Is the High-Potential Label Overrated?

Have you been identified as an up and comer? Are you the next "it" girl? Does your place of employment think you are the next leader of the company or work group?  Are you being groomed for something bigger? Are you being sought out for a leadership role?

 

This post is for those that cannot answer those questions in the affirmative. This is for the rest of us that may have had an average year and met and exceeded some expectations. Due to certain things we were not identified as "star performers" in our last performance assessment, but aspire to be, whether we are acknowledged or not. We are the folks that produce results similarly to the 80% of the rest of the employees and at times we exceed those expectations.

 

At the company I work for, they usually limit the number people in this "walk on water" group to a maximum of 15%. As you can imagine, that is a small group. We call that group, "high-potentials", or "hi-pos." If there are high-potentials, by logic there must be a medium or moderate potential or no-potential. I have been in this high potential group a time or two but what about the medium or "Mo-pos"? Those of us with modest or moderate potential? What could we do to develop? Is it just a matter of timing or circumstances that we would be a "high-po"? Are we limited in any way to the things available only to the high potentials? Is the label that significant?

 

This may not be the case where you work but I see that opportunity to work on more high profile projects or perception may be the sole differentiation between high and moderate potentials. In 2011, I was a high potential and that was very nice of them to say so and be acknowledged in that way but beyond that acknowledgement there wasn't anything different in terms of my day to day role and projects.

My next review will indicate if I am deemed a high-potential again but aside from the designation, does it change how you work? Or how you should work? I think the label is rather fickle and not deserving of the weight it is given. Is that true for your company?  Unless the company you work for actually does something different with those identified in that class, it is just a label. The label or title doesn't motivate me to work like a high-potential, my personal work ethic should dictate how I work not a "1" on my performance report.


If you are not classified as a "high-po" or the next "golden child" but want to know how to perform like one whether you are labeled one in the eyes of your boss or not, here are a few things to do:

• Examine your daily routine and find ways to deliver results that standout from the rest. Notice that I wrote "standout" not "stand-on." If you ever are to become a high potential you need to excel in what you are working on right now. You will not be given more responsibility or higher profile projects if you cannot show results in the here and now without stepping all over others or taking credit for work others did.
• Work on your character, examine yourself for weaknesses in your level of honesty, integrity and consistency, and desire to mentor others.
• Emotional intelligence is a critical soft-skill now and in the future, how do you increase your emotional intelligence level? What inter-personal skill do you need to work on? If you relate better to an LCD screen or television than to an individual, you have some work to do if you want to lead in the future.
• Study the people that determine who is a high-potential and figure out whether you can, with a clear conscience, actually or if you want to deliver on their expectations to be considered one? Consider the cost.

Until next time...

When Do You Want Your Credit?

When you think about receiving credit for a job well done, do you want immediate acknowledgement or none at all? Is your own satisfaction in the job you did enough?

I was interviewed recently for some internal communication articles about people development. I thought the article was shaping up nicely and that it was informative and crisp. I was quoted twice during the article and thought it represented the organization well. Round and round we went with edits and changes, we were on revision five and I felt encouraged that what was written would help people.

Revision six came in and a change was made. "Please remove Matt's name where he is quoted and place my name there. Where I am quoted, change my name with my bosses name." Queue the music...

I was on a business trip when I received the email about the change. I laughed because I didn't know what else to do. I had a few different emotions that went along with the laughter that you reading along could imagine. I didn't know whether to be complimented or outraged? I was frustrated for sure and wanted to be direct with my feedback. I wanted to be sarcastic and I wanted to take it all in stride.

So, how would you have responded? What would have been your first reaction?

What is the Character Matter?

Since this happened, I haven't brought it up to the person that requested the change and I probably never will. I have resolved to be gracious and learn as much as I can from how I respond and how I would handle it if the shoe were on the other foot. I have taken this as a personal lesson in how I give credit to the people that I work with. The people like the woman who puts all the data together and makes us look like Organizational Capability rockstars and the many other things people do that I forget to give credit to.

Does it matter that my name is on an internal article? Probably not. If it matters, that character matter is simply inflated pride in something that may be trivial and as temporary as a newsblast email.

Does Character Mater in this scenario? I think it matters when something like that happens again and I cringe or keep my head up. I also think it matters when I look at the things that keep me in the organization and the things that cause me to examine why I stay. I can take pride in my quality of work with or without public acknowledgement because the credit of a boss is too temporary or fleeting and as a Christian I am working for the "audience of One" not a "1" on my annual performance rating.

When do you want credit for the things you have done?

Would it change what you did day in and day out if you never received credit? Or if your boss' boss took credit for your work?