Featured Article...

Written by Ron Esposito, Ph.D.

On Wednesday evening, October, 21, 1998 the New York Yankees had just won four straight games against the Padres to win the World Series. The Yankees also finished the year with an astounding 114-48 record. The players and the fans were, of course, very excited and two days later, New York honored the team with one of the biggest ticker tape parades in its history. The debate has continued over the past ten years whether this was the best Yankee team of all time. The Yankees did go on to win the World Series again in 1999 and 2000.

Coincidently, on Wednesday evening, November 4, 2009 the New York Yankees had won four games out of six against the Philadelphia Phillies to again claim the World Series title. The players and the fans were certainly thrilled, especially winning the series during their first season in a new stadium. And yes, there was a ticker tape parade on Wall Street attended by over one million people.

Why did it take the Yankees nine years to rebuild their team and win the series in 2009 to capture their 27th championship? With many players traded or retiring after 2001, the Yankee ownership bankrolled a collection of “super stars” for the explicit purpose of continuing to win the World Series. But even with all their talent and one of the biggest payrolls in baseball, the Yankees were unable to regain their top place and in some years they did not even reach the playoffs. It is my premise that the Yankees won in 1998-2000 and in 2009 because they played together as a winning team...

Featured Products/Updates...

Introducing The Online Report Interpretation Tutorial!

The all new online report interpretation tutorial gives Task Cycle® survey participants guidance on how to read and interpret the feedback results from their 360 survey. The tutorial covers the importance of 360 results, how to approach and interpret feedback report data and how to convert results into a plan for development.

Survey Tip...

Good measurement is crucial to change programs. You need to know where you stand at the start and when you finish. Otherwise, you have no accountability. To do this, your assessment must meet two basic criterias:

• It must yield operational relevance. The dimensions must make sense to all participants and executives concerned. It must also demonstrate practical validity, meaning that scores on the instrument must relate to performance.
  
  Otherwise, if the instruments have face validity only - acceptable because they look right - but have not been shown to relate to measured performance, then you have a problem justifying investments in your 360 programs. If you do not have good assessments of performance for a specific job, you should use instruments whose validity can be demonstrated on comparable jobs.



• They must be sufficiently reliable over time to assess any change resulting from your 360 programs. If the measures are not reliable, any change can be mistakenly interpreted. In this case, change may appear to take place when, in fact, it does not. Conversely, good change programs may be evaluated negatively because real differences are unreliably measured.

Comments or feedback? Click here.