Employee Performance and Promotion Myths
By Michelle Malay Carter on October 4, 2007
Not many would argue with that statement, but I am going to take a shot at it.
Employee Performance Myths
- Employees should be promoted based on contribution. FALSE.
- High potential means high performance. FALSE.
Employee Performance Truisms
1. Employees should be promoted not based on contribution but rather on POTENTIAL contribution. Unfortunately, organizations do not know what this means, much less do they have a systematic process for identifying it.
2. Excellent contribution in a current role means they are excellently suited for that role. They may or may not be ready for a promotion. Promotions should be based on work level, problem-solving capability. When their mental bandwidth matures into the next level, they should be promoted to the next level. Unfortunately, organizations? development plans do not track this factor, and therefore, do not align individual development planning with this. This leaves some employees with problem-solving capability ahead of their knowledge, skills and experiences and leaves others receiving training and developmental experiences prematurely.
3. High potential people are not always your best performers. Why?
- When under-employed, they may lack motivation to do lower level work ? boredom and lack of motivation can manifest in a variety of ways, most of them negative.
- When under-employed, their problem-solving capability may match or exceed that of their manager, causing a barrage of issues, most masquerading as personality issues.
- When under-employed, they can be viewed as arrogant and impatient, not a team player.
Jim Stroup?s blog post also made the comment that: ?Employers are complaining that it is so hard to find the right people that they are frequently settling for second best.? With our research showing that one in five employees is currently capable of higher level work, I wonder how they feel being past over for promotions and then asked to commit themselves to the leadership of second best?
*I agree with the basic premise of Jim’s post which was not specifically about this issue.