In organisations, it is sometimes the person who positions themselves well who becomes recognised, rather than the one who brings the most value. One of HR’s real challenges is: how do we make those visible and appreciated who do not seek attention, yet are the ones holding the system together? Hybrid working has amplified this phenomenon even further. How can we build a corporate culture where “quiet performance” is also recognised? Where does the dismantling of invisibility begin in the evaluation system, in leadership attention, or in HR’s mindset? We spoke with László Kiripóczky, HR Director, about how to identify and recognise performance that is not spectacular or loud yet is fundamentally crucial to the functioning of a company.

Based on your experience, who most often receives recognition within an organisation, and is this always proportional to their actual added value?

Within an organisation, what determines who receives recognition is always shaped by the corporate and leadership culture, and accordingly, the evaluation systems in place – such as performance evaluations or various awards – and what aspects they consider. That is why it is crucial to define at the corporate level what “added value” means for us.

This can include the quantity of tasks completed, representing company values in everyday work, providing professional support to colleagues, or practically anything that an employee contributes to the community and/or the business in their daily work. I believe that in a well-functioning culture, both the “what” and the “how” aspects of work are recognised and ideally, to almost the same extent.

For example, someone might deliver lower “numbers” but convey fundamental values to the community, and this can mean more in the long run than high performance coupled with toxic behaviour. Nevertheless, I think that even today, in many organisations, employees who deliver peak performance but do not represent the appropriate cultural values are still more likely to receive recognition.

How can we create an environment where quiet performance is also valued?

If by quiet performance we mean when someone is stronger in the “how” aspect, but delivers the expected results at an adequate, though not outstanding level, then the first step in evaluating this is for the company to have a clearly stated and defined value system that can be translated into actual behavioural patterns. Company values and culture only become alive when they are understandable to both leaders and employees – meaning it is clear when and in what situations one is acting in line with them, and when not. Only then can it be expected that employees will align their behaviours and everyday behavioural patterns accordingly.

When company values have become part of everyday life and everyone has the same understanding of the corporate culture, this is beneficial. After that, based on these cultural core values, a performance evaluation system can be established in which, alongside the previously mentioned performance (“what”) aspects, daily operations and representation of the company culture can also be included (“how”). Evaluation should and must be based on this. HR plays a “translator” and supportive role in this: it provides the framework as a system and guideline within which this can function.

Given that these factors will always remain subjective elements of performance evaluation, it is especially important for senior management to communicate the representation of cultural values as a clear expectation towards middle managers and employees and without this, the system will not work.

What impact does it have on team dynamics when a leader provides regular feedback and recognition, and what are the consequences of its absence?

Regular and constructive feedback fundamentally shapes team culture. It increases commitment, motivation, and trust, and helps everyone see clearly where they stand, what their strengths are, and in which direction they should develop. Beyond that, constructive feedback can also serve as an excellent goal-setting tool for some employees, as highlighting areas for improvement allows leaders to set micro-goals for their team members – or employees can do so for each other – supporting continuous development. At the same time, good feedback should also include recognition of the strengths observed by the leader – what the colleague contributes to the bigger picture – as this alone can often energise an individual or a team.

The lack of feedback, on the other hand, has the exact opposite effect: it is demoralising for employees. Without feedback, they may feel as if they are operating in a “vacuum”. They receive no information about their performance, so they cannot measure their development or professional progress, nor do they know whether their work is adequate or not. In my view, without these points of reference, people can easily find themselves in a situation where they no longer feel motivated to maintain their own performance – they start to wonder, “Am I even needed here?” Moreover, in the long term, such an environment can also destroy the motivation of even the highest-performing employees.

The lack of praise is often attributed to the leader’s personality. In your opinion, is this related to personality, or rather to the company’s well-designed systems and processes?

Both factors can be behind the lack of feedback. There are leaders with the mindset of “I didn’t get any feedback either, yet I turned out fine,” and many leaders simply find giving feedback too confrontational or sensitive a topic, making them feel uncomfortable in such situations. At the same time, there are others for whom giving feedback comes naturally, even within the same corporate environment. However, it is the role of HR to shape the feedback culture within the organisation, to support both leaders and employees, and to translate related expectations into clear messages.

Corporate processes (usually coordinated by HR) provide important frameworks and opportunities to ensure that everyone receives some kind of feedback during the year, but I believe this is only the beginning of the story. A good performance management system provides a foundation for leaders (expectations, milestones, tools), but this alone is not enough. Returning to leadership practice – there will always be leaders who need extra support, training, or coaching, and employees who require additional or different types of leadership attention. Truly effective HR systems therefore create a framework for leadership work and help integrate it into everyday operations.

What systems or tools can help ensure that genuine performance – and not just what is well communicated – is reflected in evaluations and promotions?

The most effective performance management system is one that interprets and measures performance from multiple aspects, and where, in addition to the direct leader’s evaluation, feedback from colleagues and other departments is also included. A 360° evaluation, for example, can be an excellent tool in this regard, as it provides insights into the evaluated colleague’s performance not only from the leader’s perspective but also from their immediate environment.

As I mentioned earlier, another fundamental element is that the evaluation should examine not only the “what” (results) but also the “how” (behaviour, attitude, values).

When designing such a system, it is extremely important that evaluations are based on clear, measurable criteria and behavioural patterns that everyone knows and understands. However, these criteria may change over time as the company’s goals evolve, so it is worth regularly calibrating them at the leadership and HR levels to ensure that evaluations are not based on vague perceptions but start from a shared understanding.

How can we provide career paths and recognition for colleagues who “work in the background” without forcing them to adopt an extroverted way of operating? Does it depend on the leader of the area?

It is the shared responsibility of leaders and HR to ensure that everyone finds their own place and value within the organisation. We need to employ the right people in the right roles at the right time. Naturally, this will not mean the same thing for everyone, as career goals, personal plans, and life situations differ from person to person. However, aligning the workforce with the company’s objectives is a particularly important HR task from this perspective as well.

For more introverted and more extroverted colleagues, a career path can mean completely different things. For example, for a more introverted colleague, a “specialist” career path – where promotion is based on deep professional expertise, system-building skills, or mentoring, rather than on presenting, visibility, or leadership abilities – may be more suitable.

Leaders play a significant role in recognising these opportunities and in creating a tailored vision for the future together with their colleagues. HR’s role is to ensure that this approach is embedded at a systemic level – for example, in job descriptions, promotion criteria, talent management programmes, and in a job structure that supports predictable planning from the employee’s perspective.

How can performance evaluations reflect (or fail to reflect) such “invisible” work? Are they even capable of doing so? And how does it influence performance?

A good evaluation is therefore transparent, behaviour-based, and ideally also builds on the leader’s sensitivity. When these elements are in place, “invisible” work can also become more visible, which fosters organisational commitment and performance because it sends the message that every contribution – whether direct or indirect – is valued.

A good evaluation is therefore transparent, behaviour-based, and ideally also builds on the leader’s sensitivity. When these elements are in place, “invisible” work can also become more visible, which fosters organisational commitment and performance because it sends the message that every contribution – whether direct or indirect – is valued.