"…You could think of these low performers as hamsters on a wheel, spinning fast but actually going nowhere. Conversely, high performers may be coasting like swans on a pond, just gliding by. You don't see their effort because it's below the water. As Murphy says, "in our study, high performers gave very low marks when asked if employees all live up to the same standards."
While low performers may be more engaged, their efforts may not be as productive, especially since it's the higher performers — disengaged though they may be — who are doing all the work. The underperformance of the former undermines the effort of the latter. This is especially true, according to the study, when low performers are not held accountable for poor performance. These employees may not even know they are doing a poor job.
Naturally when poor performers are allowed to slide by, it erodes the morale of high performers who feel, again according to the study, "helpless about the trajectory of their careers."
"We had seen plenty of cases where managers avoid dealing with low performers (because they believe the conversation will be difficult), and instead assign work to the employees they enjoy — i.e. high performers.," says Murphy. "And as a result, they end up 'burning out' those same high performers they enjoy so much."
Senior management needs to communicate more clearly, hold people at every level accountable for results, and actively invest time and resources in the talents of high performers.
All too often companies do not know their employees are unhappy until they leave. Exit interviews reveal that they leave because they did not believe anyone cared. Research has confirmed the old saw that people leave bosses, not companies. That makes holding bosses accountable for employee engagement critical. …"