Remember the fiasco of meeting 1? This next one was really amazing. Why? Because we decided to reverse engineer the entire process. We are so used to first fixing a framework and then working within the constraints, that we miss out on some aspects and increase the process time.
We looked at our earlier selection of critical resources and began to reassess if we had mistaken important with critical. We threw all metrics and models out the window and began stating reasons as to why each individual fell on a high/medium/low scale on potential and if the resource was critical.
This exercise not only gave me a better insight into what business considers important, it was also a wakeup call. I was able to clearly pick out skills we lacked, career paths we had messed up and innovators who were put in places they were unable to use their imagination in.
I will be spending a lot of time playing around with this data trying to pick out common threads which run through and put the criteria in place. It’s an iterative process which my businesses are keen to do with me. Will we observe trends that we could have missed out on? Not necessarily. But is it an interesting approach to problem solving? Of course, yes!
I will keep you updated on my findings but at a preliminary look, most common sense criteria are fulfilled:
- High performers
- Tenure in the company greater than 4-5 months
- Specialized/rare skills
- Strong technical skills
Another factor we looked into while deciding potential was the number of years one would take to move to the next competency level.
All in all, it was an immensely interesting activity.