Building Bench?

Any sports analyst can tell you that the depth of your bench (the number and skill of your players), determines your ability to play the entire game with intensity. In a business, the depth of your bench determines your ability to take on new projects, even when you are already working on some major contracts. It also determines the skill level of projects you can take on, and to a large degree, determines how quickly you can grow. In short, bench depth is as important in business as it is in sports.

I once worked with a client that wanted to grow 5X in the next two years. That was a tall order, so before we got ahead of ourselves, we baselined the current state of the business. Although there were some material concerns, this business was largely built around installation labor of a technical product.

To quintuple in size in just two years, the existing labor force had to be at the top of their game. Moreover, the company either needed to hire or train new employees at a rapid pace, all while continuing to execute on their current contracts. That was a tall order and led us to conduct a rapid assessment of their present employees. The way we did so was to use a tool called a SKILLS MATRIX (example below).

We started by approaching every leader and asked them to develop a list of the job titles that reported to them. Next, we asked them to develop a list of skills required by each job title. Finally, for each skill, we asked them to establish the expected level of skill required by someone in that job title.

In cases where multiple leaders had people with the same job titles, we made sure to cross level the skill expectations for that job across the entire organization.

Next, we asked leaders to assess each worker's ability to perform every skill pertinent to their job.

We used a five point system in which competent performance was counted as a "3." Above average performance was counted as a "4," and mastery as a "5." Anyone whose skills were below par received scores lower than "3."

We agreed in advance that, if the expected skill level was "3," and the employee was graded as a "2," a one point difference, they could continue to perform their job, but would need to raise their score on that skill by next rating period. A skill rating of "1" or "0" required immediate training. With a skill rating of "1" the employee would need to be supervised while doing the job until they raised it to a "3." A skill rating of "0" meant that the employee could no longer perform that job and needed immediate training.

Here's a quick example of what we found: The SKILLS MATRIX above looks complex, but it's really not. There is, however, a lot to learn from it.

The column labelled "Skills" lists the skills required to perform that job. The next column lists the "Expected Skill" competence required for that job title. The seven columns after the orange column, list the rated skills of the employees whose names head the column.

Let's look at Sammy, the first employee column.

In row (1) we learn that, for the skill "Installation of cable support systems ..." the expectation is "3" and he has a "3." All is well.

However, when we get to row (15) and the skill of "Knowledge of ANSI/TIA/EIA Standards ...," Sammy only rated a "1" against an expectation of "3." He has a skills deficit of "-2." And, on the skill "Performs testing of fiber optic cable ..." (row 18), Sammy got a skill rating of "0," against an expectation of "3." Not good. His skill deficit for that skill is "-3."

After the violet column, we calculated a detailed comparison of Sammy's actual skill rating against the expectation. To do that, we subtracted the expected skill rating from his actual rating. Note that for the skill "Performs testing of fiber optic cable ..." (row 18), Sammy has a RED "3." The color flags the rating and signifies that Sammy is in immediate need of training on this skill. Sammy can't perform this skill alone, nor may he perform it with supervision. He must be trained and retested.

In the final column, we totaled the number of negative ratings for each skill. If we go back to row (18), "Performs testing of fiber optic cable ...," we see that the composite score for the seven employees in this group is negative fourteen (-14). That says the average score for this group of seven is a negative two (-2). High negative scores like this trigger a rapid training on the skill until everyone in that skill group is at the expected level of competence.

At the bottom of the matrix, we compared each employee's aggregate score to the aggregate expected rating. Sammy scored a aggregate of 77 points against an expectation of 108. That means he is only 71% proficient at his job.

By comparison, Colin has a composite score of 87 or 81% of expected. Meanwhile, Francisco and Tim were both less than 50% of the expectation. In short, this supervisor's team was in dire need of training.

What have we learned?

• We learned who in a group needs what training.
• We learned who in the group needs the most training.
• We learned what training needs to be focused on organizationally, and in what order.
• Although there are none present on this matrix, in a case in which an employee scored above the expectation, they self-identified as a coach/trainer for others deficient in that skill.
• We found who in the group is most deficient, so we can initially focus on them.
• Across the company we found which skills we needed to concentrate on first and where in the organization those people worked.

Now, you'll recall that these ratings were made by the employee's supervisor. What happened when the employee disagrees with how he or she has been rated? ANSWER: They can request a test. At the end of the test, they have demonstrated their level of skill and the matrix score for that skill changes appropriately.

How does an employee discover that they were rated lower than they feel they deserved? ANSWER: In a spirit of total transparency, these matrices are posted in the employee's work area, so there are no surprises.

By the way, can you see how this matrix can become a tool in the ongoing coaching of employees and the establishment of growth goals? Does it make sense that, in order for an employee to be promoted they need to clear some level of proficiency, say 85%, in the new job first?

You'll recall the above matrix is from an employer that wanted to more than double in size and revenue in just two years. What decision do you think they came to after reviewing this matrix?

The upside is that they now knew what skills to hire moving forward. They also established that all new hires were required to demonstrate their skill before being hired. Finally, they contacted a couple of local training organizations and made preparations to begin intensive training classes in areas where the organization had scored poorly. In short, they recognized that the strength of their organization was the skill of their employees and began intensively BUILDING BENCH.

Last question: How do you think your company would fare? Are you ready to find out?

Contact me and let me help: robert@gettingtolean.com

As always, I enjoy your feedback.