Chapter 3. What's IN with High Performers?
Initiatives for Creating a High-Performance Organization in the Age of the Individual

As was stated at the outset, organizations must make distinctions as to whether people's behavior is rooted in high performance/high intellect or if they are just being annoying. An additional strategy is to learn how to design organizations around the common needs and values of high performers in general. This is where we should be directing and dedicating more of our time, money, and other resources.

If you do this, the problem, in many cases, will take care of itself because your culture will not only recognize and reward performance over just plain weirdness, but will also learn to accept a certain amount of weirdness as a natural by-product of genius and/or high performance. It will become somewhat of a Darwinian environment, in which the "fittest" are the high performing individuals, and the others will die of natural causes. Figuratively speaking, of course!

The five common needs of high performers are not only interrelated, but also cause and effect. In other words, the first IN, which is INdividualism, weaves through the other four INs. And if you are successful at satisfying the first four INs, the last IN (INnovation) will be a natural outcome: cause and effect. Individuality is the basis, and innovation is the outcome. All the others are means.

In other words, INnovation is a result of an organization's ability to foster and maximize INdividualism, INdependence, INformation, and INcentives. And the need for INdependence, INformation, INcentives, and INnovation are all rooted in the need for INdividualism. See the connection?

As you go through this primer on the specific needs of high performers, think about your own needs and whether you could be achieving greater job and personal success and satisfaction in such an environment. I think you will find that these characteristics, or initiatives, are ultimately universal and not just relevant to geniuses and rare talent. That's the epiphany.

Within each of the five needs, there will be five initiatives necessary to satisfy that need. Let's start with the first, and most fundamental characteristic, and the basis for this book, INdividualism.

INdividualism

1) High performers can be and want to be weird

Hopefully, if you have read this far, you already know that the term "weirdo" is not a pejorative one. It can be a compliment or even a goal—again, if it is rooted in genius or high performance. So it should be obvious why high performers seek out environments in which they can be themselves, and therefore be their best. No one wants to live two lives, one person at work and a different person off the job, but that is exactly what many organizations force people to do. Why else would the majority of people who die at work die on a Monday?

One of the best ways for an organization to adopt a philosophy of individualism is to hire as many different types of individuals as it can. This concept does not just relate to how people look, but how they perform, how they think, how they interact, and how they solve problems. A culture that values and fosters individualism is one that maximizes creative genius as well.

As was mentioned in Chapter 1, traditionalists and bureaucrats like to use the term diversity, but high-performers' concept of diversity, has nothing to do with race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. That is why the term individualism is most central to understanding high performers for what each brings to the game, regardless of the legal or regulatory definitions of diversity.

One way to accomplish and demonstrate this philosophy and to meet this need is to take an inventory of the various talents, skills, and interests (job-related or non-job-related) of each worker so that the organization can tap the full value of each person, and so each worker can be more fulfilled at the same time, which leads to the next initiative.

2) High performers know their strengths and play them to the max

This initiative goes to the very core of what makes one weirdo a high performer and another one just a weirdo. A common characteristic of highly successful people is that they know their strength(s); they know what they do best and what they love at the same time. They have found the intersection of their Abilities, their Interests, and the Market, which should be the ultimate goal of anyone who wants to strive and thrive in the Age of the Individual. (We will cover this in more detail in Chapter 4, AIM.)

The downside to this accomplishment is that the individuals who are tapping their natural weirdness to the max may fail to see, or even care, how others perceive them. Remember the concept of low self-monitoring discussed in Chapter 1? When someone's strengths become so exaggerated that they overshadow their self-awareness or social skills, they may get labeled as a weirdo (or a pain) by those who don't understand it.

For example, one who is strongly analytical and detail oriented may be a cracker-jack engineer, scientist, or analyst, but when left unchecked may become rigid and agonizingly slow at decision-making because he does not want to make a bad decision (defined as a quick decision) and is very uncomfortable taking what he perceives is an unnecessary risk without having all the facts. Quality above quantity is his motto.

On the other hand, someone else may be highly adept at relationship building, interaction and social skills, and be a whiz-bang sales person or counselor. But taken to the extreme, this same individual can be highly sensitive and emotional and be perfectly comfortable making decisions based more on gut and intuition than on logic and fact. Almost opposite of the person in the prior example!

Neither is wrong! Both are weird! Both are needed. Both have value. But when put together, they can be like oil and water. That is why, in a culture that values individuality, we must also make everyone aware of the divergent behaviors and styles, and help them to see and understand their combined value to the organization. Individuality without tolerance or appreciation creates chaos, stress, and oppression. Judgmentalism without self-reflection creates prima donnas, bigotry, and hypocrisy.

So, to maximize individuality, organizations must not only hire lots of different types, but they must also create an environment that maximizes their strengths and simultaneously educates the masses on the value of these differences and the potential conflict inherent in such a super-charged workforce. It can be an incredibly powerful force, either positive or negative.

3) High performers need workplace flexibility

The most common flexible workplace initiatives have tended to take the form of flextime, flex-benefits and even flex-place (i.e., telecommuting), and these are valuable benefits that do enhance an organization's ability to attract, retain, and motivate today's worker. However, taking this concept to the next level to become a truly flexible organization requires another dimension, which incorporates the whole person—beyond the job.

For example, a "whole person" who uses his or her technical skills all day may need to "flex" her other, more creative or expressive skills elsewhere. If she cannot find an outlet to use her whole brain on the job, she will be forced to find suitable outlets off the job. Today's worker is not willing to turn off half his brain for half his life.

In the old days, having a second job was called "moonlighting" because it was considered taboo by employers, and it had to be done in the dark of night. It was also done for purely financial reasons—not for self-fulfillment. Today it is called a "composite career" and can be driven more by a need to stimulate mental health, balance, self-worth and fulfillment, and it should be acceptable as long as it does not detract from employees' performance on their "real" job.

Today's composite careers don't even need to be paying jobs. An accountant may act in the theatre on weekends; an engineer may volunteer at a local charity; a sales rep may play a competitive sport; a consultant may write books! Whether it is an occupation or an avocation doesn't matter, but it is important to the INdividual that they have the option and the flexibility to pursue either.

In the extreme, this is what led to the advent of sabbaticals and leaves of absence for certain highly stressed, highly skilled employees after a certain period of time in order to regroup, re-charge, and return with a renewed sense of purpose and drive. But the flexibility issue need not even go to these extremes. It can just be a matter of organizational culture and values, which leads to the next initiative.

4) High performers respect substance over style

This is where things can get a little sticky. Obviously, if you hire employees who must interact and develop relationships with the outside world, it is a core requirement of the job that they be presentable. And substance over style does not just refer to personal style or appearance (ref: Blue Suit Bob and Al Naturale), but as much to their modus operandi.

For example, as we now know, everyone has his own personal cycles (Circadian Charlie) resulting in one person being a morning person, someone else being a night person, etc. These rhythms can even extend beyond a daily high/low, to days of the week, and even seasons. But no organization should be expected to be in tune to that degree of INdividuality. Let's be realistic!

Respecting substance over style does not just equate to the end justifying the means. It equates to respecting the fact that some people would rather start with the analysis, move to alternative solutions, seek second opinions, go off and brainstorm in isolation, develop recommendations, etc., in different sequence and in different time frames and with different approaches. It doesn't matter! If the final product is a great one, I don't care if they did it naked, standing on their head while chanting a mantra!

Let me share a personal case study to better demonstrate this concept. In my earlier career, I remember receiving a performance evaluation that rated my "objective" performance measures (i.e., attendance, meeting objectives, communication skills, quality of work, quantity of work, etc.) as distinguished, but resulted in an overall rating as marginal. When I asked how this added up, I was told that it was more a matter of style.

Here I was, a creative type working in a dominantly analytical organization, and my superiors (I use this term loosely) were "uncomfortable" with me because they didn't understand my process of decision making or implementation. Their perception and resultant criticism was that I "shot from the hip" because I did not share all of my analysis and rationale and every possible alternative before proceeding with a recommendation and before moving to implementation. The more important measure or question should have been "Does he hit the target?" Sharpshooters don't have to aim forever! Nor do they need to explain how they do it, as long as they hit the target!

While I am on this tirade, let me share another example that demonstrates the concept of style over substance because this initiative does require examples. After a successful five-year stint at a manufacturing plant, I was promoted to the corporate headquarters of this large, Fortune 100 corporation at a young age because I got results! In fact, I was one of the youngest to ever be promoted to such a position at such an age.

In my first week in the ivory tower, I was on my way to the men's room. Not a difficult task. Approaching me in the hallway was a senior vice president who welcomed me and asked me where I was going. I said, "to the men's room" to which he responded, "Let me give you some advice." A bit strange, I thought, since I had done this many times before and never had a problem meeting my objective, but I am always open to mentoring.

He said, "Whenever you are walking the halls of the corporate headquarters, it would behoove you to have something in your hand." I thought, "hmmm, I will in a few minutes!" but I didn't say it. He proceeded to explain to me that having a piece of paper or a folder or something in your hand makes you "look" like you are walking with a purpose.

I had a purpose! It just wasn't evident at that moment, and it wasn't in my hand (yet!). That interaction stuck with me for a long time (obviously) because it communicated volumes about what was really important to succeed in this environment. Combine that with the "shoot from the hip" scenario, and that is style over substance.

5) High performers need and value their personal space

In the world of cubicles and open workplaces, personal space has become a valuable commodity. If you expect high performers to spend the majority of their waking hours "performing," you must also think about their performance habitat. Working from home is an obvious solution, but that is not always possible, nor practical.

Traditionally, and sadly still, many organizations want to prescribe what every square inch of the building is going to look like, including that little corner of the world in which one must live and work. I remember a corporate facility in which no one could bring in a live plant for their office or workspace without it first being inspected, approved, and then quarantined for a period of time to ensure that it would not detract from or harm the corporate flora. This same organization had corporate artwork. Now, this is not a problem if we are talking about the conference room, the hallways, the reception area and the majority of the facility that is common area or visible to the public. But it need not extend to things as simple and as innocuous as photos, knick-knacks, color schemes, or even lighting.

Similar to the concept of Circadian Rhythms, some people do not like bright lights and others do. Ever hear of a dimmer switch? Some people work better with background music, and others are distracted by it. Ever hear of a personal stereo or headphones? Some people like humorous screensavers, in good taste, and some prefer tranquil scenery. Some people like bright colors, others like earth tones, yada yada yada.

On a more serious note, from an ergonomic perspective, some people have a real need for a certain type of chair or computer monitor or wrist pad, etc. If everything is corporately prescribed, you will have to hire clones or build robots, and both are boring. What is more important, performance and morale, or homogeneity and control? Give them liberty, or give them to the competition.

INdependence

1) High performers place great value on their freedoms

There is a very important reason why INdependence comes next. It is not only a natural outgrowth of individuality, but it also supports and weaves through all the other needs, ultimately building to the last initiative, which is INnovation. Keep this in the back of your mind so that by the time you get to the end of this section, it will all come together into a glorious "A-HA!"

To speak of independence as a workplace concept would have been unheard of in the early days of the Industrial-era society, when people were hired primarily to carry out a task and were given as little discretion as possible. That was called Scientific Management. That was the Age of the Organization Man. Create the "perfect system" so that people could not possibly screw up, so that "management" required nothing more than giving orders.

Today, we have evolved to hiring brains over brawn, to valuing the mind over muscle. In fact, a common phrase in the good old days was to "check your brain at the door" and just do what you are told. But, in the "new normal," the demand is for diversity, differentiation, creativity, and innovation.

How things have changed! Or have they? Times may have changed, but most organizational models have not kept pace with the needs and demands of today's markets or today's talent. We are trying to force square pegs into round holes, then cannot figure out why these new workers cannot succeed. We've got new workers in an old model.

The fact that high performers place great value on their freedoms extends to everything in their lives, personally and professionally, which will become clearer as we put the five initiatives of INdependence together.

2) High performers resist bureaucracy

Patience is not a high performer's virtue, particularly when it comes to getting things done at work, and particularly when he or she does not have control over the processes to do so. Remember the discussion about self-efficacy in Chapter 1? If you want to run the best and brightest out the door in a hurry, make it a monumental task to order staples. Create a committee for everything.

High performers must be trusted and must have the INdependence to get things done without a lot of red tape. The word trust is key here. There is an inverse relationship between the amount of trust in an organization and the number of policies and procedures in effect. In other words, the less trust, the more bureaucracy.

Remember System Tester Sam? He was a perfect example of this value and need in action. "If I have to write numerous, redundant reports on 'how I spent my last five days, four weeks, or three months,' then you must not trust me and you are also putting bureaucracy in the way of my getting my real job done."

The word policy has its roots in the Greek word, "polis." Guess what other word is rooted in "polis?" That's right! Police! High performers do not want nor need to be policed by their organizations. If you do not trust them to do the right thing, then you hired the wrong person to begin with—which leads to the next initiative, which is a logical offshoot of the first two.

3) High performers can be difficult to manage

If you hired the right person in the first place, they should not need to be "managed."

Is that idealistic? Not if you understand what the word manage really means. The Latin root of the word manage is "manus" which means "hand" or "to handle." High performers do not want or need to be handled.

It is important to make a distinction here between the concepts of management and leadership. High performers love leaders, but they must be charismatic leaders. A charismatic leader leads people the way they want to be led, not the way he or she wants to lead them. That means that the leader has a keen appreciation for and understanding of the exact principals we are highlighting here, and then taps them for mutual value and benefit.

So, don't handle high-performers; lead them!

4) High performers are goal-oriented

How does being goal-oriented relate to INdependence? Give high-performers a goal, set them loose, and get out of the way. Don't prescribe exactly how a creative or mental challenge is to be accomplished. Prescribed creativity is an oxymoron!

High performers focus on ends more than means. Their philosophy is that as long as they do nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical, you should leave them alone to get to the goal. Given that there is almost always more than one right answer in today's professional workplace, you may suggest your ideas and alternatives, but do not prescribe them. Leaders envision and set goals; managers "handle." Be a leader!

Can you see how this initiative relates to the need for flexibility? If not, you will. Whether one does his or her work at 3 a.m. or 3 p.m. shouldn't matter (see Circadian Charlie). Everyone has his or her own body clock, and some people are more creative in the morning and some at night. Thus the need for flex time, but a new generation of flextime—no time clock at all! Just results!

You will also see how this initiative relates to the later concept of INcentives because high performers want to be measured and rewarded on their results (i.e., goal accomplishment), not how they got there. Are you starting to see the relationships?

5) High performers must be self-directed

"You can tame a fanatic, but you can't breathe life into a corpse!"

This initiative is very closely related to principal #4, that high-performers are goal-oriented. However, this one relates to the "need" for high-performers to be motivated from within, or intrinsically. Although it is rather idealistic for anyone to expect that every task must be exciting and sexy, whoever said high performers were realistic? It isn't unrealistic, however, for managers and leaders to understand that high performers, in the long run, are most motivated by tasks and environments that make them want to perform versus have to perform.

Even the less sexy tasks will be tackled with more vigor if the high performer can see the value in the task. In order to make any assignment more satisfying the following five core characteristics must be maximized:¹

Skill Variety: The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work assignment and involves the use of a number of different skills and talents of the employee.

Task Identity: The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole identifiable piece of work—that is, one that involves doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.

Task Significance: The degree to which the job is perceived as important and involves a meaningful contribution to the organization or society in general.

Autonomy: The degree to which the job gives the employee substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in scheduling the work and determining procedures used in carrying it out.

Feedback: The degree to which carrying out the work activities results in the employee obtaining direct and clear information on how well the job has been done.

INformation

1) High performers want to get their information from the source

There's that "trust" concept again! Studies show that the number one source of "trusted" information in most organizations is the grapevine. The grapevine isn't sugar-coated. It comes from people that employees think they can trust, and it is easily accessible. Wouldn't if be nice if the formal information sources could boast these same qualities? Well, they can!

Research shows that employees would prefer to get their information from the source, meaning the leadership and its communication vehicles, but distrust of the source prevents that from happening. The most effective measure an organization can take to overcome this barrier is to adopt an "open book management" philosophy. In other words, expand information sharing from a "need to know" to a "want to know" basis.

Again, if you cannot trust your people with information, you've not only hired the wrong people, but you cannot progress through these initiatives. Trust is the enemy of bureaucracy, but is communication's greatest ally.

Again, are you seeing the common threads?

2) High performers have a need to know and a need to let know

Just as high performers would like to get the truth from formal, official channels, they would also like to be able to tell the leadership their version of the truth. One-way communication is telling. Two-way communication is liberating.

Some may call them prima donnas, but high performers do sometimes think they know it all. Even if they don't know it all, they probably know something you don't, and vice versa. Even more important, they may know something that you should know, but don't! Look at how many of the cases demonstrated that principle! As a manager, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The reason we now have "whistleblower" laws to protect workers who "rat" on their employers is because no one within the organization's so-called leadership wanted to hear it, or if they did hear it, they ignored it, denied it, or even stifled it. That just won't work in a high-performance workplace, or in a society that values its freedoms and rights (i.e., in the Age of Individual).

With all the jargon and programs centered around team-building and quality, it is rather ironic to think that an organization could have either without total two-way disclosure. What successful team do you know of where the players don't know all the plays? What level of quality can you expect from people who don't know as much as possible about what goes into the product or service?

The first step to high-performing organizations is the ability for its members to hear and be heard, without filters and without retribution. If you owned the company, wouldn't you want to know everything? High performers think almost like owners, and anything short of the cold, hard, unvarnished truth is a lie, which leads to the reason for the next initiative:

3) High performers distrust bureaucratic channels

There's that "trust" word again! Traditional company publications have become so sterile and politically correct that few people rely upon them for "the truth." Not that they are lies, but they certainly do not lack for sugar coating. High performers want the good, the bad, and the ugly, and they want it in its raw form. Think of it as "sugar-free candor"! If your fear is that people won't understand or use the information appropriately, then you obviously do not trust them, so their perception is reality!

One of the key requirements of open book management is that people be trained on how to read and interpret such things as financials and other documents so that they can be trusted to understand them and to put them into proper perspective. Additionally, even if your people are not as adept as you would like them to be, there is nothing wrong with including an interpretive analysis or executive summary. If the raw information is accurate and candid, then an analysis by top management will be appreciated, rather than suspect.

Another reason why high performers distrust bureaucratic channels of information is that the communiqués are usually written in such a sterile and legalistic manner that most people don't even want to go to the effort to try to cut through and decipher the core message. A solution to this dilemma is to lighten up wherever you can in your day-to-day communication. Not everything must be written by lawyers. Even a little humor is not only appropriate, but refreshing to high performers. Be real!

4) High performers think conflict can be positive

In fact, most high performers even like it! Conflict is essential to creativity, as long as the conflict centers around issues and not people. Depersonalized conflict involves listening to diverse perspectives while withholding judgment so that solutions are much richer and much better received.

High performers are suspicious of too much harmony. Teamwork does not imply total harmony. Total harmony implies a lack of conflict, "me-tooism," excess homogeneity, and a culture of political correctness over creativity. If two people in an organization agree on everything, one of them probably isn't needed. It is the organization that can actually have fun with conflict that fosters and maximizes high performance.

If you are forming a team that is to work on anything involving change, do not fall victim to selecting team members based upon how well they get along and go along. In fact, do just the opposite. Remember System Tester Sam? Creative Dissatisfaction? Put mavericks and malcontents on the team. Then make them put up or shut up!

Appointing mavericks and malcontents to a change team will result in one of two outcomes. They will either tap their creative dissatisfaction and come up with innovative ideas, or they will punch themselves out and come to the painful realization that they are just noisemakers, which will probably squelch them in future situations. Either way, the organization wins!

5) High performers want the "why" with the "what."

High performers are not satisfied with being told what to do without knowing why. They are motivated from within, not just by outside forces. And anyone is more willing to accept and embrace change or challenge if they have a reason. That's just human nature. Without a reason, there is no motivation.

A simple but interesting experiment was done in which people were instructed to try to cut in line to use a photocopier. The first time, they were instructed to merely try to cut in, without giving a reason. They would say, "Excuse me. May I cut in?" And the overwhelming majority of the time, people would abruptly say, "No. Get in line!"

Then the experiment was repeated, but this time the intruder would give a reason. They might say, "Excuse me. Would you mind if I cut in line? I am double-parked." Or, "Excuse me. Would you mind if I cut in line? I am late for a meeting." And in these cases, the overwhelming majority of people said, "Sure, go ahead!"

The reason? The reason! Yes, the reason people were more amenable to being inconvenienced, to being flexible, and to deferring to an intruder was that they were given a reason, or a "why." That is the motivation that is required to get someone to do what someone else wants them to do.

Knowledge workers, by their very nature, are motivated by seeing and understanding the bigger picture and by feeling a part of it. It no longer suffices just to tell people what to do. Any type of change, be it personal, organizational, or societal, involves three key components: The what, the how, and the why. Traditionally, managers would sit in a room and discuss what has to be done. That's the knowledge. Then, they would announce to the implementers (workers) their decision. "We must do X!"

The next logical question from the workers and implementers was, "How are we going to get there or do that?" The how is the means, which would result in some type of training, process brainwashing, or introduction of some new-fangled tool or technique. Ultimately, when the change failed to take hold or was resisted, the reason was usually rooted in the why, which is the motivation.

To sum up: What is the knowledge; how is the means; why is the motivation.

No one ever thought to get buy-in up front from those responsible for embracing and implementing the change by involving them in the reasons or rationale for it. If management doesn't initiate change for no reason, why would we expect employees to be any different? It isn't even their idea!

In the Age of the Individual, this model must be turned upside down. Ideally, astute managers and leaders must facilitate workers to self-discovery as to the "why" for new initiatives. When people can draw their own conclusions, and reach their own "Aha's!" the motivation is natural; it is intrinsic; it is powerful; it is exactly the kind of motivation high performers need to excel. Then they will actually ask for the "how"—the tools and techniques and training to make it happen. You don't have to sell it to them or ram it down their throats!

The most common management objection to this approach is that it just takes too much time. Yes, it may take more time and effort up front, but why is it that there is never enough time to do a project right the first time and make it stick, but there is always enough time to do it over? It is this mentality that keeps snake oil consultants fat and happy!

If, for some reason, self-discovery is not possible or feasible, the second-best route is to begin the announcement process with the "why" instead of the "what" and to share the logic and conclusion first. Once you share the "why" it is easier for people to buy the "what" if it makes sense to them. Again, high performers and knowledge workers want and need you to respect their ability to be able to process bigger picture information rather than to just have the outcomes dictated to them. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right!

INcentives

1) High performers are not afraid of pay for performance

All workers are not created equal. It's amazing how many managers and organizational leaders lament that pay has lost its impact as a motivator. It is true! And they are to blame because the average differential in pay between a mediocre performer and a superior performer in the same job, in the same company, is only about 3–5%. Of course pay is not a motivator!

But it doesn't have to be that way. It is only because weak managers have lacked the creativity and/or the backbone to implement real pay-for-performance programs. A paycheck is like breathing....you take it for granted until it stops. It has become an expectation, not a catalyst for achieving great things. High performers are not afraid of pay for performance, and in fact, they demand it!

Another fallacy of traditional managers is that pay-for-performance means spending more money. I find it sadly ironic when I hear a manager say, "We cannot afford a pay-for-performance program." You cannot afford performance? Isn't that where the money ultimately comes from in order to pay people in the first place?

Pay for performance does not mean spending more money. It means allocating it differently. You can take the same 5% "merit" budget and rather than giving one person 4% and another 6% to average out to an overall 5%, you give your top performer 10% and your worst loser nothing! That's still an overall average of 5%, and yes, it is legal! It is not only legal, but it is moral! That's a meritocracy! (A meritocracy is an organization in which one's success or failure is tied directly to his or her personal contribution or performance.)

In a meritocracy and in the Age of the Individual, fair is not equal! Human resources professionals and managers in general have become so hypersensitized to the concept of "equality" that they think and operate under the misguided belief that everyone must be treated the same. As a result, they are pushing everyone's performance down to an "equal" level of mediocrity.

If the average pay differential between a high performer and an average performer is a mere 3 to 5%, you are effectively rewarding the average performer and punishing the high performer! That's the Law of Unintended Consequences. In your quest to be fair, you end up being unfair and ineffective! No wonder you can't afford pay for performance. And guess who ends up leaving the organization? Yes, the winners—thus making you a loser too. In this scenario, the only winners are the losers!

It is interesting to hear what some managers have to say about increasing discrimination in pay. "If I give 10% to Joe and nothing to Mary, Mary is going to be de-motivated!" She is already de-motivated! That is why she is not being rewarded! Tell her why Joe got 10% and why she got nothing! That's how you earn your pay and title as a manager! And then tell her how she can succeed and what she needs to do to get a "merit" raise next time. Help her to succeed, but don't help everyone else to fail.

Another salient quote I hear is, "But if I don't give Fred a reasonable raise, he might leave!" Hooray! No unemployment compensation! No wrongful discharge lawsuit! In addition to the fallacy that "equal is fair" is the fallacy that turnover is always bad. Some turnover can be good! If you are losing the losers and winning the winners, it is positive turnover. You are now on the road to successfully creating a culture of performance that will not tolerate mediocrity, and the rewards for that are astounding, for both the employee and the employer. It becomes self-fulfilling.

2) High performers respond well to nontraditional incentives

Whether you use the word incentives, or rewards, or recognition, there is almost no limit to the ways in which high performers can be motivated, and they are not limited to things financial. In fact, from a business and motivation perspective, it is better that performance incentives not be closely linked to the traditional compensation program. We've already discussed the concept of pay for performance in the prior section, so now let's talk about the other types of rewards or incentives.

High performers need to be stroked. But it must be genuine, and from an organizational management perspective, it must be deserved. But because high performers respect creativity, they appreciate "out-of-the-box" types of rewards, regardless of monetary value. In the performance improvement business, this is called "trophy value."

Think about how people cherish trophies. Most of us still have a trophy or certificate of achievement of some type in our attic or basement for something accomplished many years ago. We will never throw them away! Now think about the actual monetary value of a trophy. It's essentially worthless! Most are made of the cheapest materials money can buy and have no utilitarian value at all. You can't eat them, you can't wear them, you can't sell them, you can't even use them for much of anything besides a doorstop or a paperweight. But they are priceless in the mind of the recipient.

Moral of the story? It ain't the money, honey! It's what it stands for that matters, i.e., trophy value. The same is true of organizational performance incentives. Money is always nice, but trophies tend to have more lasting value and greater impact. Organizational trophies can come in many forms, such as employee of the month awards, pins, coffee mugs, plaques for attaining goals, certificates, or even an actual trophy that rotates from department to department or person to person depending on who the current "winner" is (sales leader, perfect attendance, best new idea, etc.) for that month or quarter.

In my first book, Get Weird! there was even an idea called "Name That Room" in which companies named various conference rooms, hallways, and the like, in honor of individuals, customers, or others who are deserving of special recognition. Again, the variations are limitless. Even if your company has not adopted a true pay-for-performance system, these nontraditional incentives can go a long way to fill the void. Plus, they can be varied and kept fresh depending on current organizational needs and goals. And high performers love them!

3) High performers resent low-performers

This one is probably self-evident. But it bears explaining because high performers won't sit around and wait for dead wood to be discarded or revived. If you are effective in initiatives #1 and #2 (i.e., pay for performance and non traditional incentives) this one may take care of itself. But the bottom line is that high performers want to work in a culture of high performance, and it is incongruent to keep people forever who do not produce or who detract from the success of others.

Tolerating low performance is not just a matter of internal equity. It is symbolic of other, larger issues, none of which will keep high performers flourishing within your organization. Allowing non-performers or low performers to suck the resources out of the organization is symbolic of weak management and weak values, and high performers need to respect those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Admittedly, high performers do have a tendency to see everyone else as dead wood. This is another manifestation of their prima donnaish behavior. The ultimate solution to both issues, weeding out non/low performers and ensuring objectivity, is to make performance measures clear, to communicate their attainment or lack thereof on a regular basis, and to link them to compensation and incentives as directly and immediately as possible. Then there is no question as to how people are doing, and why they are being rewarded, or not!

4) High performers want a reason to work hard

The key word here is "want," not "need." The work ethic is dead. Get over it! Organizations no longer have the luxury of being able to hire people with little or no art, science, or sophistication in the selection process, or to expect them to just do what they are told and to keep coming back for more forever. This is particularly true for high-performance workers.

During my graduate work, there were two distinctly separate but simultaneous research studies going on that demonstrated this very well. On the one side, the Public Agenda Foundation had determined that only 22% of working Americans admitted to working at their full potential. On the other hand, Gallup had conducted a survey that determined that 88% of working Americans wanted to perform at their full potential at work. Is that contradictory? No!

What these dichotomous studies demonstrated, albeit without either of them knowing it at the time, was the concept of "Discretionary Effort": Potential minus Performance = Discretionary Effort. Discretionary effort is that performance which employees keep bottled up inside them, or in their hip pockets, because they do not see a reason or a need to use it. It is the difference between doing just enough to get by, i.e., mediocrity, versus accomplishing great things, i.e., a meritocracy.

Why do they hold back and keep some discretionary effort to themselves? Because the rewards do not elicit it, the mission does not foster it, and the leadership does not instill it. All the things that are embodied in the five needs of high performers are lacking.

By their very nature, high performers are looking for work that taps their natural talents and abilities. (See "AIM" in Chapter 4.) That is what gets them out of bed in the morning (or at night), to follow a passion. Not all work must be a calling, but it must be intrinsically motivating.

This initiative is somewhat related to the need to know the "why" with the "what" in the section on INformation. Remember, as was mentioned at the outset, that all these needs and initiatives are tightly intertwined. Seeing the bigger picture, being a part of it, understanding one's critical value, being recognized for it, etc., are all contributing factors to creating an environment in which people perform because they want to, not just because the have to. Do you see it coming together?

5) High performers love to celebrate

And often! Now that we know that the work ethic is dead, we are ready to come to the realization that work and fun need not be opposites. Another blasphemy! What is this world coming to? If you look up the word "work" in Webster's Dictionary you will find synonyms like "labor, travail, toil, drudgery, grind," none of which get me jumping out of bed in the morning.

But is it realistic to think that work should be fun? Maybe not. But it need not be constant labor, travail, toil, drudgery, or grind either! Even if the tasks at hand are not exactly fun, they can be fulfilling (see the characteristics of an enriched job on page 116). And even if not everything can be fulfilling, we can still celebrate accomplishments, either individually or organizationally. And that is what high performers both want and need in order to keep going at a pace that taps their discretionary effort.

Work is not work to high performers. It may not be a calling, but they would at least like it to be more than just work. And that is not only possible, but necessary. High performers also love and appreciate spontaneous fun. It need not be a big, annual company picnic. In fact, it is better if it is "on the spot" fun. Some of the best times are not planned.

There are numerous examples of creative, inexpensive, and effective ways to have fun detailed in my first book, Get Weird! 101 Innovative Ways to Make Your Company a Great Place to Work. Things like "One Minute Parades" where co-workers march around someone's cubicle to draw attention to a special milestone or accomplishment, or "Peer Pats" where people can tangibly recognize each other spontaneously, and many more.

The CEO of one of my clients arranged to bring in a dance instructor at lunchtime so everyone could learn the latest dance craze within an hour. He had sandwiches and beverages delivered, routed the phones, and for an hour the place went nuts (in a good way!). It's these types of quick, easy, inexpensive, and spontaneous activities that begin to create a culture of fun, rather than to rely solely on the same old events that become as much of a chore as a celebration. Here's a hint.... Lunch with the boss ain't no prize!

Many high performers have adopted the lifestyle motto: "Work hard, play hard!" and understand that each aspect of life supports the other. Some may live to work, but even those who just work to live still want to enjoy their life at work. High-performers admire and value the creativity of incremental celebrations and fun-on-the-fly, which results in work and pleasure coming together as one. How can anyone argue with that?

INnovation

1) High performers are not afraid of, but crave new technology

Admittedly, this one is not a universal truth, but it is more the case than not. If not new technology, at least new thinking and approaches to problem solving are of great value. It is just as important to know that those who must attempt to manage or lead high performers need not have that same craving, as long as they make it available to their workers.

A common pitfall of managers of high performers, and especially managers of technology workers, is the misguided assumption that they have to pretend they have the same or higher level of interest and understanding of current trends and tools and technology. It would be nice, yes. But it stands to reason that younger, more currently educated employees will come to the game with more cutting edge knowledge and skills, and the desire to maintain them.

And nothing will burn a manager faster than trying to fake his or her way through this one. This is an opportunity to build credibility by admitting your fallibility. High performers relish the thought that they know more than you do, and they respect managers who aren't afraid admit it. Managers do not need to know more than their underlings about the technical aspects of their work. Again, it would be nice, but it isn't essential as long as you can trust that they are getting the job done. Remember trust? Remember substance over style?

So, once you get past the ego issue, the next step is to make new learning and tools available to the greatest extent possible, but obviously based on cost-benefit, unless it is merely a perk or performance reward. Beware that the really high-tech, high-performance worker can behave like a junkie and may insist that he or she needs the newest and most expensive gadgets and toys all the time just to survive. This is a fallacy and is nonsensical from a business perspective unless you have unlimited resources or you use toys as a substitute for bonuses or other rewards. What they really want is 1) to be able to play with them, and 2) to show them off to their friends and colleagues who don't have them yet.

Just as a footnote, also beware that you, the manager, should not be the first one to get the latest and greatest gizmo if you aren't truly going to use it more than your workers would. Years ago, when the first personal computers hit the scene, it was a sad state of affairs to see that the Organization Men had them collecting dust on their desks because it was a mere perk and status symbol.

In the meantime, their secretaries, who were totally responsible for word processing, bookkeeping, record keeping, etc., continued to beat the keys off an old typewriter, making corrections with White-out, while begging and drooling for the exact technology their bosses had on their desks and couldn't even turn on.

2) High performers must be free to risk, stretch, and err

With increased INnovation comes the increased likelihood of risk and error. Honest error. Well-intentioned error. But error, nonetheless. And to make it work to the advantage of the organization, it must be responded to in a certain way.

Another story. One of the most exciting, high performance and creative environments I have ever experienced was early in my career when, during my new employee orientation, I was introduced to my boss's boss, who said, "John, welcome to XYZ! I expect you to screw up!" I thought he must have checked my references and began to panic.

But he followed up by saying, "You have a great education and we are paying you a good salary. We expect you to stretch, to try new things, and in the process you are going to make some mistakes. If you never make any mistakes, I have to assume you are just maintaining the status quo and not trying anything new, and we can find someone with a lot less education and for a lot less money who can do that."

He wrapped up his orientation lecture by saying, "I have only three rules regarding this issue. They are, 1) that the mistake was a well-intentioned and honest one. In other words, you weren't deliberately trying to screw up the company; 2) that you learn from it and never make the same mistake twice; and 3) that you come to me and let me know about it before I have to find out about it from someone else. My promise to you is that if you meet those three rules, you will never be punished or fired for it."

I think that story pretty well sums it up. High performers, when given the latitude and trust to be creative and innovative do not abuse the privilege. In fact, just the opposite occurs. They value and cherish this environment so much that they will do everything in their power to use the privilege to excel and to produce incredible results. But, as we know, that doesn't mean that they are easy to manage, which leads to the next initiative.

3) High performers like to initiate change and rock the boat

Granted, some of the challenges of high performers can actually be exacerbated by granting them all the things that are being advocated here, like INdependence, INformation, etc. Because, for example, the more information they have, the more ability they will have to question and criticize. The more INcentives there are, the more they will analyze the criteria and equity of them, and so on.

So, is the solution to just throw this book away and go back to the ease of the autocracy? Of course not! But you can if you want, because you already paid for it (just kidding!). High performers can become quite arrogant and start to think they know more or better about everything. Let them! Make them put their superiority complex to good use!

Whenever a high performer starts to get cranky about a particular policy, procedure, or other workplace demand or distraction over which they may not have any legitimate involvement or control (or even if they do), just turn it around. Remember System Tester Sam and "Creative Dissatisfaction"? Rather than shooting them down at the knees, say "Hmm. Very interesting. What's your idea for improvement? Can you put together a cost-benefit proposal for me and show me the alternatives and why they are better? We're always looking for new ideas!"

You don't have to shoot them and/or their ego down. It may feel good, but that will only backfire on you. Calmly validate their perspective, then redirect it toward employee-driven solutions.

Bottom line, when you are hiring the best and the brightest and setting them free, you can expect some conflict. And conflict is essential to creativity and INnovation. Just lead by example and be sure to show your people how you depersonalize conflict and attack processes and not people, issues and not individuals, and you can't go wrong—nor can you go back to the way you've always done things.

4) High performers are most creative when they are loose

When do you get brainspurts? These are little brainstorms that just pop into your head when you least expect them. Most people answer this question with, in the car, in the shower, while jogging, working in the garden, in bed, etc. It's almost never at work! How sad. Which is exactly the point. Creative juices flow when you are loose, when you aren't trying, when you are relaxed.

This initiative is actually one that is the most impacted by satisfaction of some of the others. The more my INdividuality is respected and fostered and the more INformation I have, and the more INdependence I am allowed, the more relaxed I will be, and thus the more free-flowing my mind can and will be. It's very similar to the dynamics of a free-agent mentality.

This is exactly why most of the significant inventions and breakthroughs in modern history rarely occur in large corporate or academic research labs, but rather in basements, garages, skunk works—and by accident. There isn't a whole lot more to say about this initiative because it is so highly dependent upon the satisfaction of the others. But once you have created an environment of "looseness," you can really capitalize upon it by facilitating the next initiative.

5) High performers feed on each others' creative weirdness

This component is not unique to high performers, but they do seem to understand and appreciate it more than the average person. If you have ever gone to lunch or to some other informal gathering of high performers who are in a similar profession or interest group, you will see it in action. From mind benders to group challenges to weird what-iffing, it can even be a little nerdy, but who cares?

History shows that many of the most successful and creative geniuses of our world were pretty nerdy, or nonconformist, or even counter-culture, which is why they feed on each other. High-performing weirdos feel more comfortable and normal associating with other so-called weirdos. They are accepted, validated, and even valued.

High performers also like to know there are other high performers in their environs because it boosts their ego, their self-esteem, and their commitment to stay and perform. They want to be able to respect their associates, even if they won't admit it, and even if they constantly act like they are superior to everyone else. It's just part of their schtick.

So, maximize the opportunity by allowing those natural synergies to develop and grow. Just don't blow it by making it a formal program. You can foster this synergy by creating opportunities for nerd camaraderie. This is not team-building. Please do not call it team-building. These are just opportunities for collaboration, association, or commiseration.

If you do plan to use the value of nerd synergy for organizational gain, like on a project or new initiative, restrict the creative feeding frenzy to periodic brainstorming or mind-mapping sessions, but do not impose the "team thing" for an entire project. This initiative has to happen because they want it to, when they want it to, where they want it to, and because it is enjoyable, not because it is required as part of a program. Facilitate; don't dictate!

IN Conclusion

Bottom line: If you wanted to boil all these concepts down to a single formula, it would be this:

Individuality + Freedom = High Performance.

In other words, once the value of the "individual" (the weirdness within) is recognized and realized, and the environment is created in which to set it free, the opportunities are limitless for all.

Ironically, the U.S. has more of these two characteristics than any other country in the world, but we fail to capitalize upon them. What other culture has more diversity (individuality) than the U.S.? What other country has more freedom? We have little or no control over the amount of diversity (individuality) that is present in our country or even in most of our organizations. But we do have control over how much freedom we provide within them.

Where do we push the limits, and where do we draw the lines? One enables, the other stifles. That limit is best drawn at the point where the benefit to the greater good stops; the point at which weirdness crosses over from synergism to narcissism.

Granted, as was demonstrated in many of the case studies, some freedoms cannot go totally unchecked in the workplace, such as privacy, search and seizure, or speech, but there is no business or human resource justification for limiting the creative and productive capabilities of the workforce purely out of fear of being different.

Every company talks about "differentiating" itself in the marketplace, and every company wants to have a "unique value proposition" and to spew all the other program-of-the-month jargon to pretend they are progressive. But most of these same companies fail to recognize that the only real variable that distinguishes one company from another is the human element.

No matter what you sell—cars, hamburgers, insurance, whatever it is—your product/service is a commodity in the eyes of Joe Consumer. Unless you have a monopoly, the only perceived difference between Company A and Company B is whether I like you and whether it feels good to do business with you, and that boils down to how the product or service is delivered, which is ultimately determined by your employees.

Follow these recipes for "What's IN With High Performers?" and you will create a truly healthy and wonderfully weird culture in which genius and excellence are merely a natural by-product of individuality and freedom coming together with the right structure and process.