What Should Actually Be in a Performance Contract?

The problem to solve

Job descriptions often describe a category of work but do not establish an operating agreement. They are rarely specific enough to guide tradeoffs, decisions, feedback, or consequences when the role is under pressure.

A Performance Contract is not a legal document. It is a working agreement that makes the organization’s expectations visible and reviewable.

The Work & Theory principle

The organization should be explicit about the conditions it expects a person to work within—and the conditions it will provide. Clear performance starts before evaluation.

Diagnostic questions

Review the role with its manager and role holder.

• Can the role holder state why the role exists?
• Are the two or three critical outcomes visible and prioritized?
• Which decisions belong to the role?
• How and when will feedback be given?
• What capability must develop, and what support is available?
• What happens when expectations are not met after the conditions have been tested?

Practical next actions

Create a web-native first draft with these seven parts: purpose, outcomes, expectations, authority, feedback, development, and consequences. Use language tied to the work, not generic traits.

Test the contract in a live one-to-one. If the role holder cannot use it to make a decision or prioritize work, make it more concrete.

Related artifact and pathway

The completed agreement is the Performance Contract artifact. It should connect back to the Organization Blueprint, since role clarity cannot be separated from workflow, interfaces, and decision rights.