When you attempt to “average every one’s performance up” via whatever intervention-set you select, you are doing so for the R at the end of the I. The RETURNS for the INVESTMENTS.
The predictable returns for the predictable investments. Or else – why bother?
If your Intervention isn’t tied to one or more existing Key Results Indicators – at the level of Metrics already being tracked by your clients and others in the Enterprise, and not something new that you are asking them to track and react to that they don’t really understand – then it’s typically thought of as more of a smoke-and-mirrors-game than an ROI actual-to-plan read-out or trend update.
I use a collaborative process – first written about by me and my co-authors in Training Magazine in September 1984. I don’t use the wisdom of just any crowd – but of the client’s handpicked Master Performers. Serving two purposes: client buy in (via control of the voices in the effort) and my getting Master Performers who would look ridiculous to their peers if they weren’t anything but real. Authentic. Warts and all – that’s in the intentional “gap analysis.” And that leads to a quality effort and outputs for the overall effort – being grounded in authentic performance that is.
# # #