Most managers think they know what "good performance" looks like—until they try to explain it out loud.
Suddenly the picture gets blurry. Is the employee "senior enough"? Are they technically strong but struggling with ownership? Are they operating at their level, or actually below it? And how do you explain any of this without triggering defensiveness or confusion?
This is where the competency matrix becomes indispensable—and why it remains the most underrated tool in any manager's arsenal.
What a Competency Matrix Actually Solves
A competency matrix turns vague feelings into objective expectations.
Instead of saying, "I just feel like they should be more autonomous," you can say: "At your current level, autonomy means delivering features end-to-end, involving stakeholders proactively, and influencing best practices across the team. Here's where the gap is."
The difference is everything. The conversation becomes clear, neutral, anchored in the role rather than your personal opinion—and suddenly actionable.
In Managing Low Performance, the competency matrix appears as the very first tool in the evaluation phase. That's intentional: get this part wrong, and everything else collapses.
The Real Value: Clarity for Everyone
A well-designed competency matrix delivers four things that most teams desperately need.
First, it provides a shared definition of "good." Everyone—managers, reports, peers—understands what each seniority level actually means. Not just in technical skills, but in ownership, communication, influence, and cultural impact.
Second, it enables fair evaluation. You're no longer comparing Alice to Bob. You're comparing Alice to the expectations of her level. That's a profound difference, and it changes the entire nature of performance conversations.
Third, it helps you identify the kind of gap you're dealing with. Is it technical? Behavioral? A missing foundation from earlier career stages? These distinctions matter enormously. Behavioral gaps, for instance, are far harder to close than skill gaps—and require a different intervention entirely.
Fourth, it gives you a grounded basis for feedback and development. Instead of telling someone to "improve your leadership," you can say: "At the Senior level, influencing team-wide technical decisions is expected. Here are three specific situations where that didn't happen." This level of specificity reduces defensiveness dramatically.
The Traps You Fall Into Without One
When managers skip the competency matrix, they inevitably land in one of three uncomfortable places.
The first trap is paralysis: "They're below the bar, but I can't explain why." This creates hesitation, delays, and decision inertia that compounds over time.
The second trap is false confidence: "They're doing fine... right?" Without a matrix, "fine" becomes arbitrary—and standards tend to drift downward without anyone noticing.
The third trap is inconsistency across managers. The same performance gets rated "good" under one manager and "not enough" under another. That's unfair to employees and corrosive for the team.
What a Good Matrix Looks Like
A proper competency matrix is role-specific. It breaks the role into technical and behavioral dimensions. It describes each seniority level concretely. It avoids both checkbox tedium and essay-length vagueness. It's structured without becoming bureaucratic.
Here's a simplified example from the software engineering track, focusing on ownership and project management:
- Mid-level: Owns a feature autonomously and delivers it end-to-end.
- Senior: Owns a major system or feature-set; serves as the go-to person for stakeholders.
- Staff: Drives cross-team projects spanning multiple product areas.
One glance, and expectations become immediately clear.
How to Start Using One Today
You don't need a perfect matrix to get value. You just need a usable one.
Here's the minimum viable approach: List the seniority levels on your team. For each level, define what "technical mastery" looks like, what "ownership" looks like, what "collaboration and communication" look like, and what "impact on culture and processes" looks like. Then review your upcoming evaluations through this lens, and start referencing the matrix in your one-on-ones.
Iterate from there.
When a performance issue surfaces, the matrix becomes your compass. You know where the employee is, where they should be, and exactly how far the gap extends.
The Surprising Impact on Your Team
Once you consistently apply a competency matrix, three shifts occur.
High performers finally feel recognized. They see that their impact is visible and measured fairly—not lost in subjective impressions.
Middle performers know exactly what to work on. Their development plan becomes concrete rather than abstract, with clear targets rather than vague aspirations.
Low performers become visible early. And early detection is half of successful performance management.
The matrix isn't just a tool. It's a guardrail for team excellence.
Going Deeper
This post only scratches the surface of what's possible with a well-implemented competency framework.
Managing Low Performance includes a complete chapter on building competency matrices from scratch, using them for evaluation, and combining them with expectations, interactions, engagement signals, and motivation analysis. You'll find templates, practical examples, and guidance on integrating the matrix into hiring, growth conversations, and calibration processes.
The full framework lives in Part I: Evaluate, starting with chapter I.1.
Want the Full Framework?
This post is a short extract of what's covered in Part I – Evaluate of Managing Low Performance. If you want the full system—including step-by-step evaluation, the complete competency matrix model, example conversations, diagnostic heuristics, and printable templates—you'll find all of it inside the book.
Get the book on Amazon