Skip to main content

Defining One's Potential

I just put an interesting article in my Blog "I Think, I Like"  in which Lou Adler posits that experience is overrated.  He says, "experience and skills are overrated. A continuous track record of exceptional performance in a variety of increasing complex situations isn’t."

This article got me thinking about a prevalent practice in corporations - assessing employee potential.  It also made me acknowledge that in defining potential, companies have made this way, way harder then it needs to be.  Look at this definition, from the Harvard Business Review:
"High potentials always deliver strong results, master new types of expertise, and recognize that behavior counts. But it’s their intangible X factors that truly distinguish them from the pack.  The Four X Factors of High Potentials :

1. Drive to excel
2. Catalytic learning capability
3. Enterprising spirit
4. Dynamic sensors"

Catalytic learning capability???  Dynamic sensors???  Who talks like that???

I think Lou Adler got it exactly right.  A person who has high potential consistently outperforms her or his peers, and does so while taking on jobs that are of higher and higher degrees of difficulty. In addition, while achieving differentiated levels of performance, a person considered high potential must behave in a manner that is consistent with  the company's culture and values.

Think of it like this:  potential should be measured in a manner consistent with the Olympic diving method of measurement; you'll be measured on the degree of difficulty of the dive, on your performance of it, and on whether the judges like you!

The implication for companies is interesting.  When considering one's potential, a company needs to look not ahead, but backward.  Who have been  the highest performers?  How hard have their jobs been?  Have they demonstrated the ability to perform well as the jobs have gotten harder?  Have they treated others with respect?

I am a firm believer that the best predictor of future performance is one's past performance.  I now believe that potential can be quantifed by accumulating one's past performance while factoring in degree of difficulty and behavior.

That, to me, seems more robust than measuring if one has an "enterprising spirit".  No offense, Harvard...




Paul E. DuCharme. January 2013.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

You May Know More About Managing Millennials Than You Think!

New and not so new labels - Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millennial (aka GenY) - are being bantered around our workplaces today and challenging our thoughts about effective management practice.  Baby Boomer and Generation X leaders like you want to know how to lead the new entrants into your workforce and fear that your differences may introduce managerial challenges for which you are unprepared.   You may know more about managing your future workforce than you think! Let's start with a short review.  Baby Boomers were born between 1945 and 1964, or between the presidencies of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, and make up about 40% of our US workforce. Generation X'ers were born between 1965 and 1981 (Johnson to Ronald Reagan) and make up about 20% of the same workforce.  The remaining 40% is comprised of Millennials (aka GenY), who were born between 1982 and 1993 (Reagan to Bill Clinton). Dan Schawbel works intensively to help leaders understand how to lead Millennial...
3 comments
Read more

The Seven "C's" of Employee Engagement

We've all seen the studies that speak to the impact on productivity of employees who give their company their discretionary effort.  The person who pulls an all-nighter to be ready for a customer presentation.  Or the one who travels tirelessly to connect a company globally.  When our employees go "above and beyond" to achieve, we say they are engaged.  And we all want to know how to make more engaged employees. My experience teaches the there are seven "C's" of employee engagement.  I must credit IBM with the beginnings of this framework, as I learned most of this from my time with IBM in Chicago.  I've tested this informally ever since and have yet to find a framework that is more memorable and relevant. So, what are the seven "C's" of employee engagement?  Here goes: C ustomer C apability (I'll count two "C's"' here) C ompensation C areer C onnections C ommunity C ulture C ustomer C apability may...
2 comments
Read more

Time to Transition?

Ralph has been a consistently mediocre performer for your company "forever".  He shows up for work each day on-time, occupies his cubicle with an eye toward anonymity, tackles his responsibilities as if they are chores to be checked off a list, and invests in his relationship with others to the minimum extent possible.  At the table stake level - attendance, behavior, task completion, ethical conduct, basic learning - Ralph meets expectations.  Beyond that, he's a non-performer.  He never exceeds expectations nor goes the extra mile.  He does not serve as a role model.  He isn't respected. As Ralph's manager, you have always viewed the time, effort and cost of terminating him as greater than the value you would bring to your organization from his departure.  His job can be rather tough to fill, he never really does anything wrong, his output isn't particularly measurable, you've become adept at relying on his teammates to make up for where ...
Post a Comment
Read more