In a recent work session with a wonderful new client, we had
a discussion about some of their key executives and how they were performing in
their roles. While not a start-up, this
is a small, high growth, privately funded company filled with opportunities and
challenges. As the discussion expanded,
I realized that my client had a lot of opinions/feelings/perspectives and
experiences with these associates, just no framework to assess/discuss their
performance.
Quickly, in typical “Levisay fashion,” I grabbed a marker
and went to the flip chart and started drawing out my “Four Corner Strategy”
for talent assessment. While certainly
not groundbreaking in any way, it gave us a framework to work through relating
to each exec, allowing us to have a more structured discussion, and in a number of cases was pretty illuminating in it’s implications.
“Four Corner”
Approach
With marker in hand, I drew out a large box, with a 4x4 grid
inside, and identified each of the four quadrants: 1.) Skills, 2.) Experience,
3) Motivation, 4.) Work Ethic. We then
had a discussion as to whether any of the boxes should be weighted more or less
than one another. For our discussion, we
kept each the equal weight, but could have made adjustments at this step. With the grid set, we pulled up a specific
individual and their specific role and made sure that we were clear about the
role’s requirements. With that set, we
went through each of the grids with surprising clarity and efficiency:
1 1.) Skills:
having just reviewed the skills required for the role, it was pretty
easy to assess whether the individual had the skills, and more importantly had
demonstrated those required skills on the job.
After a quick review, I asked my client to rate the associate 1-10 (1
being low, 5 being fair, 10 being exceptional)
2 2.) Experience: In the same manner, we
thought about the experiences someone needed to perform this role well, and
again after a quick review, I hade my client rate the associate 1-10.
3 3.) Motivation: While a little less
tangible that the “factors” above, we discussed how
“motivated/energized/engaged” the associate was to do their role; not overall
in their work life, but the specific job that we were discussing. Again another rating 1-10.
4 4.) Work Ethic: Was the associate showing a strong drive to
get their job done, close out emails/calls with peers or customers, working
hard to get major objectives done, etc.
This is a very “visible” part of the review and drove a quick review and
rating. Again score 1-10.
With the 4x4 grid complete, it was interesting to review the
ratings! While only the first time
through, we had rated a few associates in similar roles, and their “cumulative
scores” ranged dramatically. One
individual scored a 17, while another scored a 28 and at the beginning of the
discussion we knew there were differences, but now we had a way/framework to
dig in. While not exactly like an
academic grading system, I did encourage my client to think that a cumulative
score of 36 (9 out of 10 average score on each factor) would be outstanding, a
32 (8 out of 10 average) would be very good, a 28 (7 out of 10 average) adequate,
and anything below 26 (a 6.5 out of 10 average) we should think about as unacceptable. Well to say the least the scores of the
individuals raised some serious questions, and actions are underway to work on
performance improvement plans and possibly an impending exit.
I share this story not to myopically advocate this approach
over another model. There are numerous talent assessment frameworks being
utilized broadly in business today, and many of them work very well. I am a strong advocate of adopting a single
framework and “working it hard’ across your team. Find an approach that works for you and use it
consistently across departments and functions.
Build skills as senior executives on how to assess and develop talent
within your organization, and after a 30+year business career I am more
convinced than ever that human talent is and will be the most precious resource
for executives in business.
Posts
