It’s not always the organization’s threshold for risk acceptance that gives an idea of its strength, resilience and possible growth trajectory. There’s an even important measure when these are to be assessed; the threshold for accepting mediocrity!

In fact, this measure is so potent that it means the difference between sustainability and oblivion. And luckily, we don’t need complex rating mechanisms or exposure heat maps to make the measurements, yet somehow many entities miss the clear indicators at the right time.

The case is simple: mediocre talent can take business to a level that’s reflective of the average of the industry it operates in and ensure that it remains there. And when businesses continue to nurture or insist upon mediocrity, the fall to idiocy is not unimaginable but imminent.

One cannot expect talent that’s mediocre to help the business lead the competition or be ahead of the curve. This is because an average performer always makes peace with the tasks assigned and has no ambition to look ahead, beyond and between! Not to mention it’s not always lack of ambition, but more importantly lack of ability and competence as well.

This brings us to an important point about mediocrity. It is a function of both lack of competence / ability and lack of ambition. A mediocre resource is uber satisfied with the level of tasks and responsibilities assigned and has no intention of seeking greater responsibilities or an enhanced role.

However, this might not be a problem as nearly every business entity has a fair share of average performers. In fact, these average performers dominate the employee mix. It starts becoming a problem when these average performers fail to identify opportunities to improve the work they’re assigned and become reactive when change is forced upon them.

But it doesn’t end here. Mediocre resources don’t simply resist change, their actions impact the overall working environment which becomes lax and dormant. Furthermore, since they have no personal and professional ambitions to learn, they, by virtue of their incompetence, make regressive strides in how they approach work.

As a result, the processes designed to accomplish objectives and controls designed to combat risk suffer setback as they fail to fulfill their respective purposes. Consequently, the organization starts lagging behind in objectives accomplishment and becomes an average player in its market.

But what if a mediocre resource is given managerial role and responsibilities? Recipe for disaster? For sure! The organization’s fate is sealed, and nothing could prevent its downhill motion. It’s not simply because of the authorities attached with the managerial role given to a mediocre resource. But it’s majorly because the entity’s management decided to assign this role to such a resource in the first place!

It means that the organization in its collective wisdom arrived at such a conclusion that it was the best resource possible for the managerial role. What it tells about those managing the affairs of the organization and those charged with governance is anybody’s guess!

And it’s not that mediocre resources don’t make progress. They have their path straightened out for them. It is from mediocrity to idiocy. Certainly, when they’re given laurels in the form of promotions and positions of authority, it’s not wrong of them to think that they got it all right and have been getting it right all along.

This idiocy manifests itself through a gradual but definite regression in efficiency and effectiveness of operations. As a result, the entity remains bogged down fixing its operations rather than working out a strategy to make the next move in its market. Struggle for survival renders growth prospects elusive.

Recently, a colleague narrated a firsthand account of sheer hard work geared towards achieving idiocy. It was proposed that a hard cancellation form be developed for cancelling out a system change application form which was also prepared and approved in hard. The procedure explicitly required cancellations to be marked on the original system change application form.

The proposal was made because the original application form did not have enough space to record cancellation (as if bank cheques or vouchers have such space!), reasons for cancellation and sign offs! So, the proposer using his intellectual prowess thought that cancellation might not be made adequately if it’s marked on the original application form in compliance with the procedure.

It was conveniently forgotten that each signed change application form in hard is recorded as a work order in the maintenance system which is required to be cancelled separately by the super user. The proposer was given an explanation why the procedure stipulated cancellation to be marked on the original application and why having a separate form for cancellation will not just be useless but plain stupid!

For cancellations to be correctly recorded in hard and put into effect, these have to be marked on the original documents to prevent reuse. Yet another document used for the purpose of cancelling the original one is an absurd thought especially when this additional document could be stored separately or lost easily.

This was just one small example of how the approach led by mediocre talent could be problematic. Because this particular person (proposer) had a very shallow bout of exposure on how operations and processes work, he had a history of supporting people who had dubious credentials and who could forge records when it benefited them!

There’s a reason why numerous professional standards like quality, ESG, auditing, etc. insist on having competent resources for these to be effectively complied. You cannot expect mediocre talent to fulfill objectives of compliance with global best practices and requirements of standards, because such talent could neither learn nor change.

And this is about standards, which a number of competing entities within an industry intending to benchmark are vying for! Conformance with established standards is thus an industry norm. How can an entity armed with mediocre or idiotic talent expect to be the best of the rest and lead the industry it is a part of?

As for the right time detection of mediocre talent, it needs to be understood that this is required to be done at the time of recruitment drives in an entity. The recruiters need to look past all those glitters on the CVs they come across. A person interested in a position at an entity that’s less profiled / branded or less well known than the one he’s already working for could be a sign that the person is not doing well there!

Relevant projects-based achievements and accomplishments earned by the prospect and how these could be beneficial in the new role at the new entity should always be the core questions, not the past service years or the numerous well-established brands!  

Failure of recruitment efforts to find the most promising talent is a failure of control environment and insisting on keeping, nurturing and promoting mediocre talent is lack of governance, again a failure leading not just to idiocy, but a regression of values in the entity as well.

The bar for accepting mediocrity should always be set low; minimal to no tolerance at all!

The idiotic resource in my example was a senior manager, a head of department. About the entity he works for, need I say more?