Development opportunity
The industrial revolution and the subsequent rise of management techniques brought with them a greater focus on evaluating performance. Instead of laboring solo on the farm or in a home workshop, employees moved to factories and offices. They were now under the watchful eyes of owners who could compare them with others completing identical tasks.
It became fashionable to replace intuition with data, evaluating staff based on the quantity of material handled or the number of finished products they turned out. The archetypal example is that of Frederick Taylor and his principles of scientific management, notably applied to steel workers who could purportedly carry more iron if incentivized and monitored rigorously.1
A new class of efficiency experts tried to figure out how enterprises could wring more profits from their employees’ activities.2 This produced an early form of developmental feedback: do more of X, less of Y. Rewards could then be based on measurable factors instead of ambiguous ones.
Militaries were also testbeds of management theories, as two World Wars stretched their managerial capabilities and upped the stakes for finding and grooming leaders.3 By necessity armies became some of the earliest adopters of evaluation methods, ranking soldiers based on their performance and ability to rise in oversight responsibilities.
The rise of knowledge work made traditional measurements of productivity less applicable, but complex workforces still required some method of evaluation. In idiosyncratic ways organizations began to implement formalized systems. The U.S. federal government was an early adopter—it promulgated various ratings to classify the burgeoning ranks of the civil service, with detailed subcategories to precisely mark productivity and potential.
In the latter half of the 20th century performance management became a recognized concept, falling under the purview of dedicated human resources departments. Employees could now look forward to some form of review on a regular basis, where weaknesses would be pointed out, ideally with suggested remedies, though the experience was generally unpleasant for all involved.
Dissatisfaction with this model led to the emergence of a newer school of thought: instead of emphasizing shortcomings and attempting to correct them, find ways to build on those strengths that are already evident, and use those to support higher individual performance.
This leads to a dichotomy that those conscientious about personal development must still navigate. In the first approach, the chief concern is identifying lacking skills and improving them in order to make continued progress. In the second, the emphasis is on finding strengths and determining how to build on them.
A/B testing
An industry’s operating philosophy matters a lot when determining the best path to pursue. For instance, Model A is the default for most professional services firms, which take in large numbers of freshly-minted MBAs or lawyers and throw them into a large pool of similar talent. Rising to the top of the pyramid requires the ability to master the skills required of the current job, but to also demonstrate entirely new ones—the partner’s workday looks quite different from that of the associate. An excellent analyst will never become a senior leader unless capabilities like client management are obvious. General managers in larger companies loften follow this path as well.
In such a world being exceptional at one thing is not enough. Without reaching a minimum performance bar in several categories progress will be limited. Among other things, a leader of a complex organization must be at least passably numerate, adept at communicating, and possessed of a strategic mind.4 Specialization can only go so far. A junior employee might have the oratorical prowess of a Churchill, but there will be few opportunities to use it.
Anecdotally the general path may be less common in an era of specialized education and greater rewards for unique skills. Fewer companies seem to have homegrown leaders who start in the proverbial mailroom and work their way up to the C-suite.5 If the workforce of the future rewards depth more than breadth, a comprehensive toolkit could become less valuable.
On the other side, there are spaces where outstanding talent in one or two dimensions is enough. Few professional athletes invest much time in learning to turn out finely-crafted prose—success for them is based on a circumscribed set of abilities deployed on the field or court, and their best bet is to practice those few things to perfection.6 A world-class surgeon can be utterly devoid of social graces and yet be highly successful in a specialty.7 Silicon Valley firms fight with each other for the services of top computer scientists, whose abilities to sell or market are irrelevant.
When the requirements are clear, doubling down in those areas that are already strong can further separate you from the pack.
Growing pains
Larger, more sophisticated institutions and the ability to track individuals precisely helped birth the idea of performance management. These changes raised the benefits for paying attention to how you develop, and the trends are likely to accelerate. New tools make it easy for management to track the daily activities of their knowledge workers, down to the amount of time they spend at their desks, in a modern-day echo of Taylorism.
No one can have extraordinary skill in everything, so choosing what to focus on comes at the expense of something else. If your strengths are exceptional, or have the potential to be, find a role that gives you the best opportunity to leverage them. And if a broad complement of talents is what will help you stand out, consider how to package them together so that the combination is a winning one, even though any individual element might not be.
To help sort through the choices, ask yourself:
- Do I need to build up my weaknesses to succeed, or does my role allow me to leverage my strengths?
- Are my strengths truly exceptional, or do they have the potential to be? Can I make the sustained investment needed until they are?
- Which of my skills are most amenable to change, and how do I choose where to invest my energies in growing?
- Can my weaknesses be backed up (by colleagues, technology, etc.), allowing me to emphasize strengths?
Few will sort completely into one category, but you’ll probably find that your role inherently supports one model over the other. What should you focus on to ensure that you develop effectively?
Not receiving these articles automatically? 1/week, subscribe here.
References
The history of performance evaluations is surprisingly sparse, with precursors popping up randomly in the mists of history. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has a timeline of performance management milestones.
Harvard Business Review had a skeptical take on strengths-based feedback.
Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams introduced the concept of a talent stack, in which multiple skills that might individually be unremarkable are powerful in combination.
- The debate as to the appropriateness of his approach rages on a century later, as the seeming reduction of workers to cogs in a machine rubs some the wrong way. ↩
- Some of the more prominent management consulting firms got their start focusing on worker efficiency, including McKinsey. ↩A
- In urgent cases this was done with much less deliberation, hence the term “battlefield promotion”. ↩
- Although public speaking skills don’t appear to be mandatory, given how many senior leaders become stilted upon taking the stage. #cringe ↩
- Few current fast food CEOs got their start as fry cooks trying to avoid hot grease. These days they’re more likely to be private equity wizards. ↩
- Taken to the extreme in American football, where players have highly specialized positions (like long snapper) and may be on the field for only a few seconds of the actual game, during which time they better not mess up. #youhadonejob ↩
- Based on prevailing stereotypes, he or she often is. ↩