Thread regarding Waters Corp. layoffs

Obviously whoever they are. It touched a nerve.

@2vv amateur comedian bombs again, awkward silence in the audience.

@2rc The original "HR Rooster" post is especially funny because it's written in formal HR language while describing a completely unrealistic process. The replies build on the joke brilliantly. Hard to lose a plot that never existed.

Reading through these posts I think hr got it spot on.the main poster lost the plot with childish posts throughout.

@1j2, headless chicken here, can confirm.

@1j2 Good to know my career progression is free range 😅

Forget being a high performer, be a corporate yeoman instead. You are welcome

@1j2 Finally, HR explaining the decision making process. I’d like to apologise to every headless chicken I’ve ever compared to management 😂🐔🍿

We appreciate the questions about how talent decisions are made.
Our current process is straightforward and has been in place for some time. We prepare a chicken, remove the head, and release it onto a calibrated board marked with the nine-box categories and a small set of additional outcomes (including “Promote,” “Hold as Solid,” and “Reorg”). The location where the chicken comes to rest is recorded as the final determination. This has produced consistent results across multiple cycles and is why potential continues to be weighted more heavily than recent performance.
We do not plan to change the method.
Thank you for the engagement.
— HR

Unfortunately we don't have crystal ba--s and have to rely on a variety of variables when looking for potential.perhaps you can work on some unfavourable traits for your next position not just high performance.best of luck.

@1e5 this is best town hall I've attended in years. 🍿

@1dy Forget town halls meetings, this HR vs employees vs managers debate is the real all hands meeting…pass the popcorn 🍿😆

@1dx I'd take the nine-box grid more seriously if HR at least admitted they're consulting a crystal ball behind the scenes. lol

@1bf if that’s really our company’s process in choosing high potential employees I'd trust our office coffee machine's assessment just as much. At least it has a track record of delivering something useful. 🤣

@1dj It's reassuring to know that employees have to prove their worth with years of measurable results while HR gets to play corporate fortune teller decide who's 'high potential' and then wonder why people have lost faith in the process; honestly, if anyone needs an overhaul in the next layoffs round, it's the department turning guesswork into company policy.

@1bf So let me get this straight: hardworking employees have to justify their value with measurable results, while HR gets to decide people's futures and lives based on speculative assessments of "potential". If results matter so much, why are the people making the predictions judged less rigorously than the people doing the work?

@1bf if that’s really how cash cows are chosen, then lets not pretend we're identifying talent. we’re running a corporate astrology programme and calling it leadership science.

@1bf Ah, yes because nothing identifies the 'prize cow' quite like a room full of managers deciding which employees remind them most of themselves.

how we separate the prize cow from the herd. We don't listen to biased managers as you pretend to be. • Separate Performance from Potential: A high performer excels at their current job, while a high potential has the capacity to succeed in a fundamentally different or higher-level role. Do not automatically promote top individual contributors into leadership without checking for leadership traits.
• Use the Nine-Box Grid: Plot employees on a matrix comparing Current Job Performance (horizontal axis) against Future Potential / Promotability (vertical axis) during regular succession planning sessions.
• Deploy Objective Tools: Avoid relying purely on subjective manager nominations, which can be prone to bias or office politics. Supplement reviews with structured Sage Business Insights leadership assessments, psychometric testing, or 360-degree feedback.
• Test with Stretch Projects: Offer employees voluntary or cross-functional assignments outside their core duties to observe how they handle ambiguity, tight deadlines, and collaboration.

@14y HR in our company except high performance from everyone except themselves and our leadership. 😂

@198 I think even HR can’t dispute this! you’ve made your case. Whether HR and our leadership see it is now their responsibility.
I’m sharing this conversation to our higher ups :)

@193 I love this discussion as we in a way proved that the one department that should be ‘restructured’ is our HR and current leadership. A message to HR and leadership, perhaps we should spend less time trying to predict the future and more time creating environments where potential can emerge.

@190 If that's true, then high potential starts looking less like a measure of future ability and more like a game that can be learned.be highly visible.speak confidently.show ambition.build relationships with senior leaders.Volunteer for strategic projects.Suddenly you're seen as "high potential".Then the label unlocks opportunities, coaching, sponsorship, and exposure, which further reinforce the perception.That's why I find the whole concept problematic. If people can significantly improve their chances of being labelled (high potential) by understanding the signals leaders and HR look for, then we're not just measuring potential, we're measuring who's best at displaying it.Which brings us back to the academic conclusion: it’s a total mess

@190 So you’re saying by giving some people opportunities after labelling them as high potential based on pure bias (that) what created their high potential? The opportunities they are given over high performers? And all of us here high performers in this company are left out due to mere HR bedtime stories that leadership believed! Total mess indeed

@18z my gift to you all high performers in this company as a manager who worked through this issue so you know how it works: this is how it plays out Employee A: Quiet, dependable, consistently exceeds targets, mentors others, avoids self promotion.
Employee B: Confident, visible, vocal in meetings, talks about leadership ambitions.
Typical (high potential) delusional assessment:
Employee A is labelled strong performer for HR.
Employee B is labelled high potential for HR.
What happens next:
Employee B gets mentoring.
Employee B gets executive exposure.
Employee B gets stretch assignments.
Employee B gets accelerated promotion opportunities.
Five years later:
Employee B succeeds and is cited as proof the assessment was correct.
Nobody knows what Employee A could have achieved exactly the same with the same investment in them ( total mess indeed)
That's the problem:
Potential is often inferred from visibility and confidence.
The (high potential) label itself creates opportunities.
Success may reflect the opportunities given, not the accuracy of the original prediction.
Which is why the academic literature describes leadership potential as a "hot mess" which to be frank after years in management and listening to HR bedtime stories,, it is 😂

@18x If someone consistently outperforms their peers, influences others, solves complex problems, and earns trust across the organisation, at what point do we stop calling them a solid performer but not high potential to promote? When do we start asking ourselves as leaders whether this person might actually be a high potential leader whose potential has simply been overlooked? Like 80% of solid performers. ( just a note to everyone if your manager tells you you’re a solid performer/ high performer that’s the HR key word for not promotable!) outrageous I know 🤣

@18x I agree and I'd say potential is revealed but not spotted. People show it through growth, self development, coaching, feedback, and how they respond to bigger challenges. I'm sceptical of anyone claiming they can reliably identify it years in advance. I agree it’s all a HR hoax that leadership fell to.

@14y The question shouldn't be "Who is high potential?" but "What evidence do we have that this person can succeed at the next level?" and high performance is often one of the strongest pieces of evidence available. That’s the uncomfortable truth that HR is running away from.

@14y It's a nice HR bed time story for our leaders who like to think they can spot future stars because they’re special. The problem is that studies on leadership potential literally describes the field as a (hot mess) of conceptual and measurement issues. So if the peer reviewed science itself think this HR principle is a hot mess, so how can anyone be so confident that a high performer isn't also high potential? Potential is a prediction. Performance is evidence. https://www.kornferry.com/insights/featured-topics/leadership/how-can-organizations-identify-future-leaders

@14y The challenge is that this can easily create resentment. High performers may feel their proven contributions are being valued less than someone's perceived future potential. And how can you be certain a high performer isn't also high potential? Leadership capability often emerges through sustained high performance, ownership, and influence over time. Potential is ultimately a prediction, while performance is evidence. An organisation that overemphasises one at the expense of the other risks misjudging talent and demotivating its strongest contributors.

High performance is expected of everyone we employ.high potential is a little harder to spot,but when it shows this person may be pushed through the ranks quicker than those looking after daily buisness efficiently enough.we cannot afford to lose future leaders,whereas a non high performer wont make it past probation.

@13w so this is how it works employee 1
Solves every customer problem personally
Works evenings
Gets amazing feedback
Is exhausted
Management will think:
(Fantastic contributor but not scalable)
But they don’t tell you 🤣🫣. What they really tell you is keep going you’re doing excellent so you’re kept in the dark.

Employee 2
Gets good customer outcomes
Creates training materials others can reuse
Coaches colleagues
Identifies business opportunities
Understands market trends

Management here thinks:
(This person could run a team or a region one day)
The second person is demonstrating potential for a bigger role. So he is promoted ,, what they forget is employee 1 just needs coaching and he CAN deliver same as employee 2 if not better ,, I agree it’s all a HR hoax that leadership believes like to believe

@13v I sometimes think companies overvalue abstract leadership traits because they're easier to imagine than to prove. So it’s romantic for a leader to say I choose this person over other for promotion because they demonstrate ‘potential’ and could deal with ambiguity. Challenge them a little with asking what do you mean exactly? and the facade collapse lol. ‘Potential’ becomes a story our leaders tel themselves while performance is the observable reality. Performance is the only measurable aspect in here,,, how do measure potential 🫣😅? You see what I mean? We all know potential is just a HR hoax that leadership believed because it’s a nice story to tell. Wake up people!

@13k Companies often claim they're promoting for potential, but in practice they're promoting for traits that are only loosely connected to success. Being comfortable with ambiguity is useful of course but ambiguity itself doesn't create results. The ability to navigate uncertainty and still deliver outcomes is what matters. And That my friend is hard to measure just because someone deals with ambiguity well. It’s a pie in the sky what they are promoting as potential!

@13k The idea that performance matters less than potential feels a bit old school HR that caused and still causing problems. Potential is a hypothesis and performance is evidence. The best organisations look for both. Promoting people who consistently demonstrate neither isn't talent management but it's succession planning for failure. Which this organisation is excelling at nowadays 😅

High performance often leads to burnout and isn't a sustainable attribute.high potential is a more sought after quality if one is to continue to move forward in the company.

Work remotely consistently and at least skip two days of in-person work weekly, and you’ll be promoted immediately.

Promoting unqualified candidates who dislike their roles to managers and directors will soon result in losing everyone who is genuinely committed

Get out now. There are better jobs out there!!

@ab not without massive leadership adjustment.. and they all support eachother so that won't happen