To establish a clear framework and context, I’ll begin the article with a real-life example shared by a sales director of a multinational company back in 2017.

“I have 25 direct reports to evaluate once a year. Most of them I don’t know that well, but I have a general idea of who they are. When I visit them in their territories, we go see a client, then have lunch, and while we discuss the objectives and the issues they typically face. On the other hand, HR gives me 10 competencies I don’t understand because they use concepts like active listening, resilience, or learning agility, which I’m not entirely sure about since I’m focused on selling, not doing psychology. So for each collaborator, I have to rate these competencies from 1 to 5… that’s about 250 evaluations of things I don’t understand because I’ve spent the year selling, not thinking about them.” So, when the end of the year comes, I tell my daughters: “Except for 1 and 5, you can put crosses wherever you want. Then I’ll justify them if they ask.” And since that evaluation was tied to the bonus, it could be assumed that the children of these 25 salespeople would receive different Christmas presents based on whether the boss’s daughter gave a 4 instead of a 2 in any of the evaluated competencies.

To understand the effectiveness of people management systems and the subsequent decision-making in companies, it is essential to understand where the focus is placed—on the content or the container. The anecdote shared by this sales director regarding the annual performance evaluation of his team vividly illustrates the disconnect between the container and the content.

In this context, the CONTAINER represents the overarching framework of people management policies, processes, and models. This includes elements like talent matrices, performance management systems, corporate universities, career models, succession planning, competency dictionaries, and leadership models. This set of tools provides the necessary structure for decision-making.

However, the effectiveness of these tools largely depends on the CONTENT, meaning the quality of the information fed into these containers, which relies heavily on the proper functioning of the people managers. In the example mentioned, the performance evaluation was subject to the subjectivity of the sales director’s daughters, casting serious doubt on the validity of the resulting decision-making.

The dilemma lies in whether the excellence of the container is enough to guarantee correct decisions. The conclusion is that creating an “ideal” container doesn’t automatically ensure decision-making success if the content lacks quality.

This simple reflection highlights the need to balance attention between defining policies and how they are implemented. Investing in advanced tools and automated systems that facilitate management processes is crucial, but it should not overshadow the importance of cultivating meaningful and accurate content. Active involvement from leaders, a clear understanding of competencies, clarity in objectives, and the promotion of a positive work climate are essential to ensure that the content is as robust as the container holding it.

The conclusion is clear: long-term success in people management depends not only on designing policies and processes but also on the attention given to constantly nourishing them with high-quality information. This integrated approach requires not only creating excellent policies and systems but also the continuous commitment of key stakeholders in decision-making to apply these tools effectively and based on concrete facts.