Some colleagues consistently work smarter and accomplish more than others. As high performers, they naturally get more attention and recognition from leaders. In a world of meritocracy, such high performers would be exalted by peers, as well. After all, their hyper-productivity generates more resources for everyone else on the team.
I don't believe so. A culture of recognition recognizes progress and growth. Coaching under performers to find ways to become stronger contributors and providing recognition when they make progress. Participation trophies are silly and don't help anyone to feel accomplished.
Rather, I'd suggest understanding the under-performer's challenges and provide support for them to become better, while also holding them accountable to their individual goals. Holding everyone to the same standard and providing the same reward regardless of results doesn't push anyone to become better, but rather fosters jealousy, as the article asserts.
Great post. Really got me thinking about this one over the past few days. Do you think one could also make the argument that the 'jealous' colleagues may be seeing the high performer from a different perspective than the leader - one that is not so rosy?
Does a culture of recognition include participation trophies?
I don't believe so. A culture of recognition recognizes progress and growth. Coaching under performers to find ways to become stronger contributors and providing recognition when they make progress. Participation trophies are silly and don't help anyone to feel accomplished.
Rather, I'd suggest understanding the under-performer's challenges and provide support for them to become better, while also holding them accountable to their individual goals. Holding everyone to the same standard and providing the same reward regardless of results doesn't push anyone to become better, but rather fosters jealousy, as the article asserts.
Thanks, Allison.
Great post. Really got me thinking about this one over the past few days. Do you think one could also make the argument that the 'jealous' colleagues may be seeing the high performer from a different perspective than the leader - one that is not so rosy?