Do A Few Talented Employees Make The Difference?

That question creates tension with one of my main managerial principles.

Scientific studies are unanimous on this point: A few talented individuals will disproportionately increase the performance of a team. There is a Pareto effect at work here, in that 20% of employees can be responsible for (at least) 80% of a team’s output and vice-versa.

Still, I have always professed on Superception that the cohesion of a team is the first condition for sustaining its success over time.

I consider that trust is a team’s most valuable asset. Indeed, a group of stars won’t succeed if its members don’t form a team that puts aside their individual interests and egos. It’s true in sports and business.

Trustworthy teammates consistently apply a strategy accepted by all of them, act with solidarity, take risks to achieve real success, minimize conflicts, constructively manage disagreements, fulfill their individual potential, and are happy at work.

That is why I never put my teammates in competition with each other:

“My objective is that they give their best – and, in doing so, push me to give my best -, not that they give the best of their colleagues. The only benchmark that is worth, in terms of performance, is with one’s own potential. We can always find someone who is better or worse than ourselves. But we will never find in others the drive and passion to grow.“