificial Intelligence and Indirect Barriers A comparable story is starting to unfold with artificial intelligence. While much of the focus when talking about law and AI has been given to algorithmic accountability and data privacy, there is also an opportunity for a larger societal return from AI in its ability to reduce barriers between disciplines. AI is increasing the viability of interdisciplinary work because it can synthesize, translate, and apply knowledge across domains in ways that make cross-field collaboration more essential. Already we are seeing marriages of law and computer science, medicine and machine learning, environmental modeling, and language processing. AI is a general-purpose technology that rewards those who are capable of marrying insights across disciplines. In that sense, the AI era is also the era of interdisciplinary boundary-blurring opportunities triggered by AI are up against legal barriers to entry across disciplines and professions. In many professions, it requires learning a patchwork of licensure regimes and intractable definitions of domain knowledge to gain the right to practice or contribute constructively. While some of these regulations are generally intended to protect public interests, they can also hinder innovation and prevent new interdisciplinary practices from gaining traction. To achieve the full potential of AI-enabled collaboration, many of these legal barriers need to be eliminated—or at least reimagined. We are starting to see some positive movements. For example, a few states are starting to grant nurse practitioners and physician assistants greater autonomy in clinical decision-making, and that's a step toward cross-disciplinary collaboration of healthcare and AI diagnostics. For now, this is a move in the right direction. However, In some other fields, the professional rules of engagement support silos. This must change if we're going to be serious about enabling AI to help us crack complex, interdependent problems. Legislators and regulators cannot focus exclusively on the bark that protects the tree of change, they must also focus on the hidden network of roots that that quietly nourish and sustain it.
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why the ‘TACO' Trade Is Tempting Investors Amid US-China Talks
On May 30, US President Donald Trump accused his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, of breaking a trade truce that brought down tariffs from extreme highs in early May. Investors saw the writing on the wall: tariffs would spike again, hurting the economy. Stocks fell more than 1%. But later the same day, Trump said he'd have a conversation with Xi, and optimism – and stock prices – were restored. When the call finally happened on June 5, the S&P 500 Index again briefly surged. The early months of Trump's second term have been marked by this pattern: The president threatens to impose sky-high tariffs and stocks tumble, then he relents and markets recover. Wall Street has learned to capitalize on this by buying into the S&P 500 when it first drops, anticipating the president will backtrack on tariffs and send markets higher.
