Once you internalize that concept, look at where execution takes place. It’s in the middle. It’s the middle management that is actually driving a lot of the productivity and work that is delivered in organizations. They are closer to the people and the work than senior management, who is typically focused on developing the strategy. It’s the middle managers that are translating the strategy into an executable plan and as well as communicating those plan to the workers.

Whether you looking at developing and coaching leaders in your organization or trying to determine who to invest in, your new target should be the middle, not just your top 10%. Your top 10% is already doing great. They need recognition and rewards, and of course it would be great if they could be even better through development opportunities. Why is that the middle, that is the people right below them down to those in the 50% percentile, don’t get as much or any development support or leadership coaching? They are often subjected to training classes the majority don’t really need and expected to work harder and do better. What would happen if you actually invest in them? Have you calculated the increase in value of your company if your people would execute 30% better?

Not every one is born a rock star, but certainly there are many who, with some extra help, can become stellar. According to Thomas Colligan, vice dean of Wharton, there is the 60/20/20 rule. “When people come in the door [to a law firm or investment bank], 20% will make partner no matter what you do; 20% will not make partner no matter what you do, and 60% will make partner if you do the right things.” What are the implications of this? No matter what, you will always have people who are the top and will naturally succeed because of their inherent gifts, those at the bottom who will not succeed, and more importantly those in the middle who if they try hard enough and had the right help would succeed.

On a final note, “maximizing the middle” also refers to where to focus when it comes to competency and skill development. When you look at 360 feedback results, look at the competencies that fall below the top 10% to determine where to get the biggest ROI. If you can optimize for those skills, you will get higher performance quickly.

So what this means for many companies is that there has been an ongoing battle for talent, and not just hiring talent, but also hanging on to their best and brightest, even in the toughest economies. Who is this “talent?” This typically means one or two key people in a department that they cannot afford to lose. They are usually the ones with institutional knowledge (i.e., if they leave no one will know how to run the system) or a specific skill set that drives product development and therefore revenue for the company. Don’t we all wish we were this person!

Funny thing though, Human Resources and many managers have been fighting the wrong battle. When you find yourself in the retention battle, that is, throwing as much money as you can to keep an employee, you’ve already lost the battle, not to mention you were fighting the wrong battle because you are thinking too small. The larger war is about engagement. Attrition of key talent is just a symptom of you losing the war. When we try to retain employees, we are too late. They are already disengaged; that’s why they are looking somewhere else.

Ultimately organizations want productivity out of their employees; and they should given that Gallup estimates $300 billion a year is lost in lack of productivity. How do you get your employees to be more productive? Get them engaged with their work.

When you look at engagement metrics, they typically fall into four categories:

1.Values – Do I agree withe the values of the company?
2.Leadership – Do I believe in leadership and their vision, strategy, and direction for the company?
3.Management – Are the management practices aligned with the values the company espouses, aligned with the leadership direction, and supportive of me…the employee?
4.Employee – Do I believe I have a career and future with this company? Am I doing work that is stimulating? Do I feel recognized for my contribution?
The first two categories are very difficult for anyone to take on and impact. At the end of the day, getting more engaged with your job boils down to two things…do you like your manager and find them supportive; and have you taken ownership of your career to get what you need out of your current job.

As a manager, it is your responsibility to engage your employees. It is your responsibilty to sit down and have those standing 1-1′s to give your employees feedback on what they are doing well and where they could improve, coach them to be stronger, and give them the resources to learn and stretch themselves.

As an employee, it is your responsibility to GIVE 100% to your job. This includes your knowledge, time, effort, and ideas. It is also your responsibility to make sure you get GET 100% for all you give. This includes: compensation, experience, learning new skills, and networking to build your contacts.

If companies actually focus more on engaging their current talent, they’d actually get more out of them…$300 billion more.

Last week, I met with a client who reminded me of a common situation at work.

Jim has been with his company for 14 years. He was in his late twenties, fresh out of graduate school, when he joined the organization as an intern. Now he’s 42 and ready for more than middle management tasks, but he’s still perceived as the young man who joined the company not that long ago. He’s not seen as part of “us”—the upper management—and therefore is not considered when advancement opportunities arise.

I see this often, and it’s pervasive: You can make somewhat lateral moves in an organization, but it’s sometimes difficult to make substantial upward moves. Why? Because the perception of you has not been updated in the minds of people who met you as a young, up-and-coming employee.

My advice for upper management is to develop a “green grass” policy. Let me explain: Ideally, the people who are working for you aren’t stagnant. They’re changing and growing. Stay attentive to how they are developing both personally and professionally. Keep offering your people opportunities and challenges; you probably have plenty of individuals ready to tackle greater responsibilities. Do not wait until they start dreaming that the grass is greener in another company. Often, you can promote from within rather than hire from outside.

Meanwhile, juniors shouldn’t simply wait for a promotion to exercise leadership. You need to update your self-perception by seeing yourself and acting as a leader. Many times, out of “respect” or fear of stepping out of bounds, people are hesitant to assume more leadership. They instead wait for permission (via a promotion) to step forward. But the world often works the other way around; if you assume leadership and take on greater responsibilities, then the promotion follows.

Two years ago, he was offered a different position within his current company. He was excited about the new opportunity and dove in headfirst, moving to California and expecting to join the management team in that region, as he’d been promised.

It was a disaster.

The regional management team knew he was coming but was not informed that he was supposed to join them as a member of the top team; as a result of the miscommunication, my client was told that he might join the team in a few months, rather than immediately. Compounding this disappointment, my client’s working relationships with his new colleagues proved to be challenging and tense.

Today, he sees the last two years as a failure. However, he now has now an opportunity to take a new position within his company, and he wanted to know whether he should say yes or no. The problem is that he had no clear idea about how to think strategically about the decision.

The first step to making decisions is to develop a set of criteria—a list of items that are important to you. In my client’s situation, the list might include compensation; would he be getting a raise? Could he accept a decrease in pay if the job seemed ideal? Another element to consider might be the people involved: Who would be on the team,

and would he be able to develop good working relationships with them? Another aspect might be his expected roles and responsibilities, and whether those would jive with his needs and wants for his career.

The idea is that once my client can articulate a set of criteria that are important to him, he will be in a better position to rate the offer, rather than make an emotional or impulsive decision about it. He can, for example, use the 80/20 rule: If the offer meets 80% of his criteria, he’ll take it; if it doesn’t, he’ll pass. At the same time, he may

consider some elements of the criteria non-negotiable (or deal-breakers); that is to say, if any of those items were not present, he would respectfully decline the offer.

Acting in this measured way ensures that—whether he takes the position or not—the “yes” or “no” will have strategic reasons behind it, which he can leverage through many other decisions that will eventually influence his career. Apply the same line of thinking to making any important decision if you want to live your life in an intentional, purposeful way.