Okay, people, I have a short post today. Why? Because I’m stumped. Recently I read this mentoring post by Alison at Ask a Manager. An excerpt is below.
Do we seek out those with star potential because they’ll benefit the most from our help — or is it possible that it’s actually less about that and more because we like to see ourselves in them, or that it’s so gratifying to watch them blossom and feel we played a role in their success? Maybe we’d actually have a more significant impact if we made that kind of time investment with someone who doesn’t have obvious star potential, someone who doesn’t appear to be a natural candidate for grooming.
Basically, should you spend your limited time mentoring someone who is a high performer or someone who is a low performer?
I can make an argument for each side, and I have talked with half a dozen HR pros while seeking an answer. There have been mixed results, to say the least, and I’m stumped. Therefore, I shall turn the question over to my incredibly intelligent audience. What do you think? Should you spend your limited time mentoring someone who is a high performer or someone who is a low performer? The best responses will be published in an upcoming post that will feature comments by some HR bloggers you know and love.
