Talent Management Mud

Are high-potential programs all they've been for the last 10 years or so?  I ask because all of a sudden I'm not hearing as much about them. Rather than experiencing a deep, abiding sense of disappointment, I'm relieved! To tell you the truth, these "hi-po" programs (hi-po sounds like dog food, doesn't it?) never intrigued me. The picture that comes into my mind when I think of the typical hi-po participant is Dwight Schrute from the sitcom "The Office"--a cloyingly eager type who may not actually be all that competent, but can usually be seen hovering somewhere near the boss. Like most of you, I've known my share of Dwights. One of them was so much in that mold she would volunteer to babysit the boss' child if she thought it would earn her some points. "What's playing a few rounds of Candy Land, and taking the brat to ballet class if it'll enhance my image?"

My hi-po cynicism amounts to a belief that hi-po programs are little more than structured office politics. Those who schmooze best, or know the right people, are put on the fast track while those with equal or superior abilities, who don't like playing brown-noser, are shucked off to the side. Am I wrong?  Show me how wrong I am about these programs by explaining some concrete, objective measures you use to decide who gets labeled "star" and who gets sidelined.

A fair approach that would benefit your organization more than the multiple hi-po recommendations requirement would be measures such as amount of revenue generated or successful innovation (new product, new marketing plan) contributed by individuals under consideration. Rather than have managers recommend hi-pos, ask employees across the company to nominate peers they feel do outstanding work. Meanwhile ask managers do to the same. You may be astounded out the variation between the hi-pos noted by fellow employees, and those cited by managers.

In the end, though, hi-po programs might just be counter-productive. I've heard that in studies of school children those labeled "star," and those labeled "loser" tend to play to their teacher's expectations. Humans, apparently, have the tendency to meet the expectations of leaders, for better or worse. "So, you think I'm a loser?  I guess I won't bother trying. Nothing I can do to change your mind anyway." Label a greater swath of employees "High Potential," and by virtue of doing that alone, you may end up with a handful more of star performers than you currently have.

Bottom line: employees like to feel they and their peers are rewarded for the amount of work--not schmoozing--they do, and they like to feel invested in. Watching a group of mostly average peers get elevated to hi-po royalty for no concrete, quantifiable reason is demoralizing. If you must have a hi-po program in place, be sure to set well publicized, measurable standards. The initiative won't be taken seriously or respected otherwise. Rather than being synonymous with budding leaders, your hi-po program will become the butt of numerous sounds-like-dog food jokes--I should know as I'm planning to author some of those jokes.

Tell us about how great your hi-pos are. By the way, how do you know they're so great?