|
When remarkable performance is possible, why settle for mediocre?
by Oliver Nyumbu |
|
The high incidence of mediocre performance suggests that the route to remarkable does not lie in the typical approaches to managing, training or developing people. In this article Oliver examines how although one key is strong and relentless focus on putting people’s strengths to best use, many organisations still develop ingenious ways to mask mediocrity. Forbes magazine put it rather poignantly in a piece entitled: The biggest CEO firings of 2008 - Corrupt or simply incompetent? One thing is for sure: they’re out of a job. According to Forbes, for the entire year of 2006 the number of CEOs shown the door in Corporate America was 1,478. In 2008, for the month of November alone, that figure stood at an amazing 1,356, and 2009 is set to break all previous records – that’s according to data collected by the firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. "There are two kinds of CEO firings," says Noel Tichy, professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. "There are the crooks and there are the incompetents." This had me thinking about thinking about incompetence, competency, and strengths. Incompetent – what a useful word! Shorthand for useless, inept, hopeless, bungling, unskilled, and ineffectual, organisations strive to avoid or overcome incompetence at any cost. But, as a strategy, is it worth the effort? In the words of Peter Drucker: “It takes far more energy and far more work to improve from incompetence to low mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence... The energy and resources – and time – should go into making a competent person into a star performer”. Competency: a useful but limiting concept? While competent is certainly an improvement on incompetent, we intuitively recognise that the concept describes something far from remarkable performance. Think Tiger Woods! Think Yo Yo Ma! David Beckham! Gary Kasparaov! In describing these remarkable performers, ‘competent’ would be a woefully inadequate term. A head hunter asked a Chief Executive I respect what competencies he wanted for an Executive Director position. His answer? “Why not ask me what excellences I want for that role?” Strengths-based working Curiously, people are employed for their strengths (real or imagined) but they are then managed for their weaknesses. Organisations even call this development! To be effective, leaders must use their unique blend of strengths to complement the way they work with others and to focus on results. Minimally, this includes knowing what the organisation expects, staying focused on long-term results, and taking action. Deliberate practice is central to strengths-based working. Geoff Colvin of Fortune magazine describes some principles that should be practiced intentionally and robustly:
It is my sincere belief that most people do not go to work with the intention of achieving mediocre performance. But something happens as a result of how they work, how they are trained, managed, and developed. developing the skills and discipline to achieve remarkable performance is not an easy route - but then it seems the road from incompetent to mediocre is no short-cut either. Some navigation tips can certainly make for an easier journey. © Caret, 2009. All Rights Reserved Click here to download whole article in pdf |