Appraisal Form - Brilliant/Great/OK/Rubish/OMG

              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.