Trends in Performance Metrics

Your sales team is optimizing for the wrong metric, and it's costing you millions Most sales leaders are obsessed with pipeline coverage ratios. "We need 3x coverage to hit our number." "Generate more top-of-funnel activity." "Increase prospecting activity by 40%." But coverage ratios are a vanity metric that's actually destroying your team's performance. Here's why this thinking is backwards Traditional logic is the same old… More opportunities = Higher probability of hitting quota Build massive pipeline = Insurance against deal slippage BUT in reality Bigger pipelines create cognitive overload for reps Too many opportunities = Poor qualification and deal management Reps spread thin across 50+ "opportunities" instead of focusing on 15 real ones The highest-performing sales teams I work with have completely flipped this Instead of maximizing pipeline size, they maximize pipeline quality. The Quality-First Framework looks like this 1) Ruthless Qualification Standards Only deals with documented business impact, defined evaluation processes, and accessible buying teams make it into the pipeline. 2) Rep Capacity Management Each rep can effectively manage 12-15 active opportunities. Anything beyond that diminishes focus and results. 3) Stage Velocity Tracking Measure how fast deals move through stages, not how many deals exist in each stage. 4) Elimination Before Generation Before adding new opportunities, eliminate stalled ones. Clean pipeline = clear thinking. The math is crazy Team A: 200 opportunities, 15% close rate = 30 deals Team B: 100 high-quality opportunities, 35% close rate = 35 deals Team B wins with half the pipeline stress. Your reps aren't struggling because they need more opportunities. They're struggling because they can't focus on the right ones. Share with a leader who needs to hear this ^^

What's the relationship between company flexibility and revenue growth? For the first time we have an answer. The hottest debate on remote work is about productivity. Some CEOs have been adamant that remote workers aren't productive. Employees feel just as strongly that the opposite is true. Through a Flex Index <> Boston Consulting Group (BCG) collaboration, we analyzed the 3 year revenue growth of 554 public companies between 2020 and 2022. To account for industry differences in high- and low-growth sectors, we then normalized each company's growth rate based on its industry growth rate. What did we find? Companies that are Fully Flexible -- meaning they do not require time in office -- outperformed their peers by 16 percentage points in revenue growth between 2020-2022. Companies that are Structured Hybrid -- meaning they require some time in office, but not full time -- outperformed their Full Time In Office peers by 2x. Why does this matter? Executive teams and board rooms are regularly discussing flexible work policies. Now a CFO can go to a CEO or Board and say: (1) There is no data that public companies offering work location flexibility underperform. In fact, there is data that public companies offering work location flexibility are growing revenue faster than those that do not. (2) Offering work location flexibility enables us to attract more candidates, retain more employees, and drive higher employee engagement. (3) Offering work location flexibility also saves us cost on real estate footprint. That's a powerful argument, and one that will drive more and more companies to adopt work location flexibility over time. Link to the full research: https://lnkd.in/ech_NUG2. And a big thank you to Debbie Lovich, Rosie Sargeant, and the BCG team that we collaborated with on the analysis! #futureofwork #flexibleworking #remotework

Two recent research reports examining AI's impact on teamwork and organizational structures at US companies provide some interesting insights that can also inform our approach to GenAI adoption in K12 and HE. A recent article by Ethan Mollick breaks down findings from a randomized controlled trial at Procter & Gamble examining how AI affects team performance. Key points from the study: • AI significantly boosted performance - individuals with AI performed as well as two-person teams without AI, and AI-enabled groups worked 12-16% faster while producing longer, more detailed solutions • Teams using AI performed best overall and were more likely to produce exceptional solutions • Workers using AI reported higher positive emotions and lower negative emotions compared to non-AI groups McKinsey's latest Global Survey on AI examines how organizations are structuring their AI deployment and creating value from it. Key points from the study:   • 78% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function • Only 21% of organizations have fundamentally redesigned workflows for AI, though this drives the biggest impact on revenue • Larger companies lead in implementing best practices like establishing dedicated AI teams, organization-wide adoption road maps, and AI literacy programs • 61-70% report revenue increases and cost reductions in business units using AI, though enterprise-wide impact remains limited Both studies point to the same conclusion: when GenAI is intentionally adopted there can be large positive impacts that go beyond productivity gains. We are particularly excited about how GenAI can act as a teammate for those that do not have access to a support network and its potential applications in high school and college classrooms. Links to the studies in the comments. AI for Education #GenAI #AI #teamwork

Managers often resist performance appraisals—not just because they’re uncomfortable, but because deep down, they feel uneasy about passing judgment on another person’s worth. This insight, drawn from a 1972 Harvard Business Review article, remains just as relevant today. Douglas McGregor argued that traditional performance evaluations put too much power in the hands of managers while treating employees as passive subjects rather than active participants in their own growth. Instead, he advocated for a shift: let employees set their own performance goals, reflect on their progress, and work collaboratively with their manager to course-correct. This approach was groundbreaking then, and it still challenges the way many organizations operate. Despite decades of leadership development, many companies continue to rely on top-down, judgment-heavy appraisals rather than empowering employees to take ownership of their growth. The world looks different today—more remote work, shifting employee expectations, and a stronger focus on autonomy—but the core truth remains: people perform better when they have agency over their own development. Three takeaways for leaders today: (1) Turn Appraisals into Coaching Conversations Instead of judging past performance, help employees define clear, meaningful goals and guide them forward. (2) Shift from Evaluation to Self-Reflection Encourage employees to assess their own progress first. They often hold themselves to a higher standard than managers do. (3) Recognize That People Aren’t Products Performance reviews aren’t about "quality control." Employees aren’t widgets on an assembly line—they are individuals with evolving skills, aspirations, and challenges. McGregor’s ideas may have been ahead of their time, but they still hold a mirror up to how we manage talent today. If leaders want engaged, high-performing teams, they need to stop controlling and start empowering. How do you approach performance conversations in your organization? #performance #collaboration #coaching #teams #leadership #learning #growth #reflection #management #managers #conversations https://lnkd.in/e_tk9_DB

The New Plant Managers in Mexico As a headhunter, I’ve met countless plant managers across Mexico’s vibrant manufacturing sector for the past thirty years. In the early days, these leaders were often defined by their deep technical/operational expertise, relentless drive for efficiency, and almost laser-focused approach to problem-solving on the production floor. While that technical core remains critical, the definition of what makes a “great” plant manager is evolving—and fast. Today’s plant managers aren’t just master troubleshooters; they must become strategic thinkers who bridge corporate goals with on-the-ground realities. They operate at the intersection of supply chain dynamics, financial performance, and global market shifts while nurturing an inclusive workplace culture. Many of the plant managers I’ve placed over the years are discovering that their success isn’t only measured by the number of units shipped on time but also by their ability to foster diverse teams, anticipate technological shifts, and adapt the business to changing regulatory standards. What used to be an almost singular focus on operational metrics—cycle times, scrap rates, and OEE—has grown into a role demanding robust leadership, emotional intelligence, and data-driven decision-making. Leaders must embrace AI-powered predictive analytics, Industry 4.0 innovations, and agile project management methods. The plant manager of tomorrow must cultivate an environment where innovation flourishes, from the shop floor to the C-suite, balancing both cost and creativity. Perhaps the most significant change I’ve witnessed is the shift in these plants' corporate offices toward a more holistic, human-centric leadership style. The ability to resolve conflicts, inspire a multigenerational workforce, and integrate diverse perspectives is becoming as vital as technical expertise. Many of these organizations realize that people strategies—accelerated learning, flexible job assignments, and career development—can be as critical to long-term success as hitting quarterly KPIs. In short, while the fundamentals of running a manufacturing plant will always revolve around efficiency and quality, the plant managers who genuinely stand out will be those who can anticipate the future. They will leverage data and technology for powerful insights, adapt to ever-shifting market pressures, and unify teams around a shared purpose. It’s a remarkable evolution—one that keeps me excited about uncovering the next generation of impactful manufacturing leaders.

AI, something magic, profit? 85% of organizations are either mandating or encouraging the use of #AI tools to improve #productivity, according to recent research from Upwork. So how’s it going? Microsoft data on the use of CoPilot for M365 shows some early, modest results in terms of activity, and no clear impact on outcomes (see p2): 🔹 Email: Copilot users read 11% fewer emails, spent just 4% less time. Not huge, not zero. 🔹 Docs: users edited 10% more documents, spreadsheets and Powerpoints, noting that editing doesn’t tell you anything about time spent or quality. 🔹 Meetings: 10 of 47 companies saw meetings drop , but 14 saw an increase (which might be shifting meetings into Teams to get Copilot summaries). Activity isn’t the same thing as results. Part of the issue is a lack of support, and pressure to be productive without the space to experiment and try new things. Upwork found only 26% of companies are providing employees with any training, for example. Besides training, and investing in time for managers and teams to experiment with the tools together, the answer might be to instead focus on specific use cases — and focus on quality. #GenAI’s impact is very dependent on application to specific activities within functions and importantly might raise quality more than just efficiency. Reading through Microsoft’s recent aggregation of broader AI research, some observations: 🔸 Customer service reps resolve 14% more cases per hour, but also rate the impact of GenAI on quality just as high as productivity. 🔸 Security professionals write incident reports that are 7% more accurate and 49% more likely to include key facts. 🔸 Sales reps answering customer questions can respond faster, and are also 25 percentage points more accurate. 🔸 Training: a bot capturing insights from a webinar allows people taking a quiz on the content to be 39% more accurate. If it was delivered outside their native language, they’re 85% more accurate! All of this requires even more investment in getting data that's underneath AI tools to be accurate. But it requires a different lens than just handing out tools and saying that we expect you to get more productive. Long term, GenAI will change businesses dramatically. The investments you make now in training, making space for experimentation and engaging people in the upside, the faster you'll get there. 🔗 Check out the full report from Microsoft in comments, along with a link to Kelly Monahan, Ph.D. and team's work on AI at Upwork. #FutureOfWork #tech #technology #collaboration

I recently spoke with Hailey Mensik of WorkLife News about a new report from Scoop and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) that found #flexible companies outperform those with more restrictive work policies. One compelling stat shows 20% revenue growth from 2020-2022 at companies without in-office requirements compared to just 5% at those companies with hybrid or fully in-person arrangements.     We’re not surprised that companies that have embraced #flexiblework models are outperforming those who have not. As I said in the article, “This research is dollars and cents data,” and it reflects and validates what we’ve been finding for the past ten years in our research: flexibility drives business outcomes.   Like our research, the Scoop/BCG data points to the increasing need to bring leaders and employees together to reimagine how, when, and where we work. Addressing the current divide is key to moving forward in a way that benefits both the business AND its people:   “There is a gap between the employees working flexibly that did translate into operational growth, and the way leaders are seeing flexibility, that is going to stand in the way of leaders being able to prepare their organizations to be future ready.”     #remotework #hybridwork #returntowork #returntooffice #talentretention #employeeengagement #workflex #flexiblework #flexibleworkplaces #workplaceflexibility #highperformanceflexibiity #futureofwork #reimaginework https://lnkd.in/gQSn8hkN

Humans ARE the loop in performance management. Right now, the loop runs on human memory and human behavior: - Managers piece together scraps of information. - Reviews happen months later. - Bias, favoritism, and recency distort the picture. - Hard conversations get avoided entirely. The result? A leaky, slow, and unfair system that can’t keep pace with how fast work moves today. AI isn’t here to replace managers in performance management. It’s here to support them by: - Continuously observe collaboration and outcomes. - Test for bias across gender, role, communication style, etc,. - Share meaningful performance insights. - Surface coaching moments in real-time. With AI-backed performance reviews, humans finally get to do the work only they can do: Empathy Judgment Decision-making The future of performance management isn’t human vs. AI. It's humans with AI.

📈 Unlocking the True Impact of L&D: Beyond Engagement Metrics 🚀 I am honored to once again be asked by the LinkedIn Talent Blog to weigh in on this important question. To truly measure the impact of learning and development (L&D), we need to go beyond traditional engagement metrics and look at tangible business outcomes. 🌟 Internal Mobility: Track how many employees advance to new roles or get promoted after participating in L&D programs. This shows that our initiatives are effectively preparing talent for future leadership. 📚 Upskilling in Action: Evaluate performance reviews, project outcomes, and the speed at which employees integrate their new knowledge into their work. Practical application is a strong indicator of training’s effectiveness. 🔄 Retention Rates: Compare retention between employees who engage in L&D and those who don’t. A higher retention rate among L&D participants suggests our programs are enhancing job satisfaction and loyalty. 💼 Business Performance: Link L&D to specific business performance indicators like sales growth, customer satisfaction, and innovation rates. Demonstrating a connection between employee development and these outcomes shows the direct value L&D brings to the organization. By focusing on these metrics, we can provide a comprehensive view of how L&D drives business success beyond just engagement. 🌟 🔗 Link to the blog along with insights from other incredible L&D thought leaders (list of thought leaders below): https://lnkd.in/efne_USa What other innovative ways have you found effective in measuring the impact of L&D in your organization? Share your thoughts below! 👇 Laura Hilgers Naphtali Bryant, M.A. Lori Niles-Hofmann Terri Horton, EdD, MBA, MA, SHRM-CP, PHR Christopher Lind

This is Killing Your Credibility Recently, a senior level EHS professional reached out to me. Someone with decades of results. Trusted by workers and executives alike. They were frustrated… “One of our new senior leaders shared in a meeting with their leadership team recently that a world-class TRIR = 0.3-0.5. Where do you think they got that information?” That’s a really important question. Let’s explore… 🔹In the 90s, consulting firms and benchmarking tables began circulating TRIR averages by industry 🔸“World-class” became a marketing term, not a technical one. EHS consultants touted “if you’re below 1.0, you’re world-class” to sell safety management systems 🔹Over time, elite manufacturers bragged about 0.3–0.5 TRIR, which became the new vanity metric In pockets, but still very much existing today: If your TRIR is in the top 10% of your industry, consultants and senior leaders label you “world-class.” Example: Manufacturing average ~3.0 TRIR. 10x better would = 0.3. Here’s the problem: This is Executive Signaling. Not science. Low numbers look great on slides. But tell you little to nothing about how “safe” your operations are. It rewards silence. Not safety. When credibility and upward mobility depend on a .3 TRIR, injuries disappear. Not because work is safer, but because people stop reporting (and companies get really good at “case managing”) It drives the wrong conversations. When leaders obsess over recordable rates, people learn to manage numbers instead of managing risk. Any metric that weighs a paper cut the same as an amputation, or a fatality, needs to be deeply questioned. It’s like treating peeling paint on a handrail the same as a cracked load-bearing beam. One is cosmetic. The other can kill. The Shift? Engage consistently and authentically. Listen. Learn. Involve those closest to the work. Doing so where the work meets the worker. Build trust through transparency. Workers speak up when they trust leadership won’t punish honesty. Psychological safety is not a “soft skill”; it’s a life-saving one. Understand SIF risk. Organizations must share a clear, honest picture of where SIF risk lives, and how work gets done. Focus (and measure) on what counts. Not just what can be counted. ID the STCKY. Invest in safeguards. Prioritize and verify critical safeguards before work begins. Then debrief following. Learn from boring, normal, everyday work. Doing so prior to work commencing, but following every shift as well. Learning organizations have the operational discipline to learn when nothing “bad” is happening. An invitation to operational leaders. Ask yourself: Are your safety metrics designed to make leaders feel good. Or to keep people safe? Every great senior leader I’ve worked with wants to do the right thing. When it comes to safety, they often times just don’t know what the right thing is. That’s our job, not their problem…