I think you're overestimating how much control of those parameters managers usually have. The employee was often hired years before by someone else, etc. And it's not so easy to move people around between orgs -- say you have someone on your team who isn't doing great, but they might be good in a very different team... it's not trivial to just move them there. There might not be headcount over there, they might not actually need help, they may be concerned by the employee's current low performance and not want to risk it. There's a number of complications.

But, this was the statement I took issue with:

> management is the only factor

Managers should certainly be accountable for the actions they take or fail to take in 1) evaluating performance, 2) providing continuous and constructive guidance, 3) raising concerns if performance is poor, and 4) taking active steps to communicate and work with employee to improve if performance is poor. If you don't spot problems or ignore them, you're not doing your job as a manager.

But the original statement from parent comment was: The employee bears no responsibility, and it's the manager's fault if someone isn't delivering. ??

> But the original statement from parent comment was: The employee bears no responsibility, and it's the manager's fault if someone isn't delivering. ??

A lot of employees feels the problems that lead to them not delivering are completely outside their control. In the cases I've seen this, they're mostly right.

Some are outside problems, true, problems outside of work. But mostly, they either have bullshit jobs, or are being sabotaged.

So they don't feel very responsible. A lot of them tried feeling responsible, and doing something, but were punished for this. Most compensate by moving on, which can mean a new job, but mostly it means just stopping to care about their job.