at leased those being evaluated for ADHD !! 
1 Like
The amount of resources an organization is willing to commit to quantifying data is dependent upon how important that information is perceived to be to that organization.
For example the ship’s crews expend significant resources to collect good data about navigation, weather and so forth. Same with data regarding the ship’s condition, cargo, machinery spares, fuel ROB, stability etc.
The success of the Navy as a whole is contingent upon quality of it’s officers. If the Royal Navy considers personality traits etc. to be important to the organization it makes sense it would be willing to expend resources to collect good data about it’s senior officers.
lots of folks have spent lots of money on snake oil as well -
for years now NFL teams have spent huge amounts of time and money to identify the next great QB coming out of college. And they still get the Ryan Leaf’s along with the Pat Mahomes.
Fitting personel to positions is an inexact science - and even that statement is giving it more credit than it deserves.
Nevermind running around with some made up criteria to rank senior officer " motivation".
Measure what is acually measurable - gather a consensus of “opinions” on the candidates - and throw a dart - and that is about as good as it gets.
That one outlier is the grandson of the founder of the company 
3 Likes
Not trying to identify the next great, looking at the record of officers at mid-career or longer.
The study looked for, among other things, career accomplishments that required officers to identify problems in their organization, make a plan to correct the problem, organize and motivate others and then long-term follow through to solve the problem.
The paper is too dense with statistical jargon for me to evaluate but evidently it builds on other similar studies with smaller sample sizes.
not the point - the point was even with a ton of effort, and expense in a field with enormous amounts of real data ( years of game tapes, combine tests, football IQ, character checks) - they still get it wrong - and get it wrong a lot.
So the question is " why do they or the royal navy, or anyone else bother" - if hires and promotions where random, but the names in a hat, would the results be any better" -
IMO organizations do this for 2 related reasons. 1 - you have to do something - you can’t say out loud that we don’t really have a clue - and joe is as good as beth for this job - and we really don’t have any good way to tell which is really going to perform better. and 2. It is a great cottage industry - both internal and external to an organization - huge sums of time and money spent and almost impossible to tie any real result down the road to if it mattered at all.
Obviously - as you can tell - you hit a nerve here !!!
Our theory at work:
Top 25% - The stars, the heroes, the geniuses.
Next 25% - Not quite up to the top level, but do a good job working with the top level and absolutely needed to get things done.
Next 25% - Lazy and unmotivated. Will work when watched, but come to halt otherwise. Harmless though.
Bottom 25% - Actively screw up everything the top 75% are doing. Everyone is better off if they stay home.
They are opposite, aren’t they? Motivated employees are all about being invested in the goals of the organization and have a clear idea of personal or group rewards waiting for them if the organization succeeds.
Work ethic is all about what happens when there is no obvious reward coming, no amazing project coming on line, no bonus, no recognition. You work hard because you cannot stand to not give it your best effort even if no one notices or cares. Think about polishing a brass bell on a ship headed to the breakers.
do you care, and could you tell the difference in the “motivated” or the “work ethic” person doing a good job ?
Exactly. Results are all that matters. Smart people might be “lazy”, because they are smart and get things done more efficiently. I want a LEADER (which is what these officers are supposed to be) that always thinks “are we doing this the safest and most efficient way”.
A guy that ran a tech firm had this simple rule for hiring: hire smart people that get things done. BOTH must be combined.
Smart without getting things done = lazy and avoids work.
Getting things done without being smart = the dude that is “busy” all day, but never complete any real work.
1 Like
I was with you until you introduced this character. That person is not motivated and not exhibiting a strong work ethic. That person is exhibiting irrational behavior. I would have them drug tested for meth. Jus’ sayin’
You can motivate the unmotivated, but transplanting a work ethic is bit harder.
Say a high work ethic is the same as self motivated. So some just do it, some need external motivation, and some are incurable slackers.
“Work ethic” generally has a narrow meaning in a specific context in that the work is assigned tasks.
“Motivation” as used here has a broader meaning. A person that is highly motivated would likely have a good work ethic but might also be driven to broaden their scope of responsibly.
1 Like
I have generally prescribed to the old saying “Preparation meets Opportunity”.
2 Likes
There are many variations on this theme… “The harder you work, the luckier you get”.