Managers often make a costly mistake in leaving high performers to perform at their maximum capacity without support, choosing to instead devote their time and attention to underperformers. In doing so, though, these high performers are often left feeling overlooked and neglected. Contrary to popular belief, high performers need just as much attention as underperformers — just not in the same way. Rather than being disregarded for their productivity, high performers need recognition and appreciation, opportunities for growth and challenge, clear pathways for advancement, autonomy and trust, and a feeling of purpose and belonging in the organization.
What even is this article? Seems a bit spureous to me.
Funny to see this comment here, because the article is directly applicable to my current workplace experience. We’re a very small company, and I have been keeping my entire team running with no authority and no resources, through main force (e.g. working solidly without more than a few minutes to take a piss a maximum of twice in an 8-9 hour period). I am between 25-50% of my team’s output on any given day, and there are only 7 of us.
NB: I know, this sounds like exploitation, and it might be if I didn’t know it or if I didn’t think I could go elsewhere. If this causes concern, please don’t worry - I am fine, this is a choice I’m making because I like where I work, and after a recent chat with management it’s finally getting remedied.
But if they’d read this article, I might not have needed to have that conversation with them.