Y’all, I saw a post the other day and it rubbed me the wrong way. It was along the lines of high performers being tired of working with people who have low standards.

The post labeled those who are not high performers as lazy, and more than 200 people agreed. That tells me this idea of low performers as lazy is pretty prevalent.

And this matters because how organizations interpret performance shapes whether people stay engaged… or check out.

But I want to challenge that notion of low performers and ask: Is it possible that the low performers are engaging in ways that aren’t being translated as value, and in doing so they’ve become discouraged? Is it possible they contribute to progress in ways we aren’t aware of? Is it possible that the system (aka the organization’s unwritten rules) is simply easier for the high performer to navigate?

Is anything besides laziness possible?

Because if it is, then we may need to admit that organizations often misdiagnose performance.

If that’s the case, then ironically we may have to stop being lazy about how we identify performance or engagement and start looking at the workplace process as a whole—what we allow, what we reward, and what we overlook.

I want to challenge the idea that low performance is always a choice of the individual and instead highlight a pattern I see: contributions that fall outside of visibility, familiarity, or proximity are often invisible to the organization.

What we see in an organization is not simply the sum of individual effort. It is the interconnection between people, expectations, systems, and culture that produces the results we see.

Sometimes what we label as low performance isn’t tied to laziness, but rather it’s a gap between contribution and what the organization knows how to recognize as value. When that gap goes unresolved over time, people eventually stop trying to translate their effort at all.

That’s what organizations later call disengagement.

Understanding the problem is only the first step. To shift engagement and performance, we need to consider what contributions are being overlooked, why they’re undervalued, and how the organization itself shapes what gets recognized.

The System Shapes What’s Valued

When we look at performance through the lens of engagement, we see that what the organization notices, rewards, or punishes shapes behavior. Contributions outside those norms often go unrecognized — and it’s not just about the individual. The organization as a whole defines what work is truly valued, not merely what is visible.

So how do we begin changing that cycle? The challenge isn’t on one person alone; everyone interacts with the system and can influence outcomes. A useful starting point is understanding utility from your perspective:

• As a leader: What do you view as high performance? Where does that standard come from?
  
• As a direct report: Which of your contributions aren’t being recognized, and how do you understand the organization’s expectations?

Answering these questions naturally leads to comparison. When standards aren’t clear, comparing contributions to recognized norms or others’ outputs gives context. It helps surface overlooked work, adjust expectations realistically, and create more equitable recognition.

Translating Contributions Into Value

The principle is simple: contributions that are unseen or misunderstood aren’t necessarily unhelpful — they just haven’t been translated into recognized value. Over time, if that gap isn’t addressed, engagement drops.

One way I guide teams to bridge that gap is with a framework I call PAD-A. At a high level, it starts with comparing contributions to recognized norms and adjusting expectations based on what is valued versus merely seen.

A Micro-Action You Can Take Today

Something to try today is to identify one contribution you or someone else has made that has gone unnoticed. Compare it to what is valued and recognized. How might you make that work more clearly valuable?

This small step is often enough to start seeing where invisible contributions exist, begin translating them into recognized value, and shift engagement over time.

There’s more to this approach — how to translate contributions into recognized value, engage teams, and build equitable recognition. I explore this in depth in my workshops, where participants learn to apply these principles in real organizational contexts.