John Amaechi OBE

Great to see more and more organisations talking about the importance of continuous learning. This from NPC (New Philanthropy Capital) is a good example: https://lnkd.in/eSEVNkd9 This is a classic example of "yes, and..." The crucial point that the guide doesn't discuss is the role of performance management in supporting or undermining a learning culture. The evidence is crystal clear on this - target-based performance management corrupts the data required to learn. (https://lnkd.in/ekJ3D-cT). Until we change the purpose of measurement in social change work - so that we measure in order to learn and improve, rather than measuring to command and control, a genuine learning culture will remain out of reach. This also requires that funders fund for learning, rather than for "results" (spoiler: if you fund for "results", you don't get genuine results, you get a bunch of good looking results data). Let's build genuine learning organisations. All the things in the NPC report help to do that. And if we also apply that thinking to our approach to governance and accountability, we'll see genuine change. Mark Smith Rob Wilson Hannah Hesselgreaves Kathy Evans

77

1 Comment

I've such little confidence in our ability to predict 'potential' or 'talent'. The evaluation methods we deploy, even in £multi-billion organisations, are often scarily vague and ambiguous. Predictably then, our work at MoreThanNow have found them especially vulnerable to poor, biased decision-making. They're also expensive and disruptive to run, posing a major risk to manager-employee relationships. So for me, there are only two options: I'd like to see the concept of potential ditched. Or I'd like to see the evaluation methods studied carefully for fairness and accuracy. I absolutely think the latter road has promise, but I don't see it done in the same way the best organisations audit and redesign their performance evaluations. What do YOU think should happen next? - Should we abandon the search for high-potential talent in favour of assessment of current performance? - Or should we double down and start asking serious questions about what potential really means and how to identify it?

49

35 Comments

EY’s Global Neuroinclusion at Work Study finds that neurodivergent professionals already bring specialist‑level mastery across the World Economic Forum’s 10 fastest‑growing skills, yet only 25 % feel truly included — and 39 % plan to leave in the next 12 months if that doesn’t change. Line‑manager behaviours and psychological safety are the decisive levers. If we’re serious about out‑executing the market, we must hard‑wire rituals that clarify roles, deliver rapid feedback and flex work norms so every brain operates at game‑speed. #HighPerformanceCulture #NeuroInclusion #HumansAtTheCenter #Leadership

34

4 Comments

What if we stop thinking about performance as a (HR) cycle. Instead, a working pattern. A repeated rhythm of setting expectations, supporting progress, and learning from outcomes - embedded into key moments, not reserved for once a year. Most organisations save this rhythm for annual reviews. But what if we applied it everywhere performance actually happens? 👉 A new hire joins. You set expectations for their first 90 days, support them with feedback, then reflect together on progress. 👉 A new goal is set. You clarify what success looks like, check in regularly, and review the outcome. 👉 A manager steps into a new role. You define what’s expected, enable feedback from their team, and create space to learn from their first few months. When you apply the fundamentals of performance to moments that matter (not just moments on a calendar) you turn performance into an everyday practice that drives growth and clarity across the whole organisation. With a tool like Crewmojo, we make it easy to support this rhythm with flexible journeys that help HR teams embed performance habits into the real flow of work, not just HR timelines. #employeeperformance #HR #Performancemanagement

81

39 Comments

Dean Yates reframes moral injury as a workplace issue—one that cuts deeper than psychological harm. It’s not just trauma exposure; it’s betrayal by systems meant to protect. His call for ethical leadership, just cultures, and frontline consultation aligns with psychosocial safety codes but demands more than procedural fairness. For WHS professionals, this isn’t just compliance—it’s conscience. Most employers won’t go there. Many won’t even see the need. https://lnkd.in/gnj_UMQr

37

5 Comments