[paulojreis]

I'm not really a fan of such comparisons, and I don't think yours fares well, mostly because you are talking "top of the top" performance when you talk about those two. :) That's not the reality in most jobs and positions. We're certainly not talking about the Cristiano Ronaldo of software development most of the times.

As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.

[rglullis]

It doesn't even have to be at the top. I just used names that are recognizable. We could be talking about high-school track & field and the point would still stand.

In any case, what I am trying to say is that you seem too quick to pin the lack of performance in the "common workplace" on the individual, when there are so many other parts on the system that can and should be analyzed. What the others and I are saying is "no, we can't say that poor performance 'will very possible transfer to the other position". Especially if you have access to the people that worked with them and can have a deeper look at the context, it makes no sense to be looking at past performance to judge potential.

[paulojreis]

> In any case, what I am trying to say is that you seem too quick to pin the lack of performance in the "common workplace" on the individual,

Sorry, but no, not at all. I explicitly said "sometimes": "sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness". My message since the beginning has been that, while not a great indicator, previous performance will at least have some correlation with future performance. Again, it's not great, but it's also not a random relationship.

I hope it goest without saying, you can and should try to have a deeper look at the context.

[eitally]

In my experience as a leader, in any role that requires specialized skills, rglullis is correct. And that is completely separate from external variables that affect worker satisfaction/health/security and hence performance.

[TillE]

> We're certainly not talking about the Cristiano Ronaldo of software development most of the times.

Irrelevant to the analogy. A striker cannot play in central defence, or vice versa. That's the point.

[dagw]

A striker cannot play in central defence, or vice versa

Sure they can. Perhaps not as well, but I bet a premier division striker will easily be able to play defense for a lower division team, and with a bit of experience could probably become really good. Hell I'm sure LeBron James could make a pretty decent soccer player if someone gave him some coaching and the right incentives.

[rglullis]

I really think that we are getting way too sidetracked into the discussion, but I think you are underestimating the amount of fitness (in the evolutionary sense) it is required to be in the top 0,01% compared with the top 1% of any sport. Being a "pretty decent soccer player" will get you nowhere near any league.

Don't even need to get out of football to think of an example where this experiment has failed. Falcão is to this day considered one of the greatest players of indoor football. He tried to get into football by playing for São Paulo FC and stayed in the bench for most of the season, then went back to futsal.

Or if you want to go back to Basketball: Michael Jordan and his baseball career.