I have had a long-term habit of generating a rating for every new person that I meet up during the course of my work or on a personal basis, and also an opinion of how people that I know already behave in a particular situation of interest to me. I believe a constant assessment of all people interactions is a necessary basis for judging people, though there are always call-outs by youngsters “don’t judge us” or “don’t pass judgement on people”. But in a world of shifting stances, it is absolutely necessary to define the kind of folks with whom we wish to have a longstanding relationship and that can be done only with some serious assessment and judgement.
While I have mostly managed to keep my ratings and assessments, and consequent judgements private, sometimes when others interact with me, a few judgements do fall out into the open. Recently, I made the point to a couple of people that it is a necessary way to measure potential outcomes – people with high ratings tend to deliver on their commitments, and people who have poor ratings do not deliver as expected, but not necessarily of course. Especially in the corporate context, it is essential to develop a barometer of ratings of people that one comes into contact with on a daily basis, whether these folks are internal to the company or external folks (such as client, partners, analysts, suppliers, service providers, etc.,). You can then determine how to get things done most efficiently for the benefit of your company or yourself!
Such a conditioned measurement rating is developed by careful observations of words, ideas, proactive commitments, timelines, and quality of interactions with others. I developed a system wherein I followed the old, traditional methodology of A+, A, B+, B, C, D and F. There was hardly anyone in the A+ category as to be expected, may be because the other person does not see value in the particular engagement and does not deliver his or her best. Some 5 to 10% of interactions fall into the A category based on quality of interactions, relevance of commitments, follow-through on expeditious basis to deliver, and actual quality of delivery on commitments made. May be around 15 to 20% of the people fall into the B+ category, more than A category, and the rating is based on potential ability to deliver rather than actual delivery (sometimes a perception rather than pure reality). Most people in this category do strive to deliver but sometimes not equipped or capable to deliver on their commitment. Sometimes, the quality of delivery suffers. Sometimes, the behaviour or performance on the way to achieving the desired outcome is not compatible with the level of expectations. Ability to engage on an equitable basis is achieved by the A category folks, but not always by the B+ category.
Most of the folks fall into B or C category (and a few into D, none in F) and while it might be important to maintain the ties for the purpose of future improvements, it is not always necessary to nurture these folks, as the time available is limited to achieve desired outcomes. It is far better to focus on A and B+ categories of people as their productivity far outstrips those of the remaining people in the rest of the categories. Achievement of objectives, delivery of a common goal, accomplishing mutual satisfaction in the relationship and behavioural impact in a strongly positive sense are all critical to success, and these are delivered in ample measure by A category folks and most of the B+ folks as well.
It is sometimes difficult to synchronize the internal ratings system and the actual physical engagement with the concerned individual. The rating assigned to the individual remains in our head and tries to influence our behaviour towards that particular individual. I try not to get caught in this cycle of influenced behaviour and continue in the most nonchalant manner to get on with the task on hand. After all, there was a need for that meeting with that individual and it is important to progress that meeting towards what could be a positive conclusion, without getting unduly impacted by the rating I had given to that individual and his interactions with me in the past.
Such a self training improves our way of looking at people around us and the world, which is not a super-duper A+ world, but on an average, not a bad world either. Most folks around us are average, and fall between B and C on the Bell Curve. This does not mean things do not get accomplished in the world, or the quality of interactions is consistently poor. Things do progress, things do happen, people do work with each other. If the world is comprised only of A+ and A people, then it could become a threatening place driving super productivity in a mechanical manner. If we have people manager responsibility, it is critical to help our reportees move from a C to a B or B+ performance level just to stay in the competitive race, and they do understand this need.
With all that said, it is still essential to measure people around us with whom we come into contact with for meeting some goal – corporate or personal. Such a careful assessment helps not only our thinking, but might eventually help the others in measuring up. When I measure others, I am not judging from an A+ or A pedestal. I position myself in the midpoint, say a B+, that is what would give a considered judgement of other peoples’ potential, their abilities, and their behavioural tendencies. If I position myself as an A+, almost everyone else in the interaction is going to be pushed down in the ratings, and one should consciously avoid this trap. Measure yourself on the same scale and rate yourself first.
Interesting, right? It is a very interesting exercise. Just apply to yourself and the people around you. Measure others as they would measure you, in terms of all the parameters above. You will be surprised to learn that people who you have ignored in the past do get better ratings if measured in an objective manner!
And so on, and so forth.
6th August 2017