Performance vs Potential

Quick meditation on the words “high performance” and “high potential.”

Start with the premise that all growth comes from finding the right balance between challenge and support. In that light, high performing employees are brilliant examples of folks who have-- at least temporarily-- found that balance.  

The tricky part is that for many high performers there was no intentionality in the discovery of that balance.  They were fortunate to have the kind of cognitive makeup, life experiences, daily habits and supporting team that allowed them to thrive on the standard support that companies and managers provide.

Now flip that.  Non-high-performers are employees whose developmental needs are *not* being met by the usual supports. In that light, average performance-- the middle of the bell curve-- is a structural problem, an indictment of every company’s inadequate investments in support systems and management capabilities.  

Note that there’s no argument here about whether companies should remain focused on high performance. They should.  It’s both a business and a moral imperative to shift our performance curve to the right by investing significantly more in developmental support for our employees and managers.

That might sound a bit obvious but underinvestment in coaching and development services forces companies across our entire industry into rationing higher-end, more personalized learning.  You know, the kind of experiences that use the word Institute and involve offsites and guest visits by our c-levels.  

Rationing leads to the prioritization of limited developmental experiences for “high potential” individuals-- a recycling of the term “high performers.”  Not cool.  Because by focusing on “high potential” employees we’re helping people that either don’t need it or need it less than their “lower potential” peers (words we never use).

Celebrating our “high performers” is recognition and gratitude 101. But calling that same group “high potential” shouldn’t sit well with any of us.  Not just because it’s needlessly demeaning to those excluded but because it signals that we don’t understand the word potential.  Investing in our middlers gives far more outsized results than the marginal gains we get from investing in high performers-- those who have already found their balance.  

That framing-- while counterintuitive-- correctly positions our average employees as “higher potential” than our “high performers.”

The bottom line is that high performing companies don’t skimp on employee development.  And the clearest signal that you’re not investing enough is the use of classifications like “high potential.”