<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Do Star Performers Make Good Leaders?</title>
		<description>Comments for Do Star Performers Make Good Leaders? at http://www.managingconflict.com , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.managingconflict.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:25:43 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.managingconflict.com/blog/do-star-performers-make-good-leaders-.html#comment-14</link>
			<description>Identifying the potential for promotion in internal employees is critical to sustaining a successful organization.

I have often heard and read that a star athlete often cannot transition to being a successful coach because he or she demands from players the same qualities that distinguished the player-turned-coach as a star. So I can agree with at least some of these points.

Yet turning a moribund organization into a high-performing one requires breaking the mold of lackluster performance that has been accepted. That makes empathy with poor performers difficult in a role of someone who wants to bring life back into an organization.

Stimulating employee engagement in such an organization cannot come simply by building trust. Trust in those circumstances sounds to me like trust that a new supervisor will not “rock the boat” and will continue to accept the status quo of poor performance.

I think a star performer-turned-supervisor is in a better position than others to know what makes the organization vital again and it is up to the employees to participate with the new supervisor to do that or to leave. Once the under-performing employees are gone, or most or them are, then trust can be developed as a piece of employee engagement. - Joe Gross</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:48:27 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

