tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3623132.post5449969673351941073..comments2024-03-21T14:54:29.876+05:30Comments on Exploring The Future of Work : Assessing PotentialGautam Ghoshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04691216163099240523noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3623132.post-2786595538660533132007-11-12T13:39:00.000+05:302007-11-12T13:39:00.000+05:30Thanks Gautam.I agree that defining specific cours...Thanks Gautam.<BR/><BR/>I agree that defining specific courses of action for each talent classification and making the managers responsible for carrying out the action points in a time bound manner is a good step. This would ensure that the organization and the managers are serious about talent management. <BR/><BR/>In a best case scenario, this could encourage the organization/ managers to make the potential assessment/talent classification process more accurate/ valid. However if this does not happen, we could have situations where 'wrong' assessments/ talent classifications take place, and the managers end up 'ensuring completion of wrong courses of action in a time bound manner'. I have seen that managers are often reluctant to change their assessment of someone's potential (even when there is evidence to the contrary), because that would indirectly mean that their initial judgment was wrong. <BR/><BR/>I have heard that in some partnership firms the partners often make a judgment about whether a new hire is 'partner material' within 1-2 years of the date of joining of the new hire. Since many partners take great pride in their judgment, they might not use any other process/ tool other than 'judgement'. Quite often these judgments' turn out to be true. Of course, we don't know whether this happens mainly because of the quality of judgment (may be some sort of 'thin slicing' takes place) or this happens mainly because of 'Pygmalion effect' ('partner-expectancy effect' in this context). It is however commonly seen that though these judgments are kept confidential, those who have been judged to be 'partner material' find that good things start happening to them (e.g. allocation to prestigious projects, opportunity to work with the partners closely, allocation to training programs etc.) where as the others (who ended up on the wrong side of the partner judgment) find themselves to be less fortunate when it comes to these developmental opportunities.Prasad Kurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00392000963081576320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3623132.post-24971127346054325252007-11-12T02:13:00.000+05:302007-11-12T02:13:00.000+05:30Gautam,The problem with nearly all succession plan...Gautam,<BR/><BR/>The problem with nearly all succession planning is that it has no scientific theory base and, therefore, no universal measures or common language. Using a work levels theory base, aka stratified systems theory aka requisite organization, makes assessing potential relatively straightforward because it provides universal measures and a common language. <BR/><BR/>When I work with clients to help their line managers assess potential, we are looking for level of cognitive capacity to solve problems, aka current potential capability.<BR/><BR/>A little on the theory - work can be divided into discreet levels of complexity (just as H2O can exist as ice, water, or steam). Using a universal measurement system, time span of discretion, all jobs can be classified by level. Each level of work calls for a specific level of cognitive capacity, aka complexity of information processing.<BR/><BR/>So when we assess potential, we are looking at the level at which a person can currently solve problems, or at what level of the organization are they currently suited to work. Then, we look at the level of their current role. If it's a match, great. <BR/><BR/>If they have greater potential than the role, the manager-once-removed (who is accountable for talent development of his people two levels down) needs to look to get the person promoted. This might require filling any skill or experience gaps that would allow for this person to assume a role that matches their current cognitive capacity.<BR/><BR/>When a person has cognitive capacity below that required of their current role, that person should be redeployed into a lower level role.<BR/><BR/>Cognitive capacity matures throughout our lifetimes. If you know a person's current capacity and age, you can predict their future potential as well. So long term development planning is possible.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Michelle Malay CarterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com