Organizational Excellence

People and Process Improvement

The Bell Curve and Performance Levels

leave a comment »

 As it so often does, a conversation on the Employee Engagement Network  has prompted a spinoff here. The topic on the EEN was recognition and engagement. A few factoids from the posting, based on Gallup data from research of 4mil US workers:

  • Number of workers estimated to be extremely negative about work or “actively disengaged”: 22 million
  • Cost in US dollars due lost productivity, workplace injuries, absences and fraud: 1 trillion
  • Rank of “feeling unappreciated” among reasons for leaving a job: 1

Check out the EEN thread.  For now I’m going to diverge…

 Discussion prompter Steven noted….it’s hard to imagine somebody being a top performer while being disengaged.  

Hard to imagine but not unheard of, if you consider engagement as a combination of high levels of both performance and job satisfaction. There is that rare endangered species that is compelled to excel in their performance regardless of their level of satisfaction. It may be possible to sustain high performance short-term without high satisfaction, but long term the inevitable outcome of “all give and no get” is burnout.

 So there is yet another indicator of the importance of the good fight the practitioners of engagement are embroiled in.

 EEN contributor Anita said: …Usually the high fliers get the rewards, the failures are mentored. and the good enough person is ignored!  Not good for morale.

 Anita’s statement led me to the following. Hopefully it won’t upset statistical purists too much if I borrow their bell curve of normal distribution attributed to variation that can be found in everything under the sun …. Including job performance.

 If you were to plot an organization’s level of job performance by individuals the variation would result in a roughly bell-shaped curve. The low performers and high performers would occupy opposite tail segments of the bell curve while the “good enoughs” are the Great Majority in the middle. For nothing more than critical mass, Anita’s ‘good enoughs’ in the middle are a dangerous segment to ignore.

 What if the “good enough” were made more of a focal point…if that population was positively impacted would not the entire distribution shift to a new, higher midpoint due to critical mass if nothing else? The high performers would be driven to ‘stay ahead of the pack’ while the tail end of the dog would either try to keep up the rear or fall off completely.

 Just thinkin’.

Advertisements

Written by Craig

June 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: