MIT Sloan Management Review

Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations

 

When ‘Stars’ Migrate, Do They Still Perform Like Stars?

By Boris Groysberg, Lex Sant and Robin Abrahams

October 1, 2008

As research on the National Football League reveals, sometimes the specific nature of a job determines whether a great performer at one company can replicate that performance at another.

Talent! Even though many companies seem to have the pick of the lot in today’s job market, “talent” is still the rallying cry of hiring managers and CEOs everywhere. Indeed, particularly in industries based on knowledge and skill — from consulting to pharmaceuticals to professional sports to food services —organizations are still competing for the best, the brightest and the hardest working: those overachievers who regularly outshine the merely competent. The belief is that such individuals — the financial analyst with uncanny market insights, the baseball pitcher with a devastating curveball, the pastry chef with sumptuous concoctions — are a key source of competitive advantage.

Past research is clear on the benefits of high-performing workers (let’s call them “stars”). For highly complex jobs, the top 1% of employees tends to outperform average workers by 127%.1 Star computer programmers are more productive than average ones by a ratio of eight to one.2 The top 1% of inventors is five to 10 times as productive as average inventors.3 And so on. In fact, in nearly every industry studied, researchers have uncovered the disproportionate effects of talent. Clearly, why wouldn’t any organization want to corral as much as possible of that tiny fraction of people who are superstars in their fields?

But reaping the benefits of such talent is not so simple. Say... To read the complete article, login or sign-up using the form below.

 
 

In This Issue

 

Best Sellers