At times the real problem is when employees stay, not when they leave

Organizations habitually concentrate all of their efforts on coming up with new, sound solutions to improve the effectiveness of their employee retention practices. From this point of view, it could be argued that organizations treat their employees as their customers. Since competition in every market has become increasingly harsh, expanding the current clientele has proved to be an extremely tricky feat to perform in practice so that employers have found out that a great part of their efforts should be devoted to the retention of their current customers, too. Similarly, in addition to the struggle aimed at attracting new talents from the external environment, employers have realized that a considerable amount of resources should be used for and directed at retaining the talented individuals the organization already employees.

Inasmuch as not all of the customers are good customers, nonetheless, not all of the employees are good employees. Customers who do not timely meet payments on their orders, for instance, are not good customers, never mind those who do not pay for the goods or services they order at all. Likewise, individuals who do not behave as expected by their employer or do not perform at the standard desired by this are not good employees. Businesses should hence devote close, careful attention to the employees who stay with the organization. At times, especially in those organizations in which reward is based on individual length of service, that is, on the mere circumstance of employees “being still there”, the fact an employee remains with his/her organization might indeed not necessarily represent a good event for the employer.

Irrespective of the circumstances which have accounted for an individual having decided to leave his/her employer, whether this leave is because this is active, determined, focused and, most of all, because this considers his/her competencies and skills valuable and thus marketable. After all, it actually hardly happens that an individual leaves his current organization whether this has not already received a similar or even better offer from a different employer, which provides an evidence of its own accord that the individual really has some qualities. With the exception of those cases in which individuals are very good at selling themselves, it could be hence argued that people who leave a business are habitually individuals who perform at appreciable levels or have the skills and capabilities to potentially perform at significant standards. By contrast, some individuals stay and are by no means supposed to leave their employer because these are well-aware that no other organization in the market would offer them the same reward package as that offered by the present employer.

People who perform any given job since a decade or longer and receive automatic salary increases based on length of service, but have not developed any skills or capabilities over time, would find it particularly difficult to change their employer whilst continuing to receive the same level of pay. In essence, organizations whose reward system is based on length of service ensure to individuals regular pay increases irrespective of their real contribution to the business results. This entails that in such instances individuals attain over time appreciable levels of pay irrespective of their contribution, performance and capabilities. By reason of their relatively considerable income, these people would find it sorely difficult to find a new job enabling these to receive from the outset the same current level of pay elsewhere, unless these have not gained substantial, remarkable abilities, competencies and expertise over time.

The circumstance an individual remains with his/her employer for decades or even till retirement, notwithstanding, has not clearly be seen and perceived as a negative event. On the contrary, this occurrence should be hailed as somewhat of an achievement by the employer, but only and only whether the employee is satisfactorily contributing to the organizational results. Individuals who receive a valuable reward package and regular pay increases from their employer regardless of their efforts and contribution to the organizational output might tend to create somewhat of a comfort zone and would clearly eventually resist any attempt to alter the favourable state of play. The existence of such circumstance can indeed produce remarkable downsides and prove to be counterproductive.

Employees who with the passing of the years have completely lost interest and enthusiasm for their job and pay lip service to the way they perform their daily activities are very unlikely to develop new skills and capabilities; let alone can these help managers to redesign the way the job is done. By contrast, the lack of interest and the insufficiency used when performing their job may potentially account for these individuals losing part of their abilities. It is hardly believable that, once this vicious circle has been triggered, the level of performance and the results yielded by these individuals might be considered as significant by the employer and fulfilling by themselves.

More often than not, in order to prevent conflicts to openly emerge managers tend to avert dealing with this type of employee behaviour. Conflicts, whether evident, should eventually be managed and since it is objectively difficult to tackle such types of problems, managers habitually prefer to overlook such situations. This clearly represents the worst approach: firstly because, openly emerged or not, the conflict is essentially already existing, secondly in that such occurrences can negatively impact the other employees performance and the overall Unit climate.

Inasmuch as these circumstances are undesirable and difficult to manage, adopting the right approach can definitely help managers to effectually deal with these. It is indeed crucially important that managers take appropriate action in that such situations can just risk degenerating and are unlikely to ameliorate with the simple passing of the time. The activities not performed by these people should be otherwise permanently carried out by the other colleagues, with the obvious consequences this will produce for their workload and the overall Unit climate. Yet, other employees efforts notwithstanding, the Unit concerned may risk not yielding the desired result, fact which according to the reward system run within the business may in turn make an impact on the income of all the employees of the Unit.
  

The first step managers should invariably take is hence that to frankly talk to the individuals concerned, try to find out which the roots of such behaviour are and agree with these the initiatives and actions necessary to let them feel back at ease in the workplace. Apathy amongst employees can be sometimes caused by their discontent with the management decisions, which these may perceive as unfair and biased. In other cases, individuals might (also inadvertently) decide to give up doing their best at work by reason of considering their job monotonous and repetitive or because they have never been offered opportunities for growth. At times, such behaviour can be triggered by the employee perception of the existence of a simultaneous combination of two or more of this type of circumstances.

Openly discussing the reasons behind the employee behaviour can definitely help managers to find out which the origins of such behaviour are and to identify the most appropriate solutions to address the problem. This is not clearly a straightforward objective to attain. Sometimes employees perform below an acceptable standard just because these do not consider it worth making any effort to attain what they receive as a matter of course and take as axiomatic, that is to say their pay. In other cases, the managers’ task is particularly tricky in that, for apparently mundane an activity might be considered to be by the employees concerned, this is absolutely necessary for the Unit to yield the final results. Since the task performed by these employees is truly significant for the business and the attainment of its overall objectives, in this particular instance job design and the employees’ firm and stable involvement should help managers to effectually resolve the issue.

Definitely not an easy task for managers, but turning a blind eye to employee misbehaviour and poor performance will never ever enable these to identify and overcome the problem.

How can reward practises help

In the case of employees deliberately underperforming and misbehaving, despite the management attempt and manifested willingness to mend relations with the individuals concerned and find appropriate solutions, the benefits produced in this sense by the sorting effect can definitely help. Usually used to attract and retain quality individuals from the exogenous context, the sorting effect can be also used to offer more generous reward packages to the company best performers in order to encourage worst and bad performers to either raise their level of contribution or leave the organization. This strategy is indeed likely to work properly when managers have been devolved a considerable degree of latitude to administer the reward budget and a variable pay scheme is in place. By contrast, whether the business reward system is length-of-service-based some individuals may find it pointless to make extra efforts to increase the value of their reward package: the efforts necessary to attain the additional benefit may in fact not be proportionate to its worth. In these instances and according to the circumstances, employers may attempt to reach with the employees concerned an agreement on a severance package.

 

Reward practices may also prove to be useful to engage employees when these are performing repetitive tasks. Gain-sharing programmes, for instance, may show to be effective to make these individuals perceive the significance of their contribution to the overall organizational outcome. Notwithstanding, every financial reward manoeuvre should preferably be implemented in combination with some other initiatives; clearly explaining to each individual how his/her work fits into the overall business process, for example, should invariably be part of the identified bundle in that of paramount importance.

Constantly involving individuals with the aim of coming up with new and more effective ways of designing and performing their job can definitely help, too. Yet, offering employees, according to their attitudes and behaviour, opportunities for horizontal and vertical growth should be placed high at the top of the line managers’ agenda.

Employers should also seriously consider offering individuals the opportunity to expand their knowledge and continue their education. Such initiatives, even whether employees are performing repetitive tasks, will make individuals understand that their employer really cares about them. The psychological contract has changed over time and for employees the opportunity to extended their education and gain new capabilities and expertise, contributing to make their skills more marketable, really matters and counts.

The managers’ and employers’ task is unquestionably daunting, but whether these should identify the most suitable tools and initiatives, which they can realistically implement to support their quest possibly by bundling them where practicable, the task would show to be easier and the final result definitely a win-win for employers, managers and employees as well.

Longo, R., (2014), At times the real problem is when employees stay, not when they leave; HR Professionals, Milan [online].

Leadership and management, how different are these?



One of the major concerns, arguably the major concern, of today’s employers is to ensure their companies the appropriate level of leadership. Apparently, organizations are relentlessly trying to pursue this objective, but its attainment is indeed revealing to be in practice a sorely difficult feat. Companies at large are finding it extremely difficult to recruit externally or develop from within effective, strong leaders insofar as leadership can really be considered as the Holy Grail of the modern business world.

During the last decades, many Authors have plead the case in favour of a marked distinction between leadership and management adducing a plethora of arguments essentially aiming at confining management to administrative and executory tasks and elevating leadership to the sublime.

Are habitually defined leaders those who have followers, offer a vision and set direction,   facilitate decisions, are charismatic, use their heart, are proactive, influence others by selling, like striving, take risks and break the rules, use conflict, are concerned about what is right, give credit and take the blame. By contrast, managers are supposed to have subordinates, seek objectives, plan details, make decisions, use their formal authority and their head, are reactive, persuade by telling, like action, minimize  risks, make and are compliant to rules, avoid conflict, are concerned with being right, take credit and blame the others.

These distinctive features, differently typifying and characterizing leadership and management, are habitually used by those who advocate the existence of a clear divide between management and leadership to support this idea and stress the worth of leadership to the detriment of management.

The significance of the features associated with leadership and which should thus characterize good, strong leaders are self-evident. Since these aspects are directly concerned with the organizations’ human capital, whether employers could count on a relatively large number of people in possess of these features, these would undeniably find it relatively easier to attain competitive edge. The need for organizations to avail themselves of individuals having these valuable and remarkable characteristics is hence totally justified.

The problem with leadership and more in particular with its habitually alleged complete separation from management, relates to the confusion this distinction risks generating. Depicting managers and leaders as having two completely different characteristics and objectives might induce to believe that the roles of leader and manager actually relate to two different posts. Their activities and missions are indeed not mutually exclusive; by contrast, in every organization these should ideally coincide as a matter of course. The term “leader” is in fact mainly used to refer to a person’s qualities and features, it does not represent a job title which can be included as such in the grading and pay system of an organization.

Irrespective of the circumstance that one may believe that leadership is an inborn, rather than a learnable feature, its idea is not associated with technical skills, but rather with a set of personal qualities. A distinctive feature whose practical manifestation emerges from the way a person behaves, approaches difficult situations, the relationships with others and his/her job.

Employers cannot afford to recruit leaders and managers as if these were two different roles to be covered within their business; otherwise the role of managers would not only be drastically emptied but would also make no practical sense. Employers need managers who are and act as leaders: individuals capable to provide their staff a vision, and influence, induce and enhance employee engagement and motivation. Leaders should ultimately be nothing else than good effectual managers.

In an organization it is habitually possible to distinguish four main categories of employees, namely the shop floor, professionals, managers (from mid- to senior-) and executives (board included). Leaders can be actually identified at all the levels of the organizational hierarchy. The leaders included in the mid- to upper-scale of the organizational order are usually known as formal leaders, whereas those belonging to the shop floor and professional categories (or more in general those not covering any management role) are usually termed informal leaders. All of these individuals, like the other employees, are clearly filling a specific role and position within the business; the difference is that these individuals, albeit not having an official managerial authority, have followers and the capability to influence their colleagues, whereas the others, formally appointed managers included, do not.

As a general rule, employers should not underestimate the significance of the support and contribution which informal leaders can respectively give and make to organizational success and should hence try to approach and ally with these, rather than consider them as a threat.

The fact that the current management may show not to have the leadership abilities the employer would have expected and desired these to have should not really come as a surprise. Individuals are different one another; yet, at times individuals can differently interpret the role of manager. The real problem may not be posed by the fact that managers are not good strong leaders; it may rather be caused by the circumstance that employers use to appoint as managers people before assessing whether these are already or have the potential to evolve into good, strong leaders. Once the wrong choice has been made it is obviously extremely tricky for employers to go back so that these cannot do nothing else than shoulder the cost for their wrong decision and try and control the likely negative consequences.

Executives and directors should definitely pay much more attention to the way managers are identified before these are formally appointed. By establishing clear practices and introducing sound and effective assessment methodologies HR can clearly effectually support all the organizational functions in the process, where appropriate availing itself of the contribution of external consultancies.

Leadership should ideally not be a commodity common to a restricted and limited number of executives and managers; at a predetermined satisfactory level, all of the managers of every organization should ideally possess leadership abilities. On a daily basis employees are in constant contact with their line managers, it is with them that these mainly interact and it is hence by these and their behaviour that they are influenced the most.

It cannot be a priori excluded that some managers might occasionally find it easier managing rather than leading by reason of being extremely busy with their daily tasks. During hectic periods, managers might find it preferable, that is, more practical having recourse to traditionally labelled managerial approaches to the detriment of the leadership ones. For instance, telling rather than selling and holding the existing road rather than taking a new one may be preferred by managers under some circumstances to ensure that the pre-set deadline is met.

This may clearly not invariably be the case, but employers should also take into due consideration the circumstances under which managers work on a daily basis in order to properly evaluate, assess and judge their leadership abilities. The reference is not here to situational or contingent leadership, but rather to the particular circumstances and time constraints which may account for managers being prompted and consequently decide to manage more and lead less. At times managers might hardly perceive of having been recruited for their leadership abilities and that their work is actually that of being a leader. Individuals covering management roles, especially during periods of economic downturn and slowdown, are possibly supposed that their employer just want them to yield the expected results, and hence focus on and personally strive to attain the pre-set objectives.

Before and in lieu of complaining about the scarce level of leadership showed by their managers, criticism however completely justified, CEOs, directors and executives should first and foremost show to be good and strong leaders themselves. These can hardly assume that their subordinates may have the qualities and capabilities they should excel in the most, whether they do not. It is very unlikely that whether executives and directors were good leaders these would have not positively influenced the way their reports, that is to say the business managers, behave. Especially at management level it is sorely common to see individuals tending to emulate and follow the example of their bosses, to wit: executives and directors. Despite some managers may have some inborn leadership features these might feel prompted to change their instinctive behaviour and give these up, whether resulting in open contrast with the leadership or management style used by their superiors. In the first instance, the real leadership abilities facilitators are in fact managers and executives at all levels.

The quest for the Holy Grail is still underway, but it is important for employers to have clear what they are seeking and when and where to better search.

Longo, R., (2014), Leadership and management, how different are these?; Milan: HR Professionals, [online].

Talent Management and Employee Retention, why you need them both

It is an axiomatic fact that human capital represents the real distinctive organizational component genuinely and effectually enabling employers to attain competitive edge. Beyond the rhetoric which may at times surround this principle, it can be definitely averred that whether an organization attains determined objectives this is thanks to the contribution of its people.

Unquestionably, employers can imitate, on occasions even promptly, every move made by their most successful competitors in the market but their people. Whether an employer has been successful in attracting the best talents existing in a determined area, this could practically boast the achievement of two simultaneous important feats: employing the best people and averting these to be hired by its competitors.

 

Despite talent can be defined in many ways, in the business field every definition associates with it particularly significant features and characteristics essentially enabling individuals to yield remarkable results and reach outstanding, above-than-average performances.

Talents could be thus defined as those individuals who possess distinguishing skills and capabilities enabling them to effortlessly perform at well-above-the-standard and who can effectually support the employer in the pursuit of its strategy and in the attainment of its intended objectives. Yet, these individuals can be considered as talent-dynamic, that is, people whose current capabilities and skills are predisposed to further grow and develop over time and who can consequently help the organization to sustain its growth and ultimately gain and preserve competitive advantage.

With particular reference to the business world, it can be averred that talent is not as widespread and promptly available as employers desire it to be. By contrast, the number of individuals who can actually make a difference and effectually help organizations to yield the desired results is relatively small. This has triggered and exacerbated over time a borderless competition amongst organizations, which have ever since devoted a growing attention to the design and development of practices aiming at attracting this significant category of individuals. So harsh has become the competition for talented people over time as in 1998 the consulting firm McKinsey formulated the self-explanatory expression “war for talent” to label this new phenomenon.

With the passing of the years, employers realized that attracting particularly talented individuals is not enough, it is in fact also crucially important for organizations to retain and further develop these. The need for the adoption of a structured and clear approach specifically aiming at investigating new and effective ways of attracting and retaining talents gave later birth to a new specialism widely known as “talent management.”

Talent can be intended not only as a current state, but also as a prospective state. Individuals can already possess the sought-after qualities or show to have the potential to develop these in the incoming future. Some employers have hence reconsidered the meaning of talent accordingly and expanded the extent of their search of potential talents to the organization current staff.

Businesses can thus opt for an inclusive or exclusive approach to talent management. The talent management strategy adopted by an organization can be deemed as exclusive whether employers restrict their attention and efforts to a limited number of high-fliers; by contrast, whether the activities and initiatives aiming at identifying and developing talent are extended to the overall employee population the approach to talent management is deemed inclusive.

Irrespective of the approach considered as the most appropriate and hence adopted in practice by employers, talent management can be divided into two main stages: the first stage is concerned with the search of talented people, either in the exogenous or endogenous context, whereas during the second phase employers efforts focus on the development and retention of the pre-identified individuals.

The common denominator of the inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management is invariably represented by the employer dedication of resources and efforts to a limited number of individuals. Despite the inclusive approach entails the extension of the quest for talented people to the organization overall employee population in fact once the talented people and potential talents have been identified the initiatives included in the business’ talent management programmes will be offered only to the individuals qualifying for the scheme.

All in all, it can be therefore concluded that talent management programmes and initiatives are invariably dedicated to an elite of employees. Despite the presence within a business of a number of particularly talented individuals definitely represents a great asset to the business, it can be hardly assumed that employers may ever attain their objectives and successfully pursue their strategies without the active and effective contribution of the entire workforce. The considerable importance for employers of developing sound and effectual employee retention practices seems hence to be self-evident.

 

Talent management and employee retention practices are by no means mutually exclusive; on the contrary, the simultaneous introduction and implementation of such practices can certainly contribute to improve the worth of the employer value proposition and hence its employer branding. These programmes added to the other financial and non-financial initiatives implemented by employers can undeniably help these to attract and retain quality individuals. Once again, the synergic multiplicative effect produced by bundling reveals to be significant for the attainment of the organizational objectives.

Employers must be aware of the circumstance that the implementation of talent management practices does not entail having in place employee retention practices. Even though talent management and employee retention could be deemed as the two sides of the same coin, these actually represent two different approaches aiming at achieving two different aims. Whether an organization should, for instance, experience serious hardships in terms of attrition, the development and introduction of talent management programmes would not enable this to overcome the problem. Similarly, organizations will never be able to address the problems associated with skills shortage and succession planning by introducing employee retention practices.

Design, develop and implement effectual talent management and employee retention practices is everything but straightforward; however, since talent management initiatives are introduced to the benefit of a limited number of people, whose wants and aspiration can be thus more easily investigated and met, these programmes should reveal to be relatively easier to execute. Employee retention practices, by contrast, being basically directed at the entire workforce, can prove to be much more challenging and problematic for the HR specialists involved in their development and demanding for line managers and HR during the implementation phase. Whereas offering to talented individuals genuine opportunities for professional growth and autonomy, which could be in detail identified also on the basis of the current and prospective business wants and necessities, may reveal to be relatively, but not in absolute terms, straightforward, regularly coming up with brand new initiatives aiming at retaining the overall employee population is very likely to reveal a sorely difficult feat to perform. Some remarkable differences are indeed likely to emerge also in terms of budgetary issues and constraints.

Inasmuch as employers need talented and smart people to help them to identify the most appropriate strategies and the most effective ways to pursue these, organizations could never ever be able to yield results without the contribution of capable and proficient individuals properly and effectively performing the activities indispensable for the regular unfolding of the business day-to-day core operations. The tasks, activities and chores performed by the people within a business are indeed all equally necessary to produce the final outcome. It can be hardly imagined that employers would recruit and reward individuals whether the activities these perform would not add any value to, or would not anyway be significant for, the overall production process. 

It is widely recognized that individuals derive most of their motivation from the job and the activities they perform, provided that these are perceived as fulfilling and generate as such a sense of accomplishment, pride and ultimately of belonging. Whereas the activities performed by talented people imply a high degree of autonomy and responsibility, which can definitely provide these individuals a considerable return in terms of intangible and intrinsic reward, it can hardly be assumed that people executing more repetitive and not captivating tasks may derive the same sense of fulfilment as the former from the act of performing their job. Yet, it is widely recognized that employees derive most of their motivation from the awareness that the activities they execute are significant and valuable for the attainment of the organizational objectives and hence for the employer. Whereas talented people may hardly lose sight of the strong link existing between the activities they preform and the way these fit with the organizational strategy, this line of sight habitually results to be much more blurred for the shop floor.

The development of both talent management and employee retention practices definitely represents a sorely difficult task for HR managers and specialists but, as we have seen, the development of sound and effective employee retention practices typically presents even more difficulties. Furthermore, whereas talented people once the employer has decided to invest in them are likely to start and walk a path entailing a constant development, growing levels of responsibility and possibly a change of role over time, the largest part of employees are likely to continue to perform the same tasks and activities for a very long period of time at best and till retirement at worst.  In these cases it is glaringly obvious that people with a certain level of Growth Need Strength (GNS) will feel uncomfortable continuing to perform the same activities for a very long period of time. Under such circumstances, especially whether individuals should perceive their current job as a dead-end one, there are good chances that these people will try and seek for new opportunities either internally or externally.

Managers’ mission is therefore very important and at the same time definitely challenging. In every organization there are people performing repetitive tasks which are in any case vital for the attainment of the organizational objectives and that, for repetitive and mundane these might be, require to be executed by experienced, accurate and professional workers. Yet, more often than not these people perform such type of tasks from a long period of time and at a more-than-satisfactory level. In terms of quality and quantity there is a world of difference between the final outcome yielded in the same length of time by an experienced and loyal employee and that produced by a newcomer; especially whether this does not fully fit the business culture. Whether some of these experienced and productive individuals should leave the business, the employer would be prompted to activate a costly chain process formed by: recruitment and selection, induction and training. At the end of the process it is very unlikely that the new hires may attain the same level of professionalism and performance as that achieved by the employees who have resigned. The incumbents will be able to attain the same level of contribution after a number of years at best, which does not clearly represent an ideal situation for an employer.

All in all, it emerges that retaining good workers and best performers is of paramount importance for employers, irrespective of the complexity of their roles. Employers should hence definitely continue to pursue their interest in talent management, preferably in its inclusive rather than exclusive form, but not to the detriment and overlooking the importance of the rest of the company employee population. Every good employee is important, the definition of human capital is not casual and it is not indeed limited to part of an organization workforce. Retaining good employees is invariably important and can enable employers to practically attain competitive advantage and avert the costs associated with employee turnover. On the other hand it cannot be denied that a too stagnant workforce is not positive for employers too. Newcomers, especially whether these have had previous work experiences in different businesses, can clearly contribute to an organization a breath of fresh air which is habitually beneficial to employers and employees as well. This objective can, however, be met when replacing retired people, when expanding the size of the workforce or as a consequence of a deliberately activated sorting effect plan.

People at all levels are important for organizations so that in order to avoid undesirable additional costs and possible disruptions employers should devote to all of them the right attention and resources and strive to make each individual feel valued and respected in the workplace.

Longo, R., (2014), Talent Management and Employee Retention, why you need them both; Milan: HR Professionals, Milan [online].

Who to value the most: past achievers or potential future performers?

Employers at large tend to appreciate, recognize and ultimately reward individuals either for their past achievements or their future potential. This preference is typically reflected in an organization culture and its practices; in particular in the recruitment and selection, retention and reward policies.

Recruitment and Selection

Offering the right position to the most suitable candidate definitely represents the main objective every recruiter aims at attaining. Despite the desired final end of the procedure is sorely clear, it might not invariably appear to be equally obvious which the most suitable means to achieve the intended purpose is.

Recruiters habitually assess applicants and candidates for any given post on the basis of their CVs. Numberless anecdotes are constantly unveiled and recounted by recruiters about what people include in their résumés and about how self-explanatory this information may prove to be in many cases. The hardest problem with CVs, nonetheless, is associated with the reliability and trustworthiness of the information contained in this significant document. More often than not, applicants tend to inflate the content of their CVs, either overstating the positions these have actually covered or listing qualifications these have never gained and do not hence possess; never mind the inclusion of practical results these have never actually achieved. Inasmuch as identifying the right person for the right position definitely represents a difficult feat to perform, having to deal with altered and craftily devised CVs can just contribute to make the recruiters’ task even trickier. The best and most effective method recruiters should adopt to perform the task is that to practically assess individual knowledge, skills and expertise, but according to the circumstances this activity could prove to be particularly difficult to perform in practice, especially when the recruitment and selection process has to be completed to a tight deadline.

During this delicate and important process, also in those cases in which the CVs of the applicants for any given post properly and genuinely reflect the candidates’ previous experience and background, employers, or rather, recruiters on their behalf in order to identify the most suitable candidate for the current vacancy aim at scrutinizing individual past experiences, that is, past achievements and at reading between the lines, based on CVs and interviews, whether these, albeit not having the desired experience, have the qualities and skills to yield outstanding results in the not-too-distant future.

The fact that an individual has attained impressive results in the past, according to the existing circumstances and context, does not indeed necessarily imply that this will be able to yield the same outstanding results in the future. On the other hand, whether a person has been able to provide evidence of his/her past achievements, this should entail that this has the experience and qualities to potentially re-achieve those results, which should coincide with the feats the employer is expected the selected candidate to perform.

Many newly graduates and brilliant candidates who just have never previously had the chance to cover determined roles, nonetheless, may prove to be outstanding achievers whether offered the chance to show their abilities and capabilities in practice. As long as these individuals will not be offered the opportunity to perform and demonstrate what they are capable and keen to yield, these people will invariably remain overshadowed by those people who can boast a previous, specific experience. This practice can prove to be particularly detrimental for new graduates, who very often find it frustrating, after years of hard study, not to be offered a position potentially compatible with their knowledge and skills for lack of practical experience. It should not hence come as a surprise that many young people prefer approaching the world of work rather than the academic one.

This practice, however, could reveal to be counterproductive for employers too in that it may cause in the mid- to long-term a widespread general shortage of talent. Yet, people who have gained a previous experience of performing a determined task may tend to approach it routinely, without making any valuable contribution in terms of innovation and originality. In some cases, merely repeating what one is used to do may also account for introducing or implementing a solution not necessarily fully meeting the employer requirements and expectations.

It clearly depends on the circumstances; for certain types of jobs requiring a high degree of autonomy and assertiveness, a previous specific experience may be justified but this is not necessarily invariably the case.


Recruitment specialists and professionals should hence try and identify, and hence agree with the relevant managers, when some specific experience for any given post can be “sacrificed” or otherwise for future potential. 

Retention practices

Employers’ preference for past achievers or future potential performers is also certainly reflected in the business retention policies. Opportunities for growth, training, teamwork, increased autonomy and responsibility, involvement and participation and pay increases, just to cite some examples, will be offered only to those employees who have attained the pre-agreed results or to those individuals who have shown to have the capabilities to obtain outstanding results in the future, whether the employer is willing and keen to bet on these, accordingly.

Despite the sorting effect is habitually associated with the pressure which the pay increases granted to some individuals can put on the others as regards their decision to stay or leave the company, the initiatives listed above can actually support and complement the sorting effect provoked by reward practices. Individuals who are not offered opportunities for growth and development in fact might find it more appropriate to leave the organization. Even more so when the lack of prospects is coupled with a lack of pay increases, whereas other colleagues are offered and benefit of both of these types of advantages.

Reward practices

As it is usually said money talks so that employer preference for past achievers or future potential performers is likely to emerge from their reward practices, too.

Organizations aiming at rewarding past achievements and outstanding or above-the-average performance have typically recourse to contingent, variable pay arrangements. Pay increases are linked to past results and performance and are offered as long as these are sustained over time, and eventually consolidated into base pay after these have been repeated for a given number of consecutive years. The cash supplement is in this case considered as pay at risk or pay which needs to be re-earned to be repeated.

Employers valuing future potential performers are most likely to introduce competency-related schemes, which place emphasis in development and future accomplishments, rather than in past achievements. Pay supplements are hence granted to individuals based on the assumption that their increased competencies will enable these to regularly achieve better results in the future.

Conclusions

Employer preference for past achievers or future potential performers may also be associated with the individual experience in and acquaintance with the job. Individuals should first and foremost have a future potential, this being the case after a while these have covered a given post or role these will certainly become also past achievers. 

The two features are not indeed mutually exclusive, but do not either necessarily coexist. As discussed earlier, the concept of past achiever could be merely associated with an individual ability to repeat a given level of performance or achievements based on his/her past experience. In contrast, a future potential performer, whose status could also coincide with that of a past achiever, is a person who, albeit capable to re-achieve any given result, can also extend and expand further his/her capabilities, reach higher level of performance and regularly yield even more satisfactory, impressive results in the future. Employers aiming at fostering both aspects usually have recourse to contribution-related pay approaches, which are intended to favour employee development and growth, whereas rewarding individuals for the results these have yielded in the past.

It can be contended that in general past achievers are not necessarily potential future performers, whereas potential future performers can easily evolve into past achievers, still preserving their potential to grow and develop further in the future and consequently continuing to produce dramatic and impressive results over time.

Longo, R., (2014), Who to value the most: past achievers or potential future performers?; Milan: HR Professionals [online].