The Performance / Potential Matrix

In an organisation which requires future leaders, how do you identify those whom you will invest in? There are many common pitfalls in this arena not least that the assessment of future potential is usually based on past performance without any reference to the potential of the individual. Another common pitfall is that “potential” is only categorised in terms of “promotability” but leaving the assessor to rely on anecdotal or subjective references as to how the person might achieve promotion. There are many ways to objectively assess potential but before turning to that I was reminded last week of the overall performance / potential matrix from which it can be conjectured that only “stars” should be developed as leaders.

The matrix is referenced to Kavanaugh, Duffy and Lilly, however when researching talent development, there is no more apposite and comprehensive an article than the special report published by RMG consulting in September 2008, “Making it Happen: Developing Talent in the Workplace”. In that article, amongst many other things, the author details the performance / potential matrix.

Here is a summary followed by my culturally biased critique (“et alors”).

The Performance / Potential Matrix

The matrix has four categories which are formed by the axes of performance and potential being marked as either “high” or “low”:

Deadwood

·         Low potential and low performance

·         If any development is required here, it is usually remedial

Question Mark

·         High potential but low performance

·         Accordingly the development “risk” is high

Solid Citizens

·         High performance but low potential

·         Also known as “well placed” or “plateau-ed” this is usually a low development category

Stars

·         High performance and high potential

·         Usually the target of high impact, high investment leadership development

Et alors?

So what if the organisational culture is a mirror of the educational culture in which the members of the organisation have already been formed? If that educational culture is one of critical feedback, defending opinions and avoiding mistakes, then the cursor of assessment tends to move towards performance at the expense of potential. Further, if the educational system is so intense and so hierarchical (with some diplomas from some schools being “worth” so much more than diplomas from other schools) then graduation day can often be the end of the learning journey! Development “stops” at the university gate and potential is assessed according to the “quality” of the diploma. In that context the performance / potential matrix starts to lose its value. “Stars” and “solid citizens” form one category and in the other “deadwood” and “question marks” are also forced together. At once and at the same time, potential in “question marks” is overlooked and “solid citizens” might be “forced” to develop as leaders.

Forcing “solid citizens” to develop as leaders presents a strong argument to have a dual talent pool system where not only are the leaders selected into a leadership “pool” according to performance and potential but also by reference to their own wishes and motivations! In many scientific and engineering companies there are those who are very technically skilled and are of enormous value to the organisation (like all “solid citizens”) but who do not want to become leaders and could be well placed in an “expert talent pool”. In organisational cultures which value technical skills more than anything else, there is a strong risk of miscasting: consequently, not only might you get an unmotivated leader but you might actually lose some of the technical skills.

The “solid citizen” category normally represents 60-70% of the population of any average organisation (with 10-20% for each other category). Besides being “B” players, “ex” leaders and other “plateau-ed” staff, a lot of people might be in this category not only by “choice” but by “circumstance” (ref. R. White). In other words there is a lot of talent which is not being developed just because of circumstances: missed opportunities, overlooked potential or personal constraints which hinder the person’s experiences, exposure or education. Taking this a step further however, it might now therefore be logical to say that development should be targeted according to past performance in order to avoid this risk! Yes for general development; but not necessarily for leadership development.

Beyond the performance / potential matrix, in order to target leadership development, there needs to be an objective assessment of the individual’s motivations and “drive” in addition to a consideration of leadership aptitudes (i.e. potential). Likewise, there is a need for the assessment of performance but not necessarily an assessment of leadership performance. There is too much of a risk that the organisation could find itself in a Catch 22 situation where the person can’t be seen to be a leader without having been given the opportunity, but how do you get the leadership opportunity without having been already seen as a leader? In other words, a lot would be left to luck! Performance can be measured against other objectives but if the organisational culture is one that is based on a “performance” education culture and one that emphasises technical skills, without dual talent pools for the separate development of experts and leaders, the risk of forcing well-qualified experts to become leaders is a very real risk!