The Potential Of Hot Garbage
Performance evaluations? High-potential employees? Let’s cut through the corporate jargon.
The reality is, identifying “high-potentials” is often a flawed, biased process, more akin to a popularity contest than a meritocratic assessment.
We over-index on metrics that can be gamed and under-value qualities that truly drive innovation.
People excel in different ways and at different times.
Relying heavily on these evaluations risks cementing a culture of yes-men and stifling diversity of thought. It’s not just about who’s shining now, but who has the grit and vision to push boundaries in the long run.
The real high-potentials might be the ones challenging the status quo, not just the ones meeting these neatly packaged objectives.
Let’s unpack this.
Needs and Expectations
Establishing needs and expectation is flawed from the start.
Let’s get real. The idea that you can neatly establish needs and expectations in a dynamic business environment is a fantasy. Business needs change faster than most companies can pivot their strategies, let alone communicate these changes effectively to their employees. So, when we talk about “establishing needs,” are we just creating a false sense of security in a world that’s anything but secure?
Performance Evaluations — A Broken System
The suggestion to use performance evaluations to identify high-potential employees is problematic. In theory, it sounds great, but in practice, performance evaluations are often a mix of corporate kabuki theater and subjective opinions masquerading as objective assessments. They’re more about ticking boxes and less about genuine talent identification. The reality is, performance evaluations can be biased, and often hinge more on an employee’s ability to play the corporate game than on their actual potential.
The Myth of the “High-Potential Employee”
The term ‘high-potential employee’ is thrown around like it’s some kind of corporate messiah. But let’s unpack this — what exactly makes an employee “high-potential?”
Consistently exceeding performance objectives?
That could just mean they’re good at setting low bars for themselves.
Demonstrating initiative and innovation?
That’s often code for “they’re good at making themselves look good.” The truth is, labeling someone as “high-potential” is more about corporate politics than actual potential.
Alignment with Organizational Values and Culture
This is corporate speak for ‘they fit our mold.’ When we emphasize alignment with organizational values and culture, we risk creating echo chambers and stifling diversity of thought. What if the next big innovation comes from someone who doesn’t align perfectly with your current culture? Are we going to ignore their potential because they don’t fit the mold?
Yes.
Yes, companies weaponize culture. I’ve been there and I’ve felt it.
But how and why would they do this?
Sometimes, they — the powers that be — treat “culture” as a “Velvet Rope.”
Startups often tout their unique cultures as if they’ve reinvented the wheel.
In reality, what many of them are doing is setting up a velvet rope outside a not-so-exclusive club. The message is clear: conform or be cast out. This “culture” isn’t about fostering innovation or creativity; it’s about creating a homogenous group that nods along to the CEO’s every whim. If you’re not part of the in-crowd, good luck getting past the bouncer.
Subsequently, values can be used as a weapon. Values should be the moral compass of a company, but in the hands of some startups, they turn into weapons. These companies often speak of values like “innovation,” “disruption,” and “teamwork,” but what they really mean is: agree with us, don’t challenge the status quo (ironic, right?), and fall in line. Anyone who dares to question or bring a different perspective is quickly labeled as not being a “cultural fit.”
Then, there is the the echo chamber of Yes-Men: many startups are building echo chambers rather than businesses. They surround themselves with “yes-men,” creating an environment where dissenting voices are not just unwelcome, they’re nonexistent. This is dangerous. It breeds complacency and groupthink, where the biggest risk isn’t failing at innovation, but failing to see the train wreck coming because everyone is too busy agreeing with each other.
I would also add that there’s an “Illusion of Inclusivity.”
Startups often pride themselves on being inclusive, but let’s call a spade a spade. This inclusivity often only extends to those who drink the company Kool-Aid. If you’re not all-in on the startup’s “revolutionary” vision (which, let’s be honest, often isn’t that revolutionary), you’re on the outside looking in. It’s less about inclusivity and more about ideological conformity.
And, then there are the casualties of this culture war: the real victims here are innovation and genuine talent. By pushing out anyone who isn’t a ‘yes man,’ these startups are stifling the very creativity and critical thinking they need to thrive. They end up in a loop of self-congratulation and self-deception, which might feel good in the short term but is disastrous in the long term.
The weaponization of culture and values in many startups is less about building a thriving, innovative company and more about creating a cult of personality where dissent is quashed and critical thinking is replaced with mindless acquiescence. It’s a path that might feel safe for the moment but is fraught with danger down the road.
The Methods are Flawed
Self-assessments, peer feedback, 360-degree reviews, behavioral interviews — they all sound great on paper. But let’s be clear, each of these methods is deeply flawed. Self-assessments are often exercises in self-delusion. Peer feedback? It’s as much about office politics as it is about performance. 360-degree reviews? They’re more likely to give you vertigo than clarity. And behavioral interviews? They’re a dance where everyone knows the steps but pretends it’s improv.
Wrapping It Up
While identifying high-potential employees is a noble goal, the methods suggested here are riddled with corporate idealism and disconnected from the chaotic reality of the business world. The real challenge is not in identifying these mythical “high-potentials” but in creating an environment that truly nurtures diverse talent and innovation, beyond the confines of traditional performance evaluations and corporate jargon.
Brian Fink is the author of Talk Tech To Me. He takes on the stress and strain of complex technology concepts and simplifies them for the modern recruiter. Fink’s impassioned wit and humor tackle the highs and lows of technical recruiting with a unique perspective — a perspective intended to help you find, engage, and partner with professionals.
