Speaker A Talk a little bit about the way in which we use it. So within the bio community we are bound by a very strong sense of values and it comes to show that one of the things that does binds us together. So we're very clear about the ethics that we work with and the values and respecting the dignity of individuals and also valuing the diversity of the communities in which we work. And I think the other important thing is when we're talking about individual capability is that people need to have they have a choice about how they use their capability. They don't have to use their capability at work, they can use it in any number of other ways. So we need to be aware of that, we need to be open minded and we need to encourage the integration of practice, theory and research as an ongoing continuing process. In terms of the application of capability evaluation, we have a global client base that's growing and one of the things that we have done is to ensure that we apply that in a consistent way and have developed a set of global processes that set standards for training, accreditation and for quality. So we work both with the individual and the organization always working within the individual context. The only caveat around that might be some of the recruitment work we do because we're recruiting for an organization that we know and involving the line managers who do have overall accountability for development of people. And the work that we do contributes to talent bank succession planning, development plans, coaching, development, recruitment and selection. One of the ways of looking at this, and we've talked a lot, I think during the last two or three days about the challenge bit, is the work that we're asking people to do. And this session is focusing on capabilities and the importance of bringing those two together in a way that enables people to have a sense of flow about what they're doing so that we're not keeping roles too small for them for too long so that they fail. And that kind of underpins a lot of the work that we're doing. And the other thing is to think about capability in terms of what we call a jigsaw potential. We can talk about applied capability, but it's converting that often raw capability into effective performance because I'm sure everybody knows very capable people who we say can't fight their way out of a brown paper bag because they don't have all the other attributes that are needed. So it's important to look at the total picture when we're talking about individual capability. We're talking about the way that people pattern an order and their world enables people to make judgments and decisions when experience and knowledge alone don't necessarily give them the answer. Data doesn't give them the answer, there's a judgment that needs to be made. And as we all know, capability continues to grow that's the good news for all of us, I think with the models that we use, that it's not in doubt kept up to 21 actually. Our capability does continue to grow and it does grow at different paces and it unfolds among consistent paths and as we talked about in the jigsaw, the necessary but not sufficient. Within Bio, we have a set of tools that look at Capability Grip Up Appreciation, which I think is probably one that most of you have heard of and those of you that have been in other sessions will have heard of the modified Career Path Appreciation, which is an online version. And I'll come on to what the difference is shortly. And then we also have Iris, which is being designed on the same platform, but it's a very structured interview primarily for people to use in house, with graduates and with people who are in first shop floor roles or first line supervisors. And that has structured Fresh Net with a scoring system because we just put that online primarily to address our markets in China and in England we think about Career Path Appreciation. Go back to a bit of history because Katie alluded to this. It was in the 1970s that Elliot asked Jillian to develop a Measurement Capability tool and that led to the development originally of the symbol card. Further developments in the 80s led to the development of the phrase cards which formed the key part of both Greg Art Appreciation and the modified MCDA today. And the term appreciation was chosen very deliberately to reflect the spirit in which the process was used. If we go back to Proton Appreciation, it is a one to one guided conversation and it offers people the opportunity to explore the way that they make decisions, the way that they frame their world. And it consists of a number of parts. So there are a set of phrase cards, and I'll show you an example of one in a moment for those of you that aren't familiar with that. We also look at preferred approach to problem solving, the degree to which people work very conceptually or very pragmatically, the degree to which they use intuition in that problem solving process. We also explore their career path today and looking particularly for significant transitions because clearly people's growth through one level to another doesn't just take place overnight. It is a gradual process. And depending on the context in which that transition is occurring, it will depend on how easy that transition is for someone. And then there is the feedback process. So if we look at the core of preopass appreciation itself, we have nine sets of cards. Each of the cards represents a different level of complexity. And what we're doing is asking people to choose a card that best reflects the way they like to work and also to perhaps choose a card that they don't agree with during that process. We also will explore with them, whether there are phrases that reflect the way their job requires them to work and starting to tease out the difference between the way they like to work and the way that their job requires. But it's not enough just to take the number of the phrase cards that's chosen. You have to get the meaning behind that. So I put these two samples up. I just think you wanted to have a look at all nine. And there's a card there that represents level two work strategy, work service work about working within a given framework. Very often when you explore that with people, the framework that they work within is not necessarily a framework that we choose. And it may well be a much broader framework that they have developed, designed, put in place, been accountable for themselves. And the other step, the approach to uncertainty, is there's one, they use common sense that's not in the and very often people will choose that harbor what's very interesting is to say to them, okay, what does common sense mean to you? And there are some wonderful discussions and descriptions that come out from that in terms of what common sense means for them. And we work through and the whole time that you're going through that process, you're making a hypothesis about what it is that you're hearing from this particular individual and exploring that and probing for that and asking, for example, wanting to look at the output. And I think that most of you will be familiar with the curve and the notion that people travel on different growth paths and so that they make transitions at different times of their career. The other output for us from a career path appreciation is to give an individual their own development path. And what we highlight on there is that across their current level of capabilities, we look at the transitions that they've made and if we're using the predictive ability will make in the future. And we're also mapping their career to date to start to look at where some of the gaps might be. And that might be experience gaps. Because if people are working below their capabilities for a long time, as this person was, they can develop all sorts of behaviors that are not particularly effective within the organization that they work and can cause problems. And when that happens, I don't know what your experience is, but ours is that it takes people a long time to rehabilitate themselves once they've developed a reputation. That's just another example of somebody who had an amazing performance track record until they were put in a position where the job was.
Speaker B A question for you. In talking with marketing at Queef, and I had described this to him, one of the questions he raised with me was, does your company ever look at the output of the work irregardless of what the level of work was required for the role, but actually look at what they were able to produce? And in those situations where they then either worked closer to their level of capability or further away? In other words, the job may require two minutes type of work but maybe they actually produce too high work.
Speaker A Two things to that, the appreciation process and the exploration and the information that you gain from that does. But also because we're working closely with the organization, we have, if you like, a validation process, a check on that. And very often when we've identified people that have got more capabilities than their role, part of that debate will happen in terms of what work they have been doing. So the answer is yes. And of course the other thing that the outputs when you start looking at a large group of people and this is what will feed into the talent bank. And the session management team is developing a pattern, a picture, a map within the organization. This one we've just demonstrated like this just to show the difference between job content, which is the red circle, and the blue stars which is the capabilities. And there's one person in that particular example who was struggling with it. Their role was just that much. It's just a big step too far for them at that point in time. Now because of their growth, they would in, I think it was year, 18 months in that case be able to really handle that. But it was then the support and the mentoring that we put in place to help them along the way. And another way of showing that is to plot capability onto the development curve. And there you can start to see what your pool is like and what that's going to look like in 510 15 years. That's purely on the capability. What of course happens in the discussion is to look at all the other elements that are needed for success in that particular organization. So those will be experiences, culture, values, a whole range of things that will come into whether they're going to be seen credit. In this particular organization where you have people on what we call no Fisc, we pulled that out very separately to present the board to have a discussion with them because they were all individuals that had a bit of a reputation in the organization and they were the future leaders of that organization. So there was going to be a need to take some fairly serious decisions about whether they were going to be given the chance to perform or whether their reputations were going to stay. And then we've got basically reliability data and there are a lot of research papers available so that hopefully gives you a flavor of what we do.
