During my career, I have noticed that people's ability to do the work follows a left-leaning distribution, with most people working at about a 3 to 4 out of 10 and a few highly talented people working at an 8 or 9/10, as shown in the graph. In most offices, the average person does mostly acceptable work that often needs improvement because they are still learning. In contrast, the expert does excellent work while teaching others, maintaining high standards and challenging the system to improve. (I know that Deming says that 80% of performance is due to the system, and that's true in a highly controlled process factory, but in a loose process environment, individuals can make a big difference by developing, using and advocating for a better system.) The problem is that many managers and executives I've worked with cannot distinguish between 4/10 and 8/10 performance because they only work at level 3 or 4 themselves. For these managers, most people are equally capable, except for a few problematic people who complain about how things are being done. Often, the more senior the manager, the worse their judgement of talent is because they have lost touch with the work or are managing work they dont know how to do. The problem is that a manager who can't judge how competent someone is at doing the work often places a heavy weight on social factors, such as confidence, appearance, energy, organisation brand names, likability, similarity, loyalty, agreeableness, positivity, friendship, and alignment. This often comes out as questions like "where have they worked before?", "who recommended them?", "who looks best for this role?" and "who would I like to have a beer with?". So, if two people compete for a promotion, and one is a 4/10 on the work and an 8/10 on social factors, and the other is an 8/10 on the work and a 4/10 on social aspects, then many managers will say the first person is highly talented and the second person is a troublemaker. They're wrong, but that's what plenty of managers think. This is why many managers recruit and promote mediocre people who look and sound like them. And it's why highly manipulative chameleons like JD Vance do very well in the corporate world. If you're confused about why your group isn't doing good work, why your managers won't fix things, and why you aren't being promoted, this might be the reason. You need to invest more in the social game and less in building expertise, or you will need to move to an organisation with higher standards.
You need to understand one thing, every manager worth their salt wants a championship team, none of them wants a team of champions. Once that is clear, you will understand that you are wrong, not the managers. I was just watchig a video by Simon Sinek (is that the spelling), and I do not watch a lot of his videos, but I did this one, where he explains how SEAL Team Six picks the people, i will paraphrase, they would rather have low performance-high trustworthiness than high performance-low trustworthiness.
The conclusion of this post it that 80% of performance is due to the system.
There are four remedies in the literature; all these observations pertain to the general activity inside a firm as 'the incomplete description of reality supplied by the impersonal price system'...as equally judgement is measurement using the instrument of the human mind... What's the four reliable and trusted measures that can be used ?
What are the units of measure of the skill level scale? In what Domain? In what context in that Domain?
I think there's also the factor that talent scares people by raising standards above what the manager can keep up with, and the 3/4s are the first to agree.
What’s the source of the graph? Is this evidenced subjectivly from individual experience?
This gets complicated by different vectors for competency (e.g., all rounders vs. specialists vs. high EQ vs. contemplative vs. action oriented, etc.) and that many businesses would be just fine with solid middle of the road performers.
Which points to the importance of setting up an environment where people can learn and grow.
Intern at Everest Engineering, exploring Joy-Driven Development (JDD) in Data
3 个月Interestingly I tend to agree with you that "ability to do the work" follows a Poisson or Gamma distribution and I also agree with your conclusion "the social game" of work is vitally important to an organisation' success! But I wholeheartedly disagree that this is to do with the individual. In knowlege work (and I will focus on software development but the factors are general in nature) there are so many complicated factors at play. First of all software development is a team sport - the quality of collaboration matters. There's plenty of discussion and evidence about failures of the "team of champions" model. I'm also going to object to your talking about people's "ability to do the work" and drawing a graph of skill level. You cannot equate the two! In the same thread as above there is plenty of discussion where a team of "average skill level" bonds together well and is motivated by the mission to outperform much higher skill level teams. The social game is vitally important. Those at the top of our traditional hierarchies have a proportionally larger role to play in ensuring the system is setup for team success. My worry is that those at the top have a terrifying lack of education in how to help front line workers succeed