One of the hardest things to do is assess a person’s performance via paper and determine if they are ready to lead. Having all the right words may seem like the person is fit to lead, but how often is it wrong?
Most organizations require some sort of evaluation report on their employees. This helps determine how well the employee is progressing and to see what they have accomplished. What one person sees as high quality another person may see as mediocre depending on the set standards. It’s subjective. Perspective plays a big part in how we see people even when we define standards on paper.
This is why paper(evaluation) isn’t always best for capturing an individual’s performance. The idea is performance on paper will match the person’s actions. Simple, right? If only. I’d like to think that all organizations want great leaders, but how detailed and accurate does paper capture a person’s ability to lead? Would you rather have a high performer or a leader? It’s safe to say great leaders are high performers. Which ones are organizations really promoting?
The evaluation tells what was done and who it impacted, but doesn’t usually include how well they lead the team. We automatically see the results as the most important factor. A person could have lead a project to the end, but during that may have neglected the team. Sure, the results may have been great, but at the expense of improperly leading the team? Hard to say from a few words, right? Would the team choose to work with that person again? Even though the team may have done an amazing job doesn’t mean the leader led effectively.
What if a person lead a project and failed to meet the suspense, but brought together a team that seemed unlikely to work together? How would you capture that person’s ability to bring a team together when the project yielded negative results? Would the focus be on the inability to complete a project, or the ability to bring together people?
How do we transpose performance quality into leadership capability? Some people are great workers. They clock in and clock out and may have great performance, but can they actually lead? In an ideal world we have an infinite number of effective leaders, but realistically, we have far less.
Overall, don’t mistake high performance for leadership ability. Not all high performers have what it takes to lead. They just have what it takes to get a job done. Performing a task, or doing your job and leading are two different things. Performing is task focused, or job focused. Leading is getting people from point A to point B as effectively and efficiently as possible while ensuring they have proper resources, development, care and guidance. There are those that want to do their job and go home and there are those that take care of others along the way. Either way, the job will get done, but who would be the most valuable player? The person who cares only about the job or the person who cares about the people doing the job? One of them is a leader, one of them isn’t.
Which one are you?