Critical workforce segments essential to success
Sometimes even the best correspondents I work with in my editorial role fall prey to the sort of idiocy we love to ridicule.
Here's an excerpt from an article on workforce talent management. (You're probably thinking that with a topic like that I was walking into a bull ambush. And, you would be right. I don't know what I was thinking.)
"(Name withheld) defined critical workforce segments as the parts of the workforce most essential to a company’s success. ... The (company name) team worked with the client to develop specific evaluation criteria and measurements for management levels including, among others, individual excellence, global focus, and innovation. Because the criteria can be applied across the organization, the client is able to identify and manage its top talent systematically."
The problem here is evasiveness. Of course our reporter dutifully asked for specifics, because he doesn't want to hear another one of my rants. But the "specific evaluation criteria" here are rubbish like "individual excellence" and "global focus". How can you be focused globally? How can we pass off "excellence" as a "specific criterion"? This kind of rigor makes the Miss America pageant look hardcore statistical science in comparison.
Maybe the lesson here is this: As soon as some idiot invokes the "specific" label, the odds are overwhelming that what follows will be vague platitudes. All of which demand a followup, "Can you provide an example?"
Here's an excerpt from an article on workforce talent management. (You're probably thinking that with a topic like that I was walking into a bull ambush. And, you would be right. I don't know what I was thinking.)
"(Name withheld) defined critical workforce segments as the parts of the workforce most essential to a company’s success. ... The (company name) team worked with the client to develop specific evaluation criteria and measurements for management levels including, among others, individual excellence, global focus, and innovation. Because the criteria can be applied across the organization, the client is able to identify and manage its top talent systematically."
The problem here is evasiveness. Of course our reporter dutifully asked for specifics, because he doesn't want to hear another one of my rants. But the "specific evaluation criteria" here are rubbish like "individual excellence" and "global focus". How can you be focused globally? How can we pass off "excellence" as a "specific criterion"? This kind of rigor makes the Miss America pageant look hardcore statistical science in comparison.
Maybe the lesson here is this: As soon as some idiot invokes the "specific" label, the odds are overwhelming that what follows will be vague platitudes. All of which demand a followup, "Can you provide an example?"
<< Home