Is the Australian cricket team a lesson in poor talent management?

Well, the Australians have just lost the second test against India at Mohali, losing by 320 runs. I’ve been reading the coverage in print and online and it struck me that there were a few home truths in the Australian team’s performance and behaviour.

Monday’s disgraceful spat between Ricky Ponting and Brett Lee is a lesson in how not to manage poor or declining performance in your team. Brett clearly wanted to bowl and thought he could do it, although Ricky thought otherwise, and handed the ball to another bowler. There followed an argument and heated words.
Lesson for managers: Don’t discipline underperforming team members in public. It causes hurt and consternation all round. Remember to clearly explain your expectations for high performance and help (rather than insult) those that once had great performance but are now struggling.

Some commentators have been lamenting the retirements of Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist.  The reasoning goes that they were senior players who brought great skill and great cohesion to the team, and assisted Ricky in building team spirit and discipline.  But now, they are gone.  And the Australians are looking like a second rate team, with good, but not great, younger players joining the test team.  To me it seems quite short-sighted that the Australian cricket fraternity has not been grooming junior players to have the quality and the attitude that is required at international test level.
Lesson for managers:  Don’t think succession planning is someone’s else’s business.  It is your business and it is your business now.  With financial conditions changing on a daily basis, with the economy in turmoil and with talented employees always looking out for their next career move, you cannot afford to be caught dozing when your key talent retires or moves on to other opportunities.  So do what you need to do to identify your key talent, work out succession plans, and start talking to peers and executives about creating the right conditions to retain and grow your talent.

Performance Evaluations and Goal Setting for Chicago Cops

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Chicago police officers will soon be subjected to performance evaluations. While reading this article, I had to double-check that I wasn’t reading The Onion.

The reason for implementing the evaluations? It seems there is a concern that due to the rise in violent crime, police officers are less able to focus on less serious crimes.

“Because cops are focusing on violent crime, arrests have slipped for less serious crime like disorderly conduct, trespassing and public drinking, Cuello said. Arrests for violent crimes do not seem to have fallen as much, she said.”

Well, this seems understandable, doesn’t it? Officers are arresting the violent criminals. These are the ones we want to be arrested. It seems OK to me to let the public drinkers get a pass? I mean, sure, I’d rather not have to deal with the drunk guy yelling obscenities at me, but I prefer that to, you know, being murdered.

I’m trying to imagine their goal setting process. We’ve all speculated about the traffic ticket quotas which may or may not exist. Imagine adding quotas for other types of arrests. “Arrest 20 trespassers and 10 crazy naked guys running on the street per quarter”

Anyway I see this problem in another light. It’s really a problem of succession planning. Violent crime is up. Petty criminals are being “promoted” to the serious crimes. Yet they haven’t groomed a successor. Perhaps this is due to declining gang activity, which may also be a problem that needs to be addressed. Until the criminal community properly ensures a continuous flow of crime, of ALL types, not just the violent ones, the Chicago police officers’ evaluation system is doomed to failure.

Or, I don’t know, maybe the goal should be REDUCE CRIME and not INCREASE ARRESTS? Just an idea.