Resignations are at an all-time high, and companies desperate to fill vacancies are trying everything from pay raises to trendy perks. But those interventions are falling short, because the real problem, as the author explains, is that so many jobs are stressful, meaningless, and unlovable. Buckingham's data on what keeps employees engaged (from his work at ADP Research Institute) suggests that companies should change their approach to performance management to take advantage of each employee's unique skills and passions. That necessitates three mindset shifts: viewing employees as the key stakeholders in the organization; moving away from standardization in performance management tools; and trusting employees to accomplish their performance goals the way they see fit. No company today is yet the full "Love + Work" organization that Buckingham describes, but lululemon, Walmart, Amazon, McKinsey, and Cisco are among those that have begun to embrace some of its characteristics and have seen improvements in both retention and overall performance.

For years managers have been encouraged to candidly praise and criticize just about everything workers do. But it turns out that feedback does not help employees thrive. First, research shows that people can't reliably rate the performance of others: More than 50% of your rating of someone reflects your characteristics, not hers. Second, neuroscience reveals that criticism provokes the brain's "fight or flight" response and inhibits learning. Last, excellence looks different for each individual, so it can't be defined in advance and transferred from one person to another. It's also not the opposite of failure. Managers will never produce great performance by identifying what they think is failure and telling people how to correct it. Instead, when managers see a great outcome, they should turn to the person who created it, say, "Yes! That!," and share their impression of why it was a success. Neuroscience shows that we grow most when people focus on our strengths. Learning rests on our grasp of what we're doing well, not what we're doing poorly, and certainly not on someone else's sense of what we're doing poorly.

Like many other companies, Deloitte realized that its system for evaluating the work of employees--and then training them, promoting them, and paying them accordingly--was increasingly out of step with its objectives. It searched for something nimbler, real-time, and more individualized--something squarely focused on fueling performance in the future rather than assessing it in the past. The new system will have no cascading objectives, no once-a-year reviews, and no 360-degree-feedback tools. Its hallmarks are speed, agility, one-size-fits-one, and constant learning, all underpinned by a new way of collecting reliable performance data. To arrive at this design, Deloitte drew on three pieces of evidence: a simple counting of hours, a review of research in the science of ratings, and a carefully controlled study of its own organization. It discovered that the organization was spending close to 2 million hours a year on performance management, and that "idiosyncratic rater effects" led to ratings that revealed more about team leaders than about the people they were rating. From an empirical study of its own high-performing teams, the company learned that three items correlated best with high performance for a team: "My coworkers are committed to doing quality work," "The mission of our company inspires me," and "I have the chance to use my strengths every day." Of these, the third was the most powerful across the organization. With all this evidence in hand, the company set about designing a radical new performance management system, which the authors describe in this article.

By now we expect personalized content--it's routinely served up by online retailers and news services, for example. But the typical leadership development program still takes a formulaic, one-size-fits-all approach. And it rarely happens that an excellent technique can be effectively transferred from one leader to all others. Someone trying to adopt a practice from a leader with a different style usually seems stilted and off--a Franken-leader. Breakthrough work at Hilton Hotels and other organizations shows how companies can use an algorithmic model to deliver training tips uniquely suited to each individual's style. It's a five-step process: First, a company must choose a tool with which to identify each person's leadership type. Second, it should assess its best leaders, and third, it should interview them about their techniques. Fourth, it should use its algorithmic model to feed tips drawn from those techniques to developing leaders of the same type. And fifth, it should make the system dynamically intelligent, with user reactions sharpening the content and targeting of tips. The power of this kind of system--highly customized, based on peer-to-peer sharing, and continually evolving--will soon overturn the generic model of leadership development. And such systems will inevitably break through any one organization, until somewhere in the cloud the best leadership tips from all over are gathered, sorted, and distributed according to which ones suit which people best.

Every year, at the annual summit of Ralston Crane's marketing group, Chief Marketing Officer Ruth McViney homes in on an important organizational objective. Last year, the architecture and design firm was focused on green building initiatives. This year, Ruth says, is the year of customer loyalty. Toward the end of her keynote remarks, she introduces two kickoff projects. The goals of one, Project Holding Pattern, sound familiar to Ralston's Guy Christiano; if the project team structures its loyalty program to look like the one he'd been associated with in his previous job, it could be a boon for the company. "Why didn't they put me on that project?" he wonders. "Then again," Guy figures, "I've got plenty to do already." Several weeks after the conference, Guy is contacted by a member of the project team. Guy's ready to share the key success factors for the loyalty program he'd been involved with before: a marketing initiative that looks like a service offering. But what the team is proposing sounds more like a run-of-the-mill seminar series. Against his mentor's advice, Guy calls team leader Charyl Urquhart to make the case for a different approach, going so far as to e-mail her his suggested outline for the program. Miffed, Charyl cuts the call short and never follows up. Guy considers going over her head, to McViney. But another friend in the firm warns him off: "If it's as screwed up as you say it is...you don't want to be associated with it." Should a colleague with strong opinions butt in or butt out? In R0606A and R0606Z, four expert commentators--consultant and author Marcus Buckingham, Harley-Davidson's Joanne Bischmann, former Oticon CEO Lars Kolind, and Umea University School of Business professor Tomas Blomquist--offer their advice on this fictional case study.

Every year, at the annual summit of Ralston Crane's marketing group, Chief Marketing Officer Ruth McViney homes in on an important organizational objective. Last year, the architecture and design firm was focused on green building initiatives. This year, Ruth says, is the year of customer loyalty. Toward the end of her keynote remarks, she introduces two kickoff projects. The goals of one, Project Holding Pattern, sound familiar to Ralston's Guy Christiano; if the project team structures its loyalty program to look like the one he'd been associated with in his previous job, it could be a boon for the company. "Why didn't they put me on that project?" he wonders. "Then again," Guy figures, "I've got plenty to do already." Several weeks after the conference, Guy is contacted by a member of the project team. Guy's ready to share the key success factors for the loyalty program he'd been involved with before: a marketing initiative that looks like a service offering. But what the team is proposing sounds more like a run-of-the-mill seminar series. Against his mentor's advice, Guy calls team leader Charyl Urquhart to make the case for a different approach, going so far as to e-mail her his suggested outline for the program. Miffed, Charyl cuts the call short and never follows up. Guy considers going over her head, to McViney. But another friend in the firm warns him off: "If it's as screwed up as you say it is...you don't want to be associated with it." Should a colleague with strong opinions butt in or butt out? Commenting on this fictional case study in R0606A and R0606Z are four expert commentators--consultant and author Marcus Buckingham, Harley-Davidson's Joanne Bischmann, former Oticon CEO Lars Kolind, and Umea University School of Business professor Tomas Blomquist.

Much has been written about the qualities that make a great manager, but most of the literature overlooks a fundamental question: What does a great manager actually do? While there are countless management styles, one thing underpins the behavior of all great managers. Above all, an exceptional manager comes to know and value the particular quirks and abilities of her employees. She figures out how to capitalize on her staffers' strengths and tweaks her environment to meet her larger goals. Such a specialized approach may seem like a lot of work. But in fact, capitalizing on each person's uniqueness can save time. Rather than encourage employees to conform to strict job descriptions that may include tasks they don't enjoy and aren't good at, a manager who develops positions for his staff members based on their unique abilities will be rewarded with behaviors that are far more efficient and effective than they would be otherwise. This focus on individuals also makes employees more accountable. Because staffers are evaluated on their particular strengths and weaknesses, they are challenged to take responsibility for their abilities and to hone them. Capitalizing on a person's uniqueness also builds a stronger sense of team. By taking the time to understand what makes each employee tick, a great manager shows that he sees his people for who they are. This personal investment not only motivates individuals but also galvanizes the entire team. Finally, this approach shakes up existing hierarchies, which leads to more creative thinking. To take great managing from theory to practice, the author says, you must know three things about a person: her strengths, the triggers that activate those strengths, and how she learns. By asking the right questions, squeezing the right triggers, and becoming aware of your employees' learning styles, you will discover what motivates each person to excel.