Bernie’s Thinking
Interestingly, both the US and our elections have been talking about change. Some would argue that Obama’s (the well known IRA terrorist Barrick O’Bamagh!) win signals a ground swell for change. I think in the US, American’s have voted for the change Barack has inspired people to believe in. Here in NZ, some are urging us to vote for a change.
One is a deliberate and positive choice about a specific future. The other is driven by blame, simplistic thinking and apathy.
There is a lot to be said for the average.
Particularly when it comes to talent. I have always been sceptical of organisations investing in talent management. Especially when the approach begins by identifying and developing the top performers. I don’t like the idea on principle. I am philosophically opposed. See my earlier post. I thought my opposition was purely ideological. Today it seems I have a quantifiable argument as well. In goes like this:
Every group has a small percentage of top performers and a small percentage of under performers. But the bulk of the performance is driven by the average performers. The middle of the bell curve. The problem with focusing on the top performers is that increasing their performance doesn’t contribute significantly to overall group performance. Especially when compared to raising the performance of average performers. And it’s difficult to lift the performance of top-performers because they’re already performing well.
The most effective way to increase group performance is to move the bell-curve to the right. To increase the performance of the average performers. If you can raise the performance of your average performers – the 60% in the middle – by 10%, that’s a net 6% across the group. And that easier because there is so much untapped potential! You’d have to raise the performance of your top performers – the top 10% – by 60% to match that. And that’s harder because they are already performing highly.
At last, an argument in favour of mediocrity. What a opportunity!!
