Pushing the boundaries of performance
Ask a manager to describe performance and often the response is couched in terms of the specific actions witnessed by an individual. For example "It is about going the extra mile...just like Helen does". Not necessarily a bad observation, assuming it is correct and that going the extra mile is what denotes good performance in the role Helen is employed to undertake. But unfortunately it is insufficiently illuminating to inform the needs of the modern performance and talent management frameworks. Ask the same manager to define potential and the response sadly is even worse. This is not however the fault of the manager. Most organisations have systematically failed to equip managers with a tool to effectively validate the potential of employees. In fact the poor managers may as well make their assessments of potential based on an interpretation of the zodiac for all the scientific rigour that is currently applied.
It seems though that organisations today are now increasingly recognising the limitations of building sophisticated and resource hungry talent programmes based merely on the back of a two-pronged recommendation from a line manager, who if we are honest may well have their own questionable levels of performance and potential. Often such binary and subjective reasoning generates four key risks to the business:
- The wrong people are identified for development
- The wrong people are promoted
- Vacancies remain unfilled as organisations are unwilling to take calculated risks with raw talent
- Genuinely talented individuals become disenchanted with the talent process and depart or opt out
The universally acclaimed GE model has been accused of supporting such myopic talent planning. One of the key reasons we believe this criticism is valid is because we've seen organisations become fixated on the 'subjective interpretation of the 'potential' axis as opposed to the combination of performance and potential. To put it simply, measuring and objectively evaluating performance is relatively straightforward. The manager looks into the rear view mirror that is evidenced with clear tangible results and a verdict is given. Ask the same manager to quantify future potential and the answer is open to far more scrutiny, questioning and ultimately a fair degree of doubt.
For this reason activ8 intelligence believes that talent should be defined in terms of inputs (generic behavioural capabilities that can be objectively assessed and grouped by future role opportunity categories) and outputs (quantifiable manifestations of performance that can be tangibly evidenced). Not two outputs as is the case with the GE model. In addition we advocate the inclusion of other performance components such as:
- Partnership - the ability to work effectively under the banner of the organisation's values
- Persistence - the ability to remain productive during times of change or uncertainty
- Profitability - the ability to contribute positively to the financial performance of the organisation
- Potential - the ability to take ownership for one's own growth and development
To support this view, activ8 has adapted research by the likes of Professor Rob Briner who recognised that different individuals exhibited performance oriented qualities in different ways depending on their personal characteristics, inherent values and relationship with the organisation. In essence this means that show one employee a role full of interest and opportunity for development and they will be loyal to the point they will stay longer than say another employee who is really motivated by the fairness of the meritocratic culture and as result strives hard to shoot the lights out. Two very different interpretations of performance but both potentially equally as important depending on the strategic resourcing objectives of the business they work in.
To find out more about activ8's view on performance, our research or our solutions in this area, please call us on 01623 883 656 or email us on info@a8i.co.uk