Developing Talent? Ask the Four Questions

At a recent conference five thousand fellow psychologists focused on talent development and succession planning. It was three solid days of panel discussions and research reports. [I know how to have a good time]. An impatient colleague asked for a take-away. Easy; on one topic, there was unanimous agreement: Rigor.  Not a pretty word. Not yummy like chocolate cake.

“What’s that mean?”  For a rigorous baker, it means their chocolate cake is so good you are willing to stand in line to get one. In talent development, it means you’re clear about what success looks like, and you measure results.

 

The topic arose in a discussion among execs from J&J, Sprout and X-The Moonshot Factory and small firms too.  They discussed various approaches, challenges, and preferred assessment tools. They acknowledged many differences.  

They were unanimous, when asked which leader assessment was best. The panel members looked at each other and one stepped up. She said, “Use what fits, but it has to be rigorous.” All the panelists nodded. If you want tasty chocolate cake, you select quality ingredients, measure carefully, combine and bake with care.  

In leadership development, rigorous means focus on quality. Rigor in talent management isn’t being tough for its own sake. It is being intentional.   

Rigor means defining the qualities that produce an excellent result and measuring develop progress. Many solid tools make it easy. Not quite tasting a cake.  But not hard.

Rigor is the opposite of intuition. Nobel physicist Richard Feynman was intuitive about math, and arguably the most talented physicist who ever lived.  He would intuit a principle and then do the math to demonstrate its veracity.  In Blink, a sculpture expert intuitively recognized a $10 million dollar purchase as fake, but couldn’t say why. It took months of rigorous investigation led by the Getty curator to prove it was a fraud.

For the rest of us mortals, intuition could help, or more likely hinder. We use intuition to save time, and sometimes it does. But as Thinking, Fast and Slow explains it often doesn’t. When average is good enough, fine. When it comes to leadership, not fine.

When the stakes high, do the math. Leaders are prone to confirmation bias; we know the answer; we see proof, we ignore contrary evidence. The halo effect colors our judgement by attaching long-term significance to a short-term success – Bob brought in a great deal – he’s a top deal guy. [Actually, Bob got lucky once.]

The anchoring bias is common – we get a piece of information that steers us toward a decision and we make that our primary reference.  Lyft priced their IPO at $72 a share. That was the anchor. At the opening people snapped it up at $87 a share. Today it’s trading at in the mid $50s.

Apply rigor when results matter. In talent development get data: quantitative and qualitative.  You think someone is a good leader or a potential leader.  Maybe they are, but studies have shown that people successful at getting promoted are often good at getting promoted, and not good at leading teams and producing results. [Remember the Peter Principle?] The damage may happen slowly, or it may be a mudslide. [Think #metoo or subpoena.]

If your goal is developing excellent leaders, ask four questions:

       1.      Am I / are we clear about the fact that we require excellence?

       2.      How do I / we define what excellence looks like?

      3.      What are we doing to enable excellence?

      4.      How do we reward excellence?

Is it easy? No, that’s why it’s called work. But, rigor in developing talent pays. Answer these four questions successfully you are twice as likely to produce top tier results.  And maybe see people lining up to be part of your business.