Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Are high performing and high potential employees the same?
Many organizations are stratifying employees as high, mid and low performers. Does being a high performer indicate high potential for career advancement? Do you use the same criteria to determine hi-pos as hi-performers? If a high performing employee did not want to be promoted because of family obligations, would you still consider as a high performer? Thanks.
Events
- Dos and Don'ts of Small Business Marketing May 29 @ 11 am PT
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
10 Answers
Hi Lisa. Great question and one I've heard asked before.
Are high performing and high potential employees the same? Nope, not even close.
Draw a square. Make 4 quadrants.
Bottom left X axis = Low Performer
Bottom left Y axis = Low Potential
Top left Y axis = High Potential
Bottom right corner = High Performer
Top right corner = High Potential
So, your bottom left corner represents Low Performer/Low Potential and your top right corner represent High Performer/High Potential. This grid is a great way to plot where employees fall in each category.
That being said, high performers are not always high potential. Take the genius PhD scientist for example. Exceptional technical skills; zero leadership ability. (high performer/low potential). Or, take the case of someone you absolutely know is in the wrong job, but has shown great leadership and problem solving skills in cross-functional teams (low performer, high potential). There are a number of different permutations that occur based on the individual circumstances of the evaluation.
To answer your questions specifically, high potential is typically evaluated based on one's ability to assume roles of greater responsibility, scope, impact, and influence. These are typically leadership positions, but not always. High performers are typically evaluated based on their performance in the current job. High performance is about the "now." High potential is a guess about the "future." Two different criteria.
In your example, a high performer not wanting to accept a promotion for whatever reason would still be a high performer. It's debatable whether you'd consider that person "high potential" after that - a lot of that decision is really rooted in the organization's culture and how it views those kinds of things.
The long and short of it is that they aren't the same and shouldn't be confused. Hope this perspective helps.
High performance and high potential are two different things. The first measures the past and the second estimates the future. While both are difficult to properly assess, predicting the future is far more problematic and is generally wrong in fact.
They are also relative and situational. Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking would have been poor ditch-diggers, I suspect; but, as young men, they had great potential as theoreticians and teachers. People will always have clearer "past performance" than "future potential" because the past output results are finite and historically completed while their future possibilities are infinite and unrealized options.
Great question and answers!! Potential is something that is an opinion or belief that one holds about another while performance is something that can be measured against solid metrics.
It has been said that noting that someone "has great potential" is one of the most damning things you can say. A so called "high potential" employee may or may not end up being a superstar but they are definitely worth investing in. The outcome or return on investment is not always positive but what other reasonable choice can you make?
Top performers are a more complex issue. While they may be performing well in their current situation, there is no guarantee that they will do as well in another position. Some people are desirous of moving up the ladder while others are happy at their current level.
The most effective ways to manage and leverage both high potential employees and top performers is to have a solid coaching, counseling, mentoring and performance management system.
High performing does assess the past but it also does not assess the future. Many high performers do not follow through in their performance for many reasons including not feeling they have to continue performing. High or low performance can often be situational in nature rather than a concrete assessment and recruiters, managers and co- workers need to understand that dynamic.
In that respect, high potential candidates can also be in a situation where they may or may not be able to live up to their potential. While assessments may provide valuable insights, they should not be relied on as concrete indicators of performance or potential.
The two are quite different. Performing describes what is happening now; potential refers to what could happen.
Brendan's four quadrants (described above) demonstrate that each combination (high performing, high potential; high performing, low potential; low performing, low potential; and low performing, high potential) each have a one in four chance of occurring. Theoretically, there's no reason why one should be present more than any of the others.
I haven't seen any studies on this comparison, though I'm sure they exist. It would be interesting to read them.
Lisa that is great question. I think that performer traditionally indicates how you are performing in the position you hold currently. Potential measures your top performance in this, other positions as well as with additional training. This is my understanding, every company has its own lexicon, of course.
That being said, I would assume that someone who was performing very well in middle management (for example) but preferred not to be promoted past that level when approached would be described as a high-performing but low-potential employee (in my opinion). Did I answer you at all?
Thanks all for such great responses. I completely agree performance and potential are two separate indices. I find it interesting when organizations performance management structure or process may reduce an individual's performance assessment score based on a personal lack of personal desire for upward career mobility. Being identified as a low potential can perhaps bear a stigma, especially if the person perhaps has potential but chooses not to take advantage of lateral or upward advancement opportunities for personal reasons. Perhaps someone is pursuing graduate studies and holding on promotional opps for 2-3 years until completion. Another is holding on advancement opps until the children are in kindergarten. Another is delaying career advancement until their mother passes from cancer. There may be situations in which someone is high potential but in a temporary holding pattern because of personal reasons. Just some additional thoughts.....? Would you still slot them as low potential? Perhaps closer to the 9 block allowing for a mid- potential?
Hi Lisa! You are quite welcome! It was a great question. I guess I'm wondering if mid-potential makes sense as a category. For example: high priority, medium priority, low priority - how do you differentiate between medium/low? It's kind of either high priority or it's not. Maybe this is the same? Not sure.
Again, org culture plays a big part in most of your scenarios. If the organization is "mom friendly", support continuing education and professional development, and values the "whole person" concept (meaning we bring our whole selves to work, including all of our personal/family issues), then I would think that those things wouldn't knock you off the high potential list. If the organization has no work/life consideration and you are expected to sacrifice yourself and everything you care about/stand for on the altar of the org, then my guess is you'd be "black-balled" for passing up any opportunity for any reason. Not saying either is right, but it certainly begs the question.
High performers are identified by their current and past performance.
High potentials are identified by the wishful thinking of those who assign the high potential label. Executives often identify high potentials based primarily on past performance and past performance includes;
- performance in current and prior jobs
- alma maters
- GPAs
- degrees and certifications
- etc.
None of the items listed are predictive of future job performance. Yes, some of the items indicate whether or not a person is competent but even that is suspect.
If we really want to identify high potentials, we need to do more than ask executives and managers, see the following article by Sue Todd at CorpU.com
HIRING HIGH POTENTIAL TALENT? Learn how to improve your success rate
http://www.corpu.com/weekly/article/hiring-high-potential-talent/
Bob
Thank you all for the discussion. The August HR Magazine has an excellent article discussing high potential and high performing employees and how to retain this talent through identification, planning, development and feedback. Another term used is "acceleration planning" as an option to high-potential.Thanks again.
Answer This Question