A new study by Leadership IQ reports that 47% of the high performers surveyed are actively seeking another job. But the news gets worse: Only 18% of low performers and 25% of middle performers are actively looking.
Begs the question: Are we doing enough to retain our high performers, or are we assuming that the slow economy and job market preempt this concern?
The results come from research where Leadership IQ surveyed 16,237 employees on a range of workplace issues, then divided them into high, middle and low performers based on their annual appraisal scores. In what I find to be an interesting (and somewhat ironic) side note, there were 3,896 self-identified high performers, 8,607 middle performers and 3,734 low performers. A nearly perfectly balanced bell shaped performance curve - how often do we see that in real organizational life?
Hey, great post! So, in addition to the high quality of the currrent candidate pool, nearly 50% of all high-performing employees are currently looking for other jobs?!? I think we're zeroing in on where much of the low-performance truly may be.
I'll try not to feel smug.
Also -- and I've read this twice -- do I read correctly that employees are self-reporting a lower performance average than Leadership IQ is measuring? While it's true that I've been berating mediocre employers lately, I have tended also to believe that most job applicants tend to have an inflated sense of their own talents and performance. That surprises even me. Sounds like what high-performing applicants may need is more confidence vs. more polish.
Posted by: almostgotit | July 12, 2008 at 04:44 PM
Ann –
Thanks for sharing this. Wow, I too am surprised that so many people would self-select as a middle or low performer. You’re right, performance appraisal correlations often are skewed to the higher end.
I had always thought that that most of us see ourselves as high performers. I used to do blind polls in leadership workshops – with eyes closed, ask how many participants would rate themselves in the top 20% in the class - and 80% of them would raise their hands. Maybe that was because as recently promoted managers, they really were?
But yes, pay attention to those A players, they are twice as productive as B players and probably 5 times more productive than C players. See “Leadership Development for A Players”:
http://greatleadershipbydan.blogspot.com/2008/01/leadership-development-for-players.html
Posted by: Dan McCarthy | July 13, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Almost:
Oh go ahead, you can feel a little smug. And actually, assuming I am interpreting correctly, Leadership IQ is reporting what the employees have revealed (as part of the study) as their own appraisal scores. Which makes the bell curve surprising.
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Dan:
I am glad to have your reaction on this. I am also very surprised by the self-reported performance levels - it flies in the face of everything I have read, as well as my own anecdotal experience. But it does reinforce the point, that we may be at risk for losing A players.
Thanks for the link to your post - a great, and well-balanced, piece on how to keep A players satisfied and engaged. Good for all of us to read and reflect upon.
Posted by: Ann Bares | July 13, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Every time I see a survey like this one, I want to know more about the companies where these people work. My gut, based on experience, tells me that lots of those "looking to leave" high performers are clustered in companies that lure them with compensation and perks.
There are some high performers for home maximizing compensation is the name of the game. But more of them want to make "enough" while doing challenging work with other high performers. When they land in a place where that's possible, they tend to stay.
Posted by: Wally Bock | July 13, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Wally:
Good points all, and I would agree that while most high performers want to be paid fairly (and by that I mean fairly in relation to their contribution level), compensation is not what engages and retains them over the longer term.
Thanks for weighing in!
Posted by: Ann Bares | July 14, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Both interesting points. I've blogged myself on the effect recession has, especially when short-sighted layoffs are part of the plan. Employees have long memories. Those who make it through layoffs are often the most talented high performers companies want to keep. However, once the market recovers, those employees will remember how the company treated them and their less fortunate colleagues and may be the first to consider leaving for a more appreciative work culture.
My tips to counteract employee fears are:
1) See your employees as people and assets, not costs.
2) Let your employees know they and their work make a difference.
3) Counter employee confusion and discontent over actions such as layoffs or reorganizations with constant communication.
4) Boost performance through recognition when merit increases become cost prohibitive.
5) Optimize strategy execution through reinforcement of effective implementation steps.
The bell curve also figures prominently in strategic employee recognition. Just as Jack Welch said the middle 80% are precisely the ones who do the majority of the work, so they need and deserve the majority of the recognition and encouragement. Unfortunately, many companies still ascribe to elitist recognition programs that target only the top 10%. You'll never improve performance in the majority with that attitude -- or one in which "berating the mediocre" as almostgotit says is common.
Posted by: Derek Irvine | July 15, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Derek:
Great points and comments, thanks for sharing them here.
The short-sightedness reflected in the actions of many organizations these days is difficult to fathom - and I agree, employees have a long memory (even if those running the organizations apparently do not).
Posted by: Ann Bares | July 15, 2008 at 05:46 PM
As one of the former top 10% (that's not inflated ego, our job had productivity calculations & I hit the top level every time), I can tell you that the high performers are usually neither recognized nor paid adequately. Recognition tends to take the form of longevity bonuses or perfect attendance bonuses, neither of which say anything about one's performance on the job, and I don't think anyone should be recognized for just showing up, even if they do so year after year. Pay raises have been kept artificially low, with yearly evaluations artificially massaged so that everyone's scores tend to fall in the middle. Yes, I left. I was both underpaid and underappreciated. I now make approximately 50% more than I made a month ago at the old company and have a much more pleasant atmosphere. So it doesn't surprise me that high performers are actively looking for something else -- most places want mediocre, it's what mediocre managers feel comfortable with.
Posted by: Ellie J | July 25, 2008 at 05:16 PM