Hack
Hack: Corporate Leaderboards
by Madhusudan Rao - AVP - Delivery at Mahindra Satyam
June 24, 2010 at 12:38amContribution Summary
Summary
In Tennis, rankings are given to players based on their performance - check the ATP site for more details. This is updated continuously with a 1-year window. Why not apply the same for measuring your leaders within the Corporate?
Leaders will be measured on a defined scale, that is set based on their standing in the organization, nature of work, seniority. Based on their year-end standings, their bosses can review their work and reassign the priorities. This will make appraisals easier and more transparent.
The standings can be shared across the organization for all to view how progress is being made.
Leaders will be measured on a defined scale, that is set based on their standing in the organization, nature of work, seniority. Based on their year-end standings, their bosses can review their work and reassign the priorities. This will make appraisals easier and more transparent.
The standings can be shared across the organization for all to view how progress is being made.
Problem
Group Managers and Department Heads typically have the perception that they do better than their peers but are not rewarded/recognized in the same way as the others. While their bosses are clear in their appraisals, the Managers do not mostly agree.
There is a perception that the appraisal executed is biased in some manner and there could have been a different thinking applied for the situations faced by the Managers while performing their tasks.
How do you get beyond such a scenario and come up with a system that is acceptable to everyone? Of course, any system will have its share of backers and critics but if one can be transparent with the ratings, the grief caused might be limited.
One will also not feel the effects of the Forced Ranking due to the Bell-curve - the performance is available for everyone to view and analyze.
With this suggestion, all the leaders will be aware in real-time how and where they stand and make appropriate changes to improve their standing in the Leaderboard.
There is a perception that the appraisal executed is biased in some manner and there could have been a different thinking applied for the situations faced by the Managers while performing their tasks.
How do you get beyond such a scenario and come up with a system that is acceptable to everyone? Of course, any system will have its share of backers and critics but if one can be transparent with the ratings, the grief caused might be limited.
One will also not feel the effects of the Forced Ranking due to the Bell-curve - the performance is available for everyone to view and analyze.
With this suggestion, all the leaders will be aware in real-time how and where they stand and make appropriate changes to improve their standing in the Leaderboard.
Solution
Create a ranking system which is simple and easy to implement / understand (in fact, I feel the ATP FAQ is a little complicated). Clearly, identify how many points to be given to Managers for their deeds by various categories. Ensure that all relevant areas / groups are covered in the scoring system.
For e.g., Deals won in the range of $5 Million will result in winning 50 points while successfully delivering a project worth $ 10 Million will result in 75 points.
The points will be approved by the next-level Reporting Managers even though other Groups are also free to assign points for exceptional performance (with appropriate justification).
The numbers can be worked out based on the organization but the concept remains the same.
For e.g., Deals won in the range of $5 Million will result in winning 50 points while successfully delivering a project worth $ 10 Million will result in 75 points.
The points will be approved by the next-level Reporting Managers even though other Groups are also free to assign points for exceptional performance (with appropriate justification).
The numbers can be worked out based on the organization but the concept remains the same.
Practical Impact
This hack, if implemented in the right way, will lessen the ill-feelings that typically happen during appraisal time. The attitudes of Managers can be moulded to cater to these tangible measurements. Hence, their actions will correspondingly change resulting in a win-win situation for all.
Moreover, the Managers need not wait for 6 months or 1 year to get feedback. They will be able to see how their standings change based on the points they receive.
Moreover, the Managers need not wait for 6 months or 1 year to get feedback. They will be able to see how their standings change based on the points they receive.
Challenges
The main challenge is to identify the scoring system. There needs to be an interactive discussion with key stakeholders to get the right system in place.
Convincing the leaders on the motto behind the system is another challenge. They need to be assured that it will make their lives easy during the appraisal and this will also measure their success continuously.
Getting the buy-in of the Managers is key for success.
Convincing the leaders on the motto behind the system is another challenge. They need to be assured that it will make their lives easy during the appraisal and this will also measure their success continuously.
Getting the buy-in of the Managers is key for success.
First Steps
An organization can do a dry-run for one single group for a period of 3 months and gather their inputs. Then, it can be expanded to the organization level.
Helpful Materials
Documents:
- No documents at this time
Images:
- No images at this time
Videos:
- No videos at this time
Comments
David Sims
June 17, 2010 at 3:26amThere was a science-fiction book out a few years ago, "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" (by Cory Doctorow) where a couple centuries hence, money had been replaced by something called wuffie, which was basically points of credit that other people had awarded you based on their opinion of you. So your reputation determined your wealth. In some ways, this reminds me of that, though I can see your plan takes some pains to make it as objective as possible.
I wonder about the strictly objective aspect of this, and I wonder how many jobs (other than sales) lend themselves to such clear metrics. For example, as a manager, a big part of my job would be mentoring, coaching, helping others do their jobs. Quantifying that in a system like that would seem difficult. And in fact, I could see how it would shape people's days so that they spent more time on things that measured them alone rather than investing time in their contributions to teams and the development of others -- both of which have positive benefits for the bottom line of the larger organization. I wonder how you think about measuring that sort of intangible benefit.
What is the MIX?
Announcing the first-ever MIX live event:
the MIX Mashup—a day-long gathering of the vanguard of management innovators.
Meet the pioneering leaders, courageous experimenters, and agenda-setting thinkers who have taken on the status quo (and won)—and leave inspired and equipped to make an impact in your own organization.
We are opening up this limited-capacity event to the MIX community. Apply to attend here.
More Hacks Like This
How Current Blokes Block 15 Million Jobs for New Era
by Ellen Weber of MITA International Brain Center
MIX Pulse
Submit a Hack
Help invent the future of management. Propose a radical fix and see your idea take root and grow.
Madhusudan Rao
June 19, 2010 at 6:57amThanks for your comment David.
Mentoring, Coaching needs to be measured as well - without any tangible measurements, how can you say that the mentee is getting real value from his Manager. For example, the mentee can rate how well the mentoring he has received is helping him reach his goals. That will give an idea on how good the mentor is doing. A percentage of the mentee's achievements can be linked back to the mentor's coaching.