Developing Superbosses and Superperformers

A very interesting article in a recent edition of The Atlantic (Orchid Children by David Dobbs) describes new thinking on the old conundrum concerning how much of what we become is the product of nature versus nurture. In genetic research the prevailing view, known as "Stress Diathesis" or "Genetic Vulnerability", has been that 'bad' genes make some people more susceptible to things we'd probably rather avoid like depression, ADHD, violence and other anti-social behaviors, if triggered by some kind of trauma or accumulation of stressful experiences .

However, as a result of some fascinating research initially on primates, but apparently corroborated by follow-up research on young children, it seems the 'bad' gene may actually be a 'good' gene, under the right circumstances.

The research found that monkeys with a neurotic disposition will tend to become more nervy in an insecure environment, but be totally normal in a secure environment. Further, those 'neurotic' monkeys given to monkey 'supermoms' (i.e. skilled nurturers) turned out normal, while normal monkeys given to neurotic mothers became neurotics themselves. So far, so unsurprising - especially if you favor the nurture side of the equation.

More interesting has been the finding (in monkeys and human children) that those who have the genetic variants ("risk alleles") that make them susceptible to neurotic or anti-social behavior, if placed into the right kind of supportive environment, can actually out-perform on a wide range of dimensions those without these kinds of gene variants . (This is called, among other things, the "plasticity hypothesis".)

Although the article does not discuss the extent to which this finding translates into similar effects in fully formed adults, this must be worth consideration. If the same effects do indeed manifest themselves in adults (which doesn't seem a totally unreasonable assumption, does it?) then why not consider what this might mean to us in the business world.

In corporations, typically, developmental attention and the best opportunities go to people who are seen to be good performers (using conventional criteria). Meanwhile, poor performers come under increasing scrutiny (and therefore, stress) until they either shape up or are shipped out.

However, if we applied the plasticity hypothesis to the world of organizations, we might instead focus more attention on identifying and developing 'superbosses' who are willing to develop a more nurturing environment. If we identify the right qualities in these 'superbosses' we could move more of our underperformers (at least those who seem to fit a set of relevant behavioral patterns) to work for them, hoping that the payback will be significantly better than we would get from a conventionally defined high performer.

I rather like the idea of challenging our preconceptions about employee potential, and forcing us to be more careful about how we define a 'superboss' (a bit like schools in affluent neighborhoods compared to schools in more challenged areas, it's not difficult being an outperformer, as a school or boss, if you are given all the people who come ready made to perform well). Even more compelling, in business terms, is that it might just give us a bigger ROI than the conventional approach we typically follow.

Talent management is a hot topic right now, so with all the attention being focused on the subject, maybe it's time to look further afield for some new ideas and to actively seek to challenge our preconceptions.