When we work with organizations to help improve performance, one question we ask is, “Who are your top performers?” What we are seeking are examples of people who are currently doing excellent work and consistently delivering the results the organization desires.
Our question turns out to be much harder than it might seem.
Too often, we have to challenge leaders’ preconceptions to find the real top performers. To explain, let’s look at some of the usual answers we receive and examine the preconceptions behind them—and why they fall short.
Option A: Managers Who Used to Be Performers
Since managers who used to be performers were selected for advancement, they surely were the best, right? Perhaps. But the key word in that sentence is were. They were the best (perhaps).
But since these performers were promoted, two factors have changed. First, the job changed. To stay competitive, organizations have to evolve rapidly and continually. Roles must change to stay abreast of that evolution. So the role the manager filled as a past performer may not be the same role filled by current performers, making comparison problematic.
Second, the new managers have changed. They are now in a new role. Hopefully, they were selected for that role because of their potential for excellence in the new role, not just because of their performance in the old one. (That’s a subject for another day.) Since they’ve been in their new role, they’ve been acquiring new skills and mental models to replace the old ones they used as performers, which means they can no longer accurately represent the particulars of current top performers.
Option B: Those with the Longest Tenure
Those who have been there the longest must be the best, right? Not very often. Staying in a company a long time does not make an employee a top performer. Length of employment alone is not an accurate indicator of performance. Too often, people stay in jobs because they are comfortable, not because they are excelling.
Option C: Related Role
Quite often, organizations will identify a great performer, but the individual isn’t really in the role we are asking about. For example, if the role in question is that of financial advisor, then a credit counselor—who works with financial advisors and may be able to talk intelligently about that role—may be mentioned as a top performer. But it is not the same role, and all the hidden tricks, unconscious expertise, and mental models required are not the same either.
Option D: Top Performers Currently Excelling in the Role Being Studied
This is the right choice!
When we ask for top performers, what we really want are people who
- Are currently in the role being studied
- Are consistently excelling in that role
- Represent the range of geographic and organizational groups that exist in the organization
A good trick to identify the top performers is to think of the performers you would call on when the job gets really difficult. Here are some examples from different industries:
- Which operator would you prefer to be “running the board” in the event of a process flow problem?
- Which operator would call in to work when a problem occurs?
Customer Service Call Center
- Which person would you prefer to take calls from your highest value prospects?
- Which person would you want handling irate callers?
- Who is the best at converting inquiries to sales or upselling?
- Which sales executive would you prefer to handle the client with the most potential to grow?
- Who would you choose to solve a difficult client retention issue?
The bottom line is that when trying to understand what differentiates top performers from average performers, identifying and studying the top performers is essential. Only then can you accurately map how they do what they do and then build programs to help others excel in the same way.
By the way, yes—the top performers are often the busiest because you call on them all the time. But they are often the most willing to help. They want to succeed and they usually want others to succeed as well.
Who would you identify as your top performers?
Many companies struggle with the question of whether to invest in the development of their people. When they do decide to invest, they often ask, “Whom do I invest in?” Many choose to invest in the development of their top performers. After all, these companies reason, if they are already the best, doesn’t that mean they have the most potential to do even more? While investing in the top performers as a reward or to keep them motivated can be worthwhile, does that really provide the largest return to the business?
To examine this question, let’s take an example sales role and look at a typical distribution curve among a 100-person sales force.
|Category (%)||Sales people in category||Assumed average % of quota met||Average sales per person ($)||Total revenue contribution ($)|
|Total sales revenue||$172,000,000|
For illustrative purposes, let’s assume that a company’s development initiative improves performance by 10 percent across the board. Though it is quite realistic to move the average performers by 10 percent, moving the already high-performing group by an incremental 10 percent can prove more challenging. Meanwhile the bottom 20 percent of the population may have fundamental fit issues that make the 10 percent goal an improbable stretch. Nonetheless, in our simple example we will assume all three categories of performers improve by an equal 10 percent to bring the new total sales revenue to $189 million (see table below). How this increase plays out among the three performance categories is interesting.
|Category (%)||Number of sales people in category||% of quota met after improvement||New average sales per person ($)||Group change in revenue contribution ($)||% added to the revenue line by group|
|Total change in sales revenue||$17,200,000||10.00%|
|Total sales revenue||$189,200,000|
As the second table illustrates, the overall sales revenue grows from $172 million to $189 million with the same resource base. The somewhat surprising element in this simple example is that the revenue increase provided by the average performers is double that of the top performers. Given that boosting the output of the top performers can be more difficult, the implications are significant. Organizations must focus their improvement efforts on the middle of the distribution curve where the potential for improvement is often greater than 10 percent. As our example shows, the impact is substantial.
Closing the gap between the top and average performers delivers much better overall organization improvement than can be achieved by trying to squeeze more out of the top performers or spending enormous energy to improve the bottom.
Question to consider:
- What insights does the distribution of your top twenty, average sixty, and bottom twenty provide you?