The Coach Bag

I received a Coach bag recently. Not the leather one. A paper one. But make no mistake: it was a genuine Coach bag.

My daughter bought herself a Coach tote, and it came home in a large brown Coach shopping bag with rope handles. The paper bag carried the leather bag from the store to the car, from the car into the house, and then sat around long enough to be used for other things.

Both bags are genuine Coach bags. Both served a purpose. But no reasonable person would evaluate them the same way.

The paper bag is expected to carry the purchase safely out of the store. It does not need to last for years. It does not need to retain its shape. It does not need to make a statement. Its job is simple: get the product home.

The leather Coach bag has a different promise. At roughly $150, the expectation is not simply that it can carry something. It should hold its shape. The stitching should last. The material should feel durable. The handles should support weight. It should look good today and continue looking good after repeated use.

Two similar functions. Two very different job descriptions.

The higher price does not make the leather bag morally superior. It raises the buyer’s expectation of the outcome. That is how we behave as consumers. It is also where many organizations get performance management wrong.

Why is it that, during performance evaluation time, the question, “Did this employee do their job?” results in the answer, “Yes, and that is why they are outstanding” for some?

As consumers, we understand that a premium product is not judged against the same expectation as the packaging that carries it home. The paper bag can perform its role perfectly. The leather bag can perform its role perfectly. Both may “meet expectations.” But the expectations are fundamentally different.

It should be self-evident that measuring a Coach bag against a generic-brand purse carries different connotations of what “good” looks like. And to be sure, “good” is not the same for each.

Yet a companywide definition of “meeting expectations,” and how it should be applied reasonably and equitably across the business, often varies greatly. Too often, a higher rating is given to a higher-level or more highly compensated employee for work that would otherwise be considered merely satisfactory in a lower-skilled or more common organizational role.

Why is it that, during performance evaluation time, the question, “Did this employee do their job?” results in the answer, “Yes, and that is why they are outstanding” for some?

Shouldn't the better question be: “Did this employee deliver the level of work, judgment, impact, and accountability that this role was designed and paid to produce?”

This points to two different performance considerations leaders must understand: quality standards and quality expectations.

Quality Standard vs. Quality Expectation

A quality standard is the minimum level of quality associated with a brand, organization, or profession. It answers: “What should always be true?”

A Coach paper bag may be less expensive and less durable than a leather Coach handbag, but it is still a Coach product. It should not feel disposable, tear at first use, or fail to meet the basic quality associated with the name on it.

That is the standard: the consistent bar that protects the credibility of the brand.

A quality expectation, however, is role-, product-, or level-specific. It answers: “What is this particular thing expected to do?”

A Coach paper bag is expected to carry purchases safely, retain its form, and reflect the Coach brand while doing so. A Coach leather handbag is expected to do much more: endure daily use, demonstrate superior craftsmanship, deliver a more refined experience, and justify a much greater investment.

Both must meet the Coach quality standard. But they do not carry the same quality expectation.

The same should be true of employees.

Every employee should meet the organization’s quality standard: professionalism, reliability, sound judgment, collaboration, and accountability. Those are the non-negotiables. They protect the company’s brand and culture.

Every employee should meet the organization’s quality standard. But each role should be evaluated against its own quality expectation.

But a senior executive, technical expert, manager, or highly compensated specialist should carry a different quality expectation than an entry-level employee. The role may require greater independence, broader influence, more complex decisions, deeper expertise, higher stakes, or more meaningful business outcomes.

That does not mean one person is more valuable as a human being. It means the organization has made a different investment and should therefore have a different expectation for the work.

A single performance standard for everyone confuses these two ideas. It treats baseline quality as though it were exceptional performance, and it ignores what the role itself was designed to deliver.

Every employee should meet the organization’s quality standard. But each role should be evaluated against its own quality expectation.

This is why accurate, regularly updated job descriptions are essential. They define what the role is expected to produce—not merely the tasks someone is expected to perform.

The quality standard is the floor. The quality expectation is the role-specific promise.

Leaders should reinforce both every day, not wait until performance-review season to decide what “good” was supposed to mean.