There’s a persistent phenomenon I’ve observed across nearly every corporate client I’ve ever worked with, which is particularly noticeable within IT and technical support teams, and it revolves around retaining genuine high performers, or “rock stars.”
Strangely enough, even with effective management, continuous challenges, and engaging work, these exceptional talents rarely stay in permanent positions for long, which in turn wrecks a lot of multi-year IT plans.
But why should businesses care about losing these top performers? Primarily, it’s because organisational stability often hinges disproportionately on a few highly capable individuals who deeply understand core systems and processes. When these essential people leave, the disruption is severe, and companies frequently experience significant operational setbacks, particularly if they are doing something that will put them ahead in the marketplace.
The standard corporate solution to this problem usually involves complete documentation and process redundancy, aiming for systems so simplified that nearly anyone can operate them. While this strategy ensures stability, it unfortunately also results in inflexible and overly simplified systems. Users find themselves boxed into rigid frameworks that stifle innovation and adaptation. It’s essentially designing processes for the lowest common denominator, which might reduce risk but certainly doesn’t encourage excellence.
In contrast, smaller companies and startups tend to thrive because they foster teams composed entirely of high achievers. Such teams collaborate naturally, continually push boundaries, and build genuinely impressive solutions. These environments fuel continuous innovation and engagement.
So why can’t large corporations replicate this environment? In my view, one critical factor holding back corporate IT teams is HR’s reliance on the bell curve for performance evaluations. Designed to distribute evaluations fairly, this method inherently restricts recognition and rewards for genuine excellence. Teams are generally forced into predefined categories: a small group at the bottom requiring improvement, a broad middle performing adequately, and only a select few “exceeding expectations.”
What happens when a team naturally has more high achievers than the model allows? HR policies typically prevent recognising all deserving individuals, thereby inadvertently penalising genuinely talented employees. Over time, this practice inevitably breeds resentment among those repeatedly overlooked, making them easy targets for recruiters and competitors who promise fairer recognition and rewards.
I’ve even seen corporations unofficially adopt a “rotational excellence” system, where recognition and rewards cycle through team members regardless of actual performance. While superficially fair, this approach only fosters cynicism, demotivating the people really performing
Admittedly, addressing this issue isn’t straightforward. Simply allowing unlimited “exceeds expectations” ratings would undoubtedly lead to inflationary evaluations across departments. Yet, maintaining the status quo clearly undermines team morale, retention, and long-term organisational growth.
Currently, it seems only startups and community-driven projects successfully maintain groups of high achievers for extended periods. Corporations 1, however, have yet to discover a sustainable solution.
While I don’t have an immediate remedy, I’m eager to explore how corporations might better nurture and retain exceptional teams without fueling internal resentment or compromising fairness. How can large organisations sustainably reward genuine excellence without falling victim to the limitations of rigid HR models?
This challenge is a little devil, especially in IT, where the difference between retaining or losing top talent can dramatically influence organisational success.
- outside of the major Tech ones[↩]
