How to Use the Agile Talent (EQ) Survey

The four dimensions of effective external talent management—alignment along strategic, performance, relationship, and administrative dimensions—described in chapter 1, form the basis of a brief but comprehensive survey of agile talent effectiveness.

The following questions represent a subset of the items in the more comprehensive agile talent EQ survey presented at the website agiletalentcollaborative.com. By answering these questions, you can begin to assess how effective your organization is at attracting and managing agile talent. For each item, rate your organization from 1 to 7, where 1 means “consistently inadequate,” 4 means “mixed,” and 7 means “consistently excellent.”

1. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT: How well linked is our agile-talent approach to our strategy; clear, achievable goals; the right level of sponsorship; and a realistic budget and schedule?

   _____	We use a consistent set of criteria in choosing outside partners.
   _____	We ensure that the work of external resources is based on realistic goals and time frames.
   _____	When the scope of work changes, the budget and schedule implications are addressed collaboratively.
   _____	We make sure our external resources understand the broader context and impact of the work they are doing.

2. PERFORMANCE ALIGNMENT: How well do we provide clear objectives, timelines, and metrics; disciplined and rigorous assessments; and useful and actionable feedback?

   _____	We encourage agile talent to communicate concerns before they become bigger problems.
   _____	We regularly evaluate the work of external resources and provide honest performance feedback.
   _____	When external resources do excellent work, we make sure to acknowledge their excellent performance.
   _____	We establish clear milestones and achievement dates before teams begin their projects.

3. RELATIONSHIP ALIGNMENT: How well do we ensure cultural fit with our agile talent, and how good are our onboarding and orientation, engagement and involvement, and problem resolution processes?

   _____	We do a good job of onboarding our agile talent to the organization’s culture and way of working.
   _____	We keep external resources up-to-date on what’s happening in our organization, especially where their work is concerned.
   _____	We actively seek feedback from our external resources on how we can improve.
   _____	We consider external resources our partners, so we treat them as partners.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE ALIGNMENT: How well do we treat externals and handle nonbureaucratic procedures, prompt payment, and problem resolution?

   _____	We ensure that external resources know our expectations, including pertinent rules and procedures before they begin work.
   _____	We are tough but fair and reasonable in negotiating fees and expenses.
   _____	We do not burden agile talent with unhelpful bureaucracy or excessive administrative requirements.
   _____	When hiring agile talent, our decision making is reasonably prompt.

Depending on your scores on the above items, you can make some interesting observations by following these steps:

1. ADD UP YOUR SCORES ON THE SURVEY. The team can quickly see areas of relative strength and concern in the four areas of alignment—strategic focus, performance management, effective internal and external relationships, and administrative ease

   Figure A-1 is an example of one individual’s completed survey. The chart offers immediate insight into the areas where she believes the organization is doing an excellent job of working with agile talent or where improvement is desirable or necessary. In this case, strategic alignment and administrative alignment are either mixed or better. However, relationship alignment—engaging external talent and ensuring good ongoing communication, internal staff skills, and the right orientation in working with external colleagues—is a pressure point and should be addressed. And performance alignment is also at the low end and should be examined. Does the organization have an effective, efficient, and ongoing protocol for the performance management and feedback of external talent?

2. COMBINE INDIVIDUAL RATINGS INTO A TEAM PROFILE. In combining ratings, you can see the overall pattern and can compare them with external talent ratings to identify areas of disagreement. As a group, the average of these ratings builds an overall perspective on perceived strengths and weaknesses. It is important to look at both overall and individual or subteam ratings to ensure a complete and accurate picture of where strengths lie and where improvement is needed. For example, working recently with an executive team, the head of the business initially described a rosy view of the composite agile talent EQ. However, when all members of the leadership team had weighed in, it was clear that the organization had work to do.

   FIGURE A-1

   ---

   Example of agile talent effectiveness quotient (EQ) results

   

   In this example, an executive used the EQ survey to rate her organization’s effectiveness in managing agile talent. There were eight items per category, with a numerical rating scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = consistently inadequate, 4 = mixed, and 7 = consistently excellent. To use the same approach for a team, a manager could either add up individual ratings or average the ratings of team members.

3. ASK KNOWLEDGEABLE AND VALUED EXTERNAL TALENT TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY. In so doing, ask them to describe their experience of working with your organization. Now compare their perspective with that of the internal team. Then, compare these external ratings with the ratings of the leadership team. Use this point of comparison to identify missed areas of strength and need for improvement.
4. IDENTIFY TWO OR THREE AREAS WHERE CHANGE IS NEEDED AND WHERE THE COST OR TIME INVOLVED IN MAKING CHANGE IS MANAGEABLE. Using the team ratings, or combination of internal and external ratings, identify two or three areas where change would be beneficial. There is no right or wrong in identifying needs for improvement, but we suggest that the approach focus on two dimensions: what areas will provide the best return on improvement, and where is the cost or difficulty required to change manageable. Processes like “work out” are helpful means of determining the change plan and getting key people on board for the change (see chapter 9).
5. ESTABLISH RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAKING THE CHANGES, DEVELOP A TIMELINE, AND PROVIDE RESOURCES IF NEEDED. For example, can the changes be made within thirty to sixty days? Again, processes like “work out” are helpful in this step,
6. FOLLOW UP, APPROVE THE CHANGES, AND IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL NEEDS FOR IMPROVEMENT. Finally, ensure a rigorous approach to follow-up and approval. By setting clear and rigorous (but achievable) deadlines and utilizing a formal process of review, you are likely to achieve greater practical benefit.

For More Diagnostics and Tools

At the Agile Talent Collaborative website, you will find a large and quickly growing global database on agile talent EQ. The site also shows more generally how top companies work with external agile talent to build competitive capability and advantage. The ATC database provides leadership teams with immediate insight on the specific areas where change will lead to more effective use of agile talent. We encourage you to complete the full online survey at agiletalentcollaborative.com. Upon completion, you will receive a comparison of your scores with global trends and will readily see where your scores are higher than the norm and potentially represent best practices, but also where your scores are well below average. Comparing the ratings of your organization’s agile talent EQ with those of the hundreds of organizations in the ATC database will provide useful guidance on where change is needed in your organization.