http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/03403?pg=0

Free Subscription

Title: General Electric’s Next Workout
Author: Art Kleiner, WorkEcolgy Thought Leader and Editor in Chief S+B

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

I thought the last bit summed it up beautifully…

To get the most out of these hires [South Polars or academic underachievers], a company must have a system for developing and leading its talent—not to mention a human resources department equal to managing this critical task.

To shine, HR must execute against a talent management model that begins with adopting the organization’s business strategy and forecasting its talent needs. It must attract the internal and external talent needed for this strategy. Then it must effectively deploy (assign the talent with clear deliverables and measurable outcomes), evaluate (measure performance against metrics), develop (provide skills training and mentoring) and retain (offering rewards, opportunity and collegiality) that talent.

U.S. business has focused on academic achievement as a measure of potential for too long. With the looming talent shortage, that’s a mistake businesses can no longer afford. They must begin to mine the “South Pole.”

….and dovetails with my last comment.

I think you are referring specifically to item two in the bullets “Raising the bar” so let me mention that in reply.

Performance management is being revisited by organizations who want to measure any number of things. It could be measuring individual and team contributions for setting comp. levels or gap analysis for employees’ tapped for promotion; ROI on recruitment and training, whatever.

To the extent that this process can now be systematized and the data applied to positive outcomes, I’m all for it.

However, the Darwinian approach to performance management - constantly raising the bar - is dubious at best.

Forced ranking has been debunked by many thinkers in the fields of human capital- and talent management. Culling “C” players as a means to regulate the ongoing development of a workforce seems wasteful. It also carries the risk of discrimination claims. Is there really no better way than corporate-sponsored “eugenics?”

As talent becomes increasingly difficult to acquire at some point one has to make a value judgment relative to the costs of replacing that bad-hire versus having programs that grow people and elevate the organizations’ standing as an employer of choice.

Some would argue forced ranking is a cover-up for bad profiling, sourcing, screening, assessment, training and management just as mediocrity as an acceptable standard of performance is. But if “C” players cannot be measured against potential and helped to reach it, one wonders under what circumstances where they hired in the first place.

Certainly, if poor performers cannot be rehabilitated they should be replaced but that is an altogether different thing from the kind of systematic performance intervention Bill Conaty is being credited for as an HR innovation.

Still, others hold an opposing point of view.

I reminded of a plaque that hung behind the desk of an old-school sales manager who I later grew to love. It read: “The firing will continue until morale improves.” Now what sense does that make?