Interesting data point for you. First, Break All The Rules found that average managers put most of their time into their worst performers. Great ones put most of their time into their star performers. The reason? Both groups can improve, and a 10% improvement in a star is worth a lot more than a 10% improvement in a dud.
I'd be interested in the study data. The data I've seen suggest that great managers put most of their time into manageable employees, the ones I called swing performers above. It could be that some stars swing between good and great, while some median employees swing between poor and good. If there are stars who have a 10% swing based on management investment, then yes there's a better ROI working with them.
I agree with the idea that it's a poor idea to spend most of your time with your worst performers. The problem with the worst employees is that many of them are irredeemable, so you can't get 10% improvement out of them, except possibly by micromanaging them to the point where you're doing their work)--and that doesn't scale. They're unmanageable in a negative sense, and thus you need proportionally more investment to get poorer returns.
One strong exception to a dictum against spending time with worst performers: Spending time identifying unmanageable poor performers does generate very high returns IF YOU FIRE THEM. In software, poor performers can actually have negative productivity: Their presence slows the rest of the team down.
>Spending time identifying unmanageable poor performers does generate very high returns IF YOU FIRE THEM. In software, poor performers can actually have negative productivity: Their presence slows the rest of the team down.
excellent advice. Before going into mission, platoon leader should better shoot all his bad soldiers, so they wouldn't slow the team down.
Horrible comparison. First, it's not uncommon (historically) for bad soldiers to have been executed. In Russian history alone, I can find examples of that (Trotsky's decimation in the Red Army, based of course on the Roman practice).
Second, in this case the poor performers aren't executed. They're let go, usually after being put on a pip (which can be viewed as a notice to look for another job). They can improve their performance in another job (if someone is smart, but doesn't get these things done it's a wake up call for them to establish better discipline). Similarly, in the military poor soldiers aren't usually sent into front line battles (being delegated to secondary roles).
>Horrible comparison. First, it's not uncommon (historically) for bad soldiers to have been executed. In Russian history alone, I can find examples of that (Trotsky's decimation in the Red Army, based of course on the Roman practice).
I can only say - Kirk Douglas, "Paths of Glory". It said all about bad performers and management.
>Similarly, in the military poor soldiers aren't usually sent into front line battles (being delegated to secondary roles).
nice, correctly incentivising, performance management system - if you shown yourself a bad soldier then you don't get to go to dangerous mission(s). I bet you'd be a respected 4-star general ...
