What's Your Bench Strength?

Photo by Amine rock hoovr on Unsplash

Many companies focus on their A players to the exclusion of almost everyone else. There's nothing wrong with A players, but failing to focus on bench strength is a serious mistake. 

Do you have depth on your bench? Will a customer get the assistance they need if an employee is out of the office for lunch, sickness, or vacation? Will the loss of a key employee (whether short or long-term) have a significant negative impact on your organization? What about your succession planning? Do you have more than one person who is being prepared for each position? It may not always be possible on that last one, but we should strive to make that happen. After all, we never know what might happen tomorrow.

If your bench is shallow or has gaps, it's time to address the issue. What are some actions you can take to build your bench strength?

• Have a training plan. On-the-job training in many organizations is haphazard at best. 
• Cross-training is essential. Set up a matrix, identifying the major tasks, and assign names. Who has the primary responsibility for this task? Who is their backup? For critical tasks, it might be a good idea to add someone who is expected to at least be able to muddle through.
• Plan for succession. Who do you have with the potential to move up? Once you identify them, get them on a development plan to prepare them for future responsibilities.
• Build a learning culture. Teaching people how to learn is critical and builds capacity for quick reskilling.
• Set up a support structure that captures knowledge in some fashion. Documenting processes can help train tasks more quickly or as a last resort, make it possible for someone to step in and figure things out much more quickly.

Yes, it's great to have some stars on the team, but personally, I would prefer to have a full bench of solid players.

 

High Potential or Right Potential?

Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash

I hear a lot about high potential employees. I also hear many references to A, B and C players. The first is about the future and the other is about current performance. Personally, I am not much in favor of categorizing people in either system, although I understand what the proponents are trying to do.

Both systems are based upon subjective opinions and often, unclear criteria. They are also judgments made at a specific point in time. I have seen people move between the categories depending upon the organization, job, manager and life circumstances at that time.

But the issue that causes me the most concern is the focus on individual contribution. I am not saying individual contributions are not important, because they are. However, most companies state teamwork is important to them. The best individual contributors are not necessarily the best in a team environment (although they can be). You have only to look at various team sports to see how a high-performing star performer can disrupt the performance of the overall team.

Yes, if the job we have is largely independent, then a star performer may be the best option. However, in a team environment, I am more interested in bench strength and complementary talents. I want the right potential for the position I want them to play--both now and in the future. Once I place a person in a position, I need to constantly evaluate if they may be more effective to the team in another role. That may change over time.