***Why Companies Don't Want You To Improve

If I were to ask you for one good reason why any company wouldn't want you to get better at sales, better at customer service, improve your communication skills, study leadership, become more productive or just be a nicer person, could you answer that question? Do you think you could come up with the right answer?

The truth is, any organization's responsibility for improving its people ends once those same people attain a level of "competence." Think about it. Once an organization has all of its people achieving the level of "competence," it needs to do nothing more to train their people - provided the job doesn't change, the duties don't change and the market doesn't change. If the job is the same, "competent" training will suffice.

But here's what you, as an employee, may have never thought of: that all employees can be summed up into one of three categories: competent, high-performer and under-achiever. Which one are you? Honestly! Tell the real truth to yourself about where you would fit on this scale. How do you think your paycheck would change if you were to move from merely competent to high-performer?

Any company's Human Resources mandate could be summed up in three rules: 1) Don't mess with what's working (competent employees). 2) Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar (high-performer). 3) Get rid of the deadwood (under-achiever).

Rule #1 - Don't mess with what's working. If everyone on staff were competent, the company would have no need of training and development programs anymore. Everyone would have the tools necessary to complete the assigned tasks and everything would roll along quite smoothly. Think of an assembly line. Each person is required to do a single job that contributes to the final outcome of a product or service. If everyone is competent, the product or service produced is exactly the same every single time. The company would enjoy a higher corporate profit because all of its people are competent.

Rule #2 - Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar. In order to keep a high-performer in a competent environment, there are going to have to be discrepancies in pay levels, perks, freedom and expectations. If a company has a whole team of nothing but superstars, I think for a boss that the experience would be like herding cats - an exercise in futility. In order to keep high-performers from looking for better remuneration elsewhere, a boss would need to give more (money, position, perks) to keep the people who achieve more. It will cost the company more to keep these high-performers but then the trade-off should come in the amount of work done. Therefore, the net profit to a company would be lessened initially but perhaps they might make that profit back in the results of their high-performers.

Rule #3 - Get rid of the deadwood. I don't think much more needs to be said here other than if there is someone not pulling their weight (competency) then they need to be let go. It's the key to keeping the company moving forward and not being held back by poor performers. Poor performers are a hardship on a company's net profits. Poor performance means poor profit potential.

So, have you figured out why companies don't want you to improve yet? The answer is simple. The company is more likely to make a better net profit because no one needs expensive training programs, staff retention is high and there are no staff members who require high-maintenance perks to keep them there. If, however, you become a high-performer, the company must pay you more, must give you perks like extra time off, a corner office, a little more freedom on hours and stay out of your way all in an effort to not have to search for someone to replace you and then to train them to pick up the work you used to do. Managers have to get better at managing and leading because if there are no mentors for high-performers, they'll go elsewhere looking for coaching at the next level. When you improve, it forces your boss to improve. Management training is expensive and not all mangers can move to the next level of management. Some just aren't any better than competent. You can't have a simply competent manager leading a group of high-performers. It would be embarrassing to the manager, not to mention the company.

You, as an employee, if you really want to wreak havoc in your company, all you have to do is improve: your job performance, your attitude towards the job, your attention to detail, your customer service skills as well as your personal demeanor. Improve those things and your company must respond to your increased value or risk losing you. It's an expensive venture to replace a high-performer. It's actually cheaper to try and keep them with bonuses and perks. That's what you get for raising your personal worth. It forces your boss to get better. it forces the company to get better. it forces the people you work with to get better because you have helped raise the bar to what is possible, not just competent.

So, are you up to the challenge?