From a management and organization development point of view, I believe there is one thing worse that than low performers: mediocre performers. Low performers are relatively easier to deal with, as an obvious or repeated low performance can be the basis for redundancy. But mediocre performers can be a dilemma -they are able to meet some of the targets and therefore get away with average ratings. Average performers who are and will always be average are like slow poison eating into the quality and soul of the company, never letting it grow from good to great.
I would say managers must keep a continuous eye out for mediocrity, and root it out as soon as possible replacing it with good talent thereby allowing both people and the company to develop and flourish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
is replacement the only solution? wouldn't you be interested in finding out the reason of mediocrity?
Zain,
Very valid question. The way I see it mediocrity is very much 'visible' - there is a star in everyone, but not for every job. In a workplace some of the factors that distinguish a top performer from an average one are attitute and initiative, vision and drive, responsibility and focus on results...doing beyond the job. When I say 'and will always be mediocre' then I also assume that a manager has guaged real mediocrity in the job.
If by saying one should try to find reason for mediocrity you mean that someone may simply be demotivated to perform well, then I would say manager should be able to discren the difference between demotivation and mediocrity and fix it as well.
Post a Comment