David Ducheyne Algorithms are quietly reshaping how organisations manage performance. From real-time dashboards and predictive analytics to automated feedback and rankings, algorithmic performance management is becoming reality. The promise is compelling: more objectivity, greater efficiency, and decisions based on data rather than gut feeling. But there is a catch. Recent research shows that the success of algorithmic performance management has far less to do with the quality of the algorithm than with the quality of leadership around it. The Myth of the Neutral Algorithm Algorithmic systems are often introduced as neutral and objective tools. By analysing large volumes of data (KPIs, behavioural patterns, productivity metrics) they are supposed to remove bias and standardise decision-making. Yet employees rarely experience these systems as neutral. Algorithms are typically not very transparent. People do not know exactly how decisions are made, which data points matter most, or how m

At the CIPD Annual Conference, Matthew Maynell from the UK Cabinet Office shared the story of how the Civil Service built a learning and development (L&D) strategy and professional standards for line management. His presentation offered both a case study and a broader reflection on one of the most persistent challenges in organisational life: how to engage line managers and equip them to succeed. The Persistent Problem: Promoting Without Preparing Across sectors, the same pattern repeats itself. Individuals who perform well in technical or specialist roles are promoted into management — often without any formal preparation or training. Mayo began by asking the audience how many had become line managers without prior training; most hands went up. The consequences are familiar. Line managers find themselves improvising leadership, teams experience inconsistency, and organisations lose coherence between their strategic intent and day-to-day practice. The Civil Service, with more than 100,

Gert Verlinden Toon meer hashtag#leiderschap." Maar… wat ís dat eigenlijk? Ik las een sterk artikel in MT/Sprout over het leiderschapsvraagstuk waar Dominique Haijtema al twintig jaar onderzoek naar doet. Ze sprak tientallen denkers en leiders, en dat leverde verrassende inzichten op. Drie die mij bijbleven: 🔹 Echt luisteren is zeldzaam, maar essentieel – Simon Sinek stelt dat de grootste conflicten ontstaan door een gebrek aan interesse in de ander. Leiderschap begint bij hashtag#luisteren, niet bij overtuigen. 🔹 Te veel zelfvertrouwen is geen kwaliteit – Adam Grant waarschuwt voor het narcisme dat zich soms vermomt als leiderschap. Niet de luidste, maar de nieuwsgierigste leider maakt het verschil. 🔹 Verantwoordelijkheid nemen is niet optioneel – Rosabeth Moss Kanter wijst op het gevaar van leiders die zich terugtrekken op hun eigen ‘terrein’ en hashtag#verantwoordelijkheid ontwijken. Goed leiderschap is collectief denken, niet eigendomsdenken.. 📖 Het artikel geeft geen simpele d