"high performers" is a correct and usable term in written English.
For example: The company is looking to recruit high performers to fill the positions in their newly established department.
In addition, injunctive norms (i.e., indicators of socially desirable performance for high performers) are often excluded.
Our results indicate a tendency of poor performers to overestimate their performance while high performers underestimate theirs.
But high performers did lift their performance significantly after being deemed a top performer.
In keeping with previous literature, 6 13 high performers significantly underestimated their knowledge test performance while lower performers significantly overestimated.
Specifically, we create supervised learning models and evaluate their performance on classifying students as low, moderate, or high performers.
*Three students with no detailed data on early performance had intercalated degrees so were classed as "high performers".
This is the time to re-sell employees, especially high-performers, on the company's value proposition.
How do Gonzalez and other stressed-out high-performers like him keep from cracking?
Well, most high-performers regularly visualize their success before it happens!
In all, high-performers were 2.6X more likely than underperformers to have complete executive buy in.
The chicken-and-egg argument applies because what attracts high-performers is also what retains them.
