Episode 29: The Quiet 10%. Who's Really not Performing?

There’s a group in every organization we rarely talk about.

It is the quiet 10–15% who have learned how to stay… just below the threshold.

In Episode 29 of The Orange Twist, Giovanna D’Alessio explores this subtle and often invisible dynamic: the people who are present, compliant, and never quite problematic—yet somehow not fully there.

This episode moves beyond the usual question of performance management and asks something far more uncomfortable:
What have we, as leaders, made possible?

Drawing on systemic insights and the relational nature of performance, this reflection uncovers how ambiguity, avoided conversations, and blurred accountability create the perfect conditions for people to quietly disengage.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Because true leadership begins where avoidance ends.

This episode is an invitation to move from elegant explanations to honest conversations—to reconnect, to clarify, and, when needed, to take a stand.

For leaders, HR professionals, and coaches navigating complexity, this is a mirror you may not expect—but won’t easily forget.

Sometimes people don’t disappear. They are allowed to.

The Orange Twist is hosted by Giovanna D’Alessio, MCC — reflections on leadership, culture, and change for HR professionals and organizational leaders.
Connect with Giovanna on LinkedIn.
New episodes released regularly. Stay curious.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Episode 29, the quiet 10%. Who's really not performing? A few months ago, I was sitting with a senior leader, let's call her Anna. She was sharp, respected, the kind of person people describe as solid. You know, the type dependable, composed, never dramatic. At some point, she leaned back and said almost in a whisper, Giovanna, I think I have people in my team who have disappeared, but they are still on payroll. We both smiled because we both knew exactly what she meant. Not the high performers, those are visible. Not even the real underperformers, those eventually trigger alarms. But that quiet middle, that 10-15% who have learned how to stay just below the threshold. They attend meetings, they deliver something, they are never the problem. And yet, something is off, unopposed, and then added. And the worst part, I think I have allowed it. And this is where I want to begin. Because the instinctive question is, how do I fix them? But the more interesting and uncomfortable question is, what have I, as a leader, made possible? Barry Oshri spent decades helping leaders see what they usually don't see. We don't just manage people, we operate inside systems that shape behavior. So when someone hides, it's rarely random. It happens in the gaps. In metrics organizations, for example, where two managers assume the other is handling performance, or in teams where goals are collectively owned but individually vague. In cultures where harmony is valued just a little bit more than honesty, and slowly, almost invisibly, a space opens up when you can do the minimum, and no one quite calls it out. Let me ask you something. In your current team, where are the gray zones? What is accountability politely blurred? Where do people say we all own this, but no one really does? And now, here's the twist: it's very tempting to stay at this systemic level. It makes us sound thoughtful, sophisticated, but it can also become a very elegant way to avoid something much more human, the conversation. I remember another leader, Marco, who told me, I know exactly who you are talking about. There are two people in my team like that. But honestly, I don't see the point of addressing it. It would just create tension. And so I asked him, and what is the cost of not addressing it? He didn't answer immediately. And then he said, the others see it. Exactly. They always do. David Klatterbach reminds us that performance is not just an individual attribute, it emerges in relationships. And when a leader avoids a conversation, something subtle but powerful happens. A message is sent, not in words, but in energy. This is acceptable. This is the standard. This is how much we really care. So before we talk about fixing performance, let's talk about reconnecting. Because many of those quiet, low performance are not rebels, they are disconnected. Sometimes they have lost meaning. Sometimes they feel unseen. Sometimes they tried and nothing changed, so they adapted. They didn't check out overnight, they drifted. And drift requires a different kind of intervention. Not a performance plan, a human entry point. Try imagining this scene. You sit down with that person, not in a formal view, not with a char overing in the background, but in a real conversation. And instead of starting with metrics, you say, Can I ask you something a bit different? What has your experience of work been like lately? And then you stay. You resist the urge to correct, to jump in, to reframe, you you listen. Now, let me be clear: this is not about being nice, it's about being accurate. Because if you don't understand what's underneath, you will address symptoms and call it leadership. And at the same time, and this is where many leaders get stuck, connection without clarity is not leadership either. It's comfort. Daniel Pink would say people need autonomy, mastery, and purpose. And yes, when one of these is missing, performance suffers. But let's not hide behind theory. Sometimes all three are present. The role is clear, the person is capable, the environment is supportive. And still they choose the minimum. And this is the moment where leadership becomes sharper, quieter, but sharper. I once asked a leader, what are you not saying to this person that you know it's true? She looked at me and said that I don't trust their level of commitment. I said, and what are you saying instead? She smiled. That they could be even more impactful. Do you see the gap? Clarity is not about being harsh. It's about removing the fog. It sounds more like this. Let me be transparent. This role requires a certain level of ownership and proactivity. What I'm observing is a consistent pattern of doing what's asked, but not really stepping in. And that gap is something that we need to look at together. No accusation, no over-explaining, no emotional leakage, just truth in service of something bigger. Now here comes the part that we rarely name. Not everyone will re-engage. And if you've been leading for a while, you already know this. Some people will nod, agree, maybe even try for a few weeks and then return to their baseline. Not because they are bad people, but because for whatever reason, this is not where they are willing or able to show up fully. And this is where leadership stops being developmental and becomes ethical. Because every time we keep someone in a role where they are not really contributing, we are making a decision. We are deciding that the discomfort of addressing it is greater than the cost of tolerating it. But that cost doesn't disappear. It moves into the team's motivation, into the unspoken resentment of high performers, into the quiet lowering of standards. So let me go back to Anna. A few weeks after our conversation, she reached out. I have the conversation, she said. It was uncomfortable. It was more direct than usual. And you know what? He actually said he had been coasting for months and was wondering if anyone would notice. I asked her, and what happened next? She said, we agreed on a very clear expectation and also that if things didn't shift, we would consider a different role. I posed. And how do you feel now? She took a breath lighter and strangely more respected. Of course, because leadership is felt, not in the frameworks we quote, but in the standards that we embody. So maybe the real question is not how do I transform that 10-15%, but what am I willing to stand for consistently, even when it's uncomfortable? Now, if you look at your team today, who is the person you've been managing around instead of truly managing? And what would change if you chose to meet the situation directly? People don't hide in organizations, they are allowed to disappear.