SkillSpeak

Moneyball, Marquee Factors, Magic Mirrors and Charlie Chaplin

Len — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 00:55:36 +0000

Subjective Rating Scale – Not Recommended

When assessing performance, what can we learn from each of these headline factors?

Moneyball – The Oakland Athletics baseball club found that by buying players based on their specific abilities in skills areas that the club was missing, would yield a stronger team at a much lower cost. The traditional method of buying the marquee players was proven to be an expensive way of over-compensating in the main strengths of the player. But it seriously missed in some of the fundamental team skills that wins games.

Marquee Factors – Professional Sports Clubs are not the only place where the Marquee Factors are front and centre in choosing “best” candidates. The lack of a truly objective measurement has encouraged more subjectivity when it should be our aim to significantly reduce it. Faced with a tough choice and in the absence of objective comparison data, there is a great temptation to gravitate to a subjective choice. This immediately defeats the ability to select for the best outcome for all concerned. This situation is regrettably the norm in far too many instances.

Magic Mirrors – When teams need to be regularly evaluated, which is especially required of Boards, there is a tendency to rely on self-assessment. If you are planning to look into a “Mirror”, you would need to ensure it is a “Magic Mirror”. This would deliver a combination of the highest level of objectivity in measurement and advice from a Governance expert. This is much more likely to isolate hot points and allow remedial treatment. The combination of the most rigorous measurement and backed up by the expert analysis of the best governance experts will deliver the best possible outcome for forward-thinking teams, especially Boards. Truly a Magic Mlirror.

Charlie Chaplin – The story goes that The Little Tramp character once decided to enter a Charlie look-alike contest without revealing his true identity. You have probably guessed that he did not win. In fact, he finished 3rd. If there is no system in place to promote objectivity and the truth, you will always place Charlie Chaplin 3rd. Ironically, the most objective question in this analogy would be “Are you Charlie Chaplin?”. You would then be certain that with an honest answer, one can assume that the contest will end there and then. No more ambiguity. This is part of the promise of assessments sourced from Skillspeak and our Governance partners.

UB The Judge – extraordinary tool announced

Len — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:55:36 +0000

UB The Judge is the most significant development yet in the support of people managing events where judging is involved. For far too long, whether you were hosting an event where a judging process is used, or simply been asked to be a judge, you will have experienced the relative chaos that occurred. Some of the concerns include :

Insufficient time to give fair attention to each entry
Inability to use potential judges not able to devote the entire time
Costs of travel to be present at the event
The need to overcome natural subjectivity
Using a process where judges need to confer and subsequently vary the results based on debate
Difficulty in assessing relative merit and differences where these may be finely defined
It is almost impossible to eliminate deliberate bias

As a contrast, In an event where the judging is managed by UB The Judge :

there is no need for judges to travel unless it is impossible to assess the entries online
not all judges need to see all entries
small amounts of time can be utilised where people are generally unavailable and can only devote a modest time slice
no judge needs to travel but will rather perform all judging from the screen at their home desk
judging experts anywhere in the world may be invited to judge the event
results are completely objective based on scores submitted and no single judge will know the result until finally announced: thus no conferring is needed nor encouraged
biased or unrepresentative scores are automatically eliminated

See more: The inventor Len Norman explains how the tool was developed –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIWclVqKyCk

Greater representation of women on boards? – YES – but not with quotas

Len — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 07:11:04 +0000

I have not yet read Anthea McIntyre’s book – Tomorrow’s boards: creating balanced and effective boards. I did hear Anthea interviewed on Radio National this morning and must say I agree with the main arguments she makes. Anthea is from the Australian Institute of Company Directors. This is part of a continuing initiative to boost the participation rate of women on boards. You can hear the interview at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2011/3288306.htm

I was pleased to see the challenge to the notion that quotas are an answer. Clearly they are not. It so happens, that any senior position in any organisation has a lead time for achievement. The same applies, of course. to the senior executive positions which ironically are a feeder for boards. So even if women are being hired into career growth positions in equal or even superior numbers, these will need the appropriate lead time to acquire the knowledge, skills and experience to acquit themselves in those positions. Once this achievement cycle is complete, then one would expect the placement rate in senior positions, including boards, should show a much healthier representation from women.

See our major announcement

Len — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 06:35:54 +0000

We are proud to announce Team Skills Management by Skillspeak. This service is the first of its kind to analyse the skill needs of a team and report all collective gaps as well as identifying the dependence on each and every individual.

Wilful Blindness – surely now a major focus item for Boards

Len — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:07:57 +0000

Wilful Blindness

Skills Management – Does it work? How does it work?

Len — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:54:56 +0000

This article offers the underlying principles needed to make skills management work and to help an understanding of how to use it well. See the full article at the following link – http://www.conquestconsulting.com.au/?p=62

Len Norman speaks to Connexus Magazine on Talent Management Forensics

Len — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:01:51 +0000

Read how Connexus Magazine presented the thoughts of the Skillspeak inventor and founder, Len Norman, on his talent management science and how it can be used to help in the assessment of boards. See it at the follwoing link http://www.conquestconsulting.com.au/?p=32

Board Competency Framework and the Challenge for Governance Consultants

Len — Sun, 15 May 2011 11:18:01 +0000

The Board Competency Framework and the Challenge for Governance Consultants

Boards do not have a natural evaluation or management authority. Answering to the shareholders and stakeholders will drive certain safeguards but getting clear, direct and real assistance in order to improve performance or competency must be sourced externally.

Introducing the Board Competency Framework offered by the Governance Park by Skillspeak service.

This service sits in what may be termed The Metrics Layer. When a Board prepares for its review by their Regulator, they must use all means at their disposal to comply but also be seen to be doing enough to continue to improve their performance and competency. In order to achieve this they may call on different layers of assistance. They must decide how to uses these assists and in which combinations.

The Board Competency Framework Explained

Performance and Competencies Standards

In the diagram, the Board is represented at the bottom with the various intervening layers at their disposal prior to addressing an upcoming Regulator review. Governance Park by Skillspeak provides the first two layers and these are the closest to the Board entity as they are based on self-assessment at its core. Firstly, they need a very comprehensive set of Performance and Competency Standards against which to be measured. These need to be complete (no missing elements or areas of responsibility) and also stated objectively. It is not appropriate to frame measurement criteria where the answers

You know about the pain long before your doctor

Len — Thu, 12 May 2011 04:59:25 +0000

Self-Assessment – WHY? – you know about the pain long before your doctor

In my business, I often hear two sincerely held observations about the true value of self-assessment. They say self-assessment can only be of marginal value and that there is too much subjectivity in peer evaluations. It’s time to put these comments in perspective.

Self-Assessment

You are taking your seat at dinner and suddenly feel a sharp pain – just a touch of arthritis perhaps. Not surprising as we are getting older. At that moment you do not need to take any corrective action as you tell yourself you will wait to see if it persists. You have just taken step one of self-assessment. Any pain at all is a signal that something is not right. If it were to persist and if ignored, then we all know of very serious consequences that could result. Most often though, for a pain lasting more than say 48 hours, the medicos would be consulted. Usually some treatment is prescribed and all will be back to normal in a very short time. The point to be made here is that nobody would suggest that the pain should be endured until the next scheduled check-up by the doctor which could be months away.

How would this apply to the decision to have your board evaluated? The truth is that just like you are best qualified to identify a pain in your own body, so boards are best qualified and most knowledgeable about the inner workings and problems faced by their team. After all, collectively, they spend the maximum time working in the team and reading all materials as well as attending the vast majority of the meetings. To get to a point of calling in external remedy assistance, advanced diagnostics or advice is a good thing. Here I must acknowledge the value of consultants having much greater understanding of governance principles and offer real and direct assistance to the board. Bringing them in to supplement a comprehensive and objective automated self-assessment, is the best of both worlds.

We can now derive an optimum formula for board performance improvement. Self-assessment ratings and opinions processed through an advanced, automated performance measurement tool for the board, CEO, each director and the Chair along with each committee. Governance Park by Skillspeak is the best tool available to achieve this aim. The MRI-like reports and pictures can be made available to an expert governance consultant, who can then focus on the big-ticket problem areas as a correction map for the next evaluation period. Then repeat it all 12 months later, until continuous performance quality improvement is a reality.

Help your doctor to help you by sharing the pain – but promptly !

Subjectivity vs Objectivity

Yes it is absolutely true that one person’s opinion of another is SUBJECT to their own life experiences and precedents. This is the crux of subjectivity. The good news however, is that this does not mean that peer review ratings are to be ignored. We simply need to understand the phenomenon and minimise any unfavourable outcomes.

In a Governance Park by Skillspeak assessment, we have mastered the alchemy of turning the subjective into the objective. Some basic principles can be cited to show how this is achieved.

Contributing Factors

Firstly, the element of the level of agreement between observers that the blue car with a white stripe speeding away from the accident IS a blue car with a white stripe if 12 independent witnesses separately describe it without any opportunity for consultation.

There is no other possible explanation of a team assessing an element of their performance significantly differently one year apart, unless there has been a commensurate movement in the team’s actual performance of that element.

Secret ballot is essential – there is no use pretending that open forum assessments can produce the truth – human nature causes people to amend the truth or forcefulness of their true opinion when requested to offer it in open forum.

If a person being evaluated in a peer review receives a far less favourable score then the others and the opportunity to deliver the truth exists, then the most likely explanation is that the person’s performance does need attention. There is one mitigating factor here which applies mainly to boards. Directors need to exercise their fiduciary duty and this means independent decision making without fear or favour. In some instances, a fiercely independent director with strongly held opinions can receive a poor rating from the other directors. This can simply be because the other directors feel threatened, challenged and forced to think through all the issues. For this reason, it is important that all directors have a choice of how their results are to be distributed. The privacy option offered in Governance Park by Skillspeak is for each person to see only their own results and that of the board. This protects individuals from having merely a bad peer report used as a means of removing them from their position. In boards where the matter of independence is not an issue, the option of full disclosure to the Chair can be requested after a unanimously-carried board resolution to that effect endorses it.

Round table peer review evaluations – nice idea but good outcomes are rare

Len — Mon, 09 May 2011 07:29:28 +0000
As portrayed vividly on a recent episode of "Billable Hours", peer reviews conducted in open forum are less than helpful in accurate evaluation. If fact, it is highly unlikely that an objective outcome can occur, leaving the evaluation bereft of any value in improving real performance.