The Real Cost of Making Managers Do More With Less

Here's a conversation happening in companies across America:

"We need quarterly check-ins instead of annual reviews." "Great, but I don't have time for more meetings." "We need better engagement data." "Okay, but who's going to analyze all these surveys?" "We need development plans for everyone." "Can you add four hours to my week?"

Sound familiar?

After fifteen years in performance management, I’ve watched this pattern repeat everywhere: companies ask managers to do more without removing anything from their existing workload.

The result isn’t better people management. It’s corner-cutting, checkbox-ticking, and the kind of performance management theater that helps no one.

We've asked managers to do quarterly check-ins, monthly one-on-ones, pulse surveys, engagement follow-ups, and development plans. Without adding time or removing responsibilities. Of course they're taking shortcuts. The problem isn't managers. It's system design.

The Multiplication Problem

When a performance management company launched in 2008, most managers did annual reviews for their direct reports. Time-consuming? Yes. But predictable and contained.

Today’s managers are often asked to do more frequent reviews, monthly one-on-ones, weekly check-ins, pulse surveys, engagement follow-ups, development planning, and goal tracking—plus whatever crisis management fills the spaces between.

We multiplied the asks without multiplying the time or tools to handle them efficiently.

Where the Time Actually Goes

Let’s be specific about what “more with less” actually means for a typical SMB manager:

Annual reviews took maybe two hours per employee once a year. Painful maybe, but finite.

Current expectations: 30 minutes monthly for one-on-ones, plus quarterly or semi-annual reviews, plus engagement survey follow-ups, plus goal check-ins, plus development conversations.

That’s eight hours per employee per year just for formal performance activities. For a manager with six direct reports, that’s 48 hours annually—not counting preparation time.

No one budgeted that time. No one removed other responsibilities to make room for it.

The Predictable Shortcuts

When managers don’t have time to do performance management well, they find ways to do it quickly:

One-on-ones become status updates instead of development conversations. Reviews get written the night before they’re due. Engagement survey results get filed without follow-up. Development plans become copy-and-paste exercises.

The worst part? Everyone knows this is happening. Managers know they’re not giving their people the attention they deserve. Employees know their reviews are superficial. HR knows the process isn’t working.

But the response is usually more process, not better process.

The SMB Reality

Large companies can hire people coordinators, HR business partners, and analytics specialists to support managers. SMBs can’t.

The person managing customer service is also handling employee development, tracking performance, and analyzing engagement data. They’re doing enterprise-level people management with startup resources.

That’s not a skills problem or a commitment problem. It’s a system design problem.

What “Easy” Actually Means

When we say performance management should be easy, we don’t mean dumbed down. We mean integrated, efficient, and focused on what actually improves outcomes.

Easy means managers can see all the context they need about an employee in one place instead of switching between three platforms.

Easy means engagement data automatically informs performance conversations instead of requiring separate analysis.

Easy means the system tracks progress toward goals without managers manually updating spreadsheets.

Easy means insights surface automatically instead of requiring reports that no one has time to generate.

The Technology Gap

Most performance platforms were designed when managers had more administrative support and fewer direct reports. They assume someone has time to configure workflows, analyze dashboard data, and coordinate between systems.

Modern managers need systems that work intuitively, connect data automatically, and surface insights without requiring additional work.

That’s not about reducing functionality—it’s about increasing effectiveness per hour invested.

Efficiency vs. Effectiveness

Here’s the crucial distinction: efficiency means doing things faster. Effectiveness means doing the right things.

Managers need both, but they need effectiveness first. A manager who has great development conversations with their people but updates systems inconsistently is more valuable than a manager who maintains perfect records while avoiding difficult conversations.

Systems should support the conversations, not replace them.

The Support Equation

“More with less” only works when the tools multiply manager effectiveness instead of adding to their workload.

Good performance management systems make managers better at the human parts of management by handling the administrative parts seamlessly.

Managers should spend their time understanding their people, not updating status trackers.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Bethany opens her dashboard on Monday morning and sees that three of her team members have engagement scores that declined last month. The system flags which ones, shows the specific factors driving the decline, and provides conversation starters for their upcoming one-on-ones.

Instead of spending 30 minutes analyzing survey data, Bethany spends 30 minutes having better conversations with her team.

The system did the administrative work so Bethany could do the management work.

Managers need systems that make good management easier, not irrelevant. Easy means seeing all employee context in one place. Easy means insights that surface automatically. Easy means supporting conversations, not replacing them with administrative burden.

The Sustainable Approach

Companies that succeed with modern performance management don’t ask managers to do more. They give managers tools that make the essential activities easier and the non-essential activities automatic.

The goal isn’t compliance with performance management requirements—it’s better relationships between managers and employees that lead to better business outcomes.

That happens when systems support human judgment instead of creating administrative burden around it.

ROI of Better Tools

Investing in systems that make managers more effective pays for itself quickly. Better manager-employee relationships drive engagement, retention, and performance improvements that far exceed software costs.

But only if the tools actually make management easier, not more complex.

The alternative is continuing to ask managers to do more with less while wondering why performance management initiatives don’t deliver the results we expect.