Are You Encouraging Your Stars to Quit?

In a very interesting article in Human Resources Executive Online, MBA professor Peter Cappelli discusses the change he’s seen in the last 20 years in these high performers and in their answers to the exam question: “Write about your last job, explain how you were managed, point out the successes and failures.”
“Most everyone, regardless of their sector reports working like dogs -- at least 60 hours a week and 80 hours or more was common -- and they are much more likely to be given the opportunity to work up to their potential. Here's the obvious point about these high performers. They all quit their last job. You might imagine that they planned to quit at some point, and no doubt that's true for many of them. But what the exams this year show is how many people quit because they were unhappy.

“And what's interesting is why they were unhappy. It wasn't the usual ‘I hate my boss’ or even ‘I don't fit.’ It was about questions of fairness. Virtually all the people reporting on the reason they left their last jobs said it was because of some injustice concerning rewards and recognition.”

Some injustice concerning rewards and recognition. Top performers – as described in this article, engaged employees – willingly giving discretionary effort, working up to their potential. All quit. Because of “injustice” in rewards and recognition.

While we strongly advocate opening the opportunity for recognition to all, when such a structure is managed strategically the top performers automatically rise to the top as the most recognized and rewarded through the system as they are the ones who most often display the behaviors worthy of recognition. In this way, strategic recognition encourages all employees to perform at their best, in alignment with your values and focused on your objectives, but it also ensures those who really are the elite are continually recognized as such.

Cappelli concludes the article:
“What's interesting about this is what it says about modern organizations. We have created an operating model that allows and may even need superstar individual contributors. But the organizations themselves are still social entities based around teams and collaboration.

“And in those social entities, norms of fairness develop that aren't the same as simply paying for individual performance. So we create stars and then frustrate them.”

Why not encourage more stars and praise them instead? How are you treating your top performers?

5 comment(s):

At January 18, 2010 4:26 PM, Elad Sherf said...

Very interesting indeed. I think this stems from on the misguided conventional wisdom which says that a manager needs to help his weak employees more than those who are doing "fine" or even over performing. I have written about this in the past (http://tinyurl.com/c8uvvz). It is like Seth Godin writes in his new book, Linchpin: "… We teach people to stick within a tiny range. We don’t want the lows to be too low, so we limit the highs as well". It is time we started focusing more on the top performers, in all respects, recognition and rewards included.
Elad

At January 18, 2010 4:40 PM, Derek Irvine said...

Indeed, Elad. I've written about it before as well. Take this misguided approach too often and soon your top performers will be neglecting their work in an attempt to get some attention from the boss!

At January 18, 2010 4:52 PM, Elad Sherf said...

By the way, the same thought occurred to me the other day after attending Seth Godin's presentation:

We ignore those who fit the mold. We let them stay in their mediocrity and put our efforts somewhere else. If you are a cog doing its job, I, the manager, can ignore you. I want peace and quiet. And when employees only get management attention when they are out of line, they start doing everything they can to not be noticed by management – that means no risks, not extraordinary thing. Mediocrity. Management failure
(see the second part of this post: http://tinyurl.com/yz4grzq).
Thanks for sharing this... Elad

At January 18, 2010 4:57 PM, Derek Irvine said...

That's terrific, Elad. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the links. Gallup's recent study proved the truth in this as well -- those who manage by recognizing strengths have the most engaged employees, those who largely manage by closing their door have the least. Not really shocking, but good to have validated. (Gallup research here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/11/strengths-weaknesses-ignored-how-are.html)

At January 18, 2010 4:57 PM, Derek Irvine said...

That's terrific, Elad. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the links. Gallup's recent study proved the truth in this as well -- those who manage by recognizing strengths have the most engaged employees, those who largely manage by closing their door have the least. Not really shocking, but good to have validated. (Gallup research here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/11/strengths-weaknesses-ignored-how-are.html)