Stop Promoting on Opinion

If you look at elite sport, nothing is left to opinion.

Speed is measured.

Strength is measured.

Power is measured.

Accuracy is measured.

Recovery is measured.

If it isn't measured, a training plan can't be built. And if a training plan can't be built, improvement is guesswork.

Yet in construction and property, we talk about "high performers" all the time without the same discipline.

Everyone thinks they're one.

Every business says it rewards them.

But how many organisations can clearly define:

Too often, the answer is vague. And as Brian Sands said on the podcast, when there's a void where communication should exist, that void gets filled with guesswork. Usually inaccurate guesswork. That's when resentment starts. That's when people assume favouritism. That's when culture erodes quietly. Clarity fixes that.

I'm not the technical expert in your business. I have a solid understanding of what CAs, PMs and Development Managers do, but if you employ them, you know exactly what good looks like in your organisation. So define it. Start with:

Take a Contract Administrator. Purpose:

Now define measurable expectations. Procurement:

Commercial:

This is no different to measuring sprint time or shot accuracy. If you don't define the metric, you can't assess the performance.

Elite teams don't say, "He's a good player." They say: 92% pass completion. 11km per game. 85% conversion rate. In business, high performance should be equally clear.

High performance might mean:

Mid-level:

Low performance:

Once documented, performance conversations become factual. Not political.

Time served is not a KPI. For a CA to become a Senior CA, criteria might include:

Promotion becomes evidence-based. Not tenure-based.

In elite sport, if a player's endurance is weak, they don't get told to "be better." They get a conditioning plan. In business, measurable KPIs allow you to see:

Then development becomes targeted:

Improvement becomes deliberate.

Here's where many businesses trip up. A lot of leaders I speak to, both in recruitment and on the podcast, say the same thing: Some technically excellent people make poor leaders. Leadership is natural for some. For others, it has to be learned. And if it's not learned, it becomes destructive.

If someone is a gun Senior CA but hasn't developed leadership capability, then gets promoted to Commercial Manager purely because they're technically strong, what often happens? They micromanage. They struggle to delegate. They communicate poorly. They frustrate the team. The business suffers.

That's why leadership development should begin before promotion. As part of progressing into a Senior role, KPIs should include:

If leadership is going to be part of the future role, it must be measured and developed before the title changes. Otherwise you're promoting a technician into a leadership role they're not ready for.

Now the bonus conversation. Let's use an example. Erling Haaland is a Norwegian striker who plays for Manchester City. He's arguably the most lethal goal scorer in world football right now. Clinical. Efficient. Relentless.

Imagine he's on a goal-scoring bonus. Now imagine his teammates never pass him the ball. He makes the runs. He creates space. He's ready to finish. But he never receives the pass. He ends the season with no goals. No bonus. Was he poor? Or was the structure broken?

That's what happens in some businesses. A high performer hits every measurable KPI. Delivers on procurement. Protects margin. Mentors juniors. But the broader project underperforms because others made mistakes, and suddenly "there's no bonus pool this year." Nothing frustrates a genuine high performer more than doing their job exceptionally well and being penalised because the system around them failed.

If you're going to offer incentives:

Otherwise, don't promise them. Ambiguity damages trust faster than underpayment.

From my side of the desk, this would transform recruitment. Imagine asking a candidate: "What are your strengths, and how do you evidence that?" And instead of generic phrases, they say: "In my last review, I achieved 90% of my KPIs. Procurement and forecasting were rated high performance at 100%. My stakeholder management was at 80%, and I've been working on that over the last six months through structured mentoring." That's gold.

It would be like looking at FIFA Soccer (the video game) player stats. You can see: Pace. Passing. Shooting. Defensive awareness. You know exactly where someone is elite, where they're average, and where they need development. If candidates could articulate their measured strengths and weaknesses like that, recruitment would be sharper, hiring decisions would be cleaner, and career conversations would be far more mature.

Elite teams measure constantly. They don't guess. They don't assume. They don't promote blindly. They define. They track. They develop. They mentor. Construction and property is no less competitive.

If we want real meritocracy, clearer progression, stronger teams and less politics, we need structure:

It's not corporate fluff. It's performance architecture. And like elite sport, if it isn't measured, it won't improve.

The businesses that measure properly, develop properly and promote properly build stronger teams over time. It's not glamorous, but it works. If you're reviewing your team structure, incentives or hiring strategy this year and want an external perspective from someone who sees the market every day, feel free to reach out. I'm always happy to talk through what high performance actually looks like in your world.