Techn@gerial

On occasion, usually during times of corporate stress or when high levels of change are occurring, the “calibre” of people can be drawn into question. “Calibre” is one of those deeply meaningful management metaphors that hides its completely subjective nature and is often regarded as a binary switch or a gauge. In the long run; someone either has the calibre or they don’t.

The definition used to define calibre in a capability context is as follows:

Calibre -noun: degree of capacity or competence; ability: a mathematician of high calibre.

Source: dictionary.com

What isn’t present in the definition is the method or unit of measurement of this calibre; as such it must be a metaphor that has become understood as a definition of capacity based on the likely original meaning related to the diameter of a tube or more appropriately in this instance a gun barrel.  The bigger the barrel, the more effective a weapon is at handling large amounts of ammunition.

A metaphor like “calibre” suits the need of senior management to encapsulate something which is complex, diverse and individual into an informal measure that is understood through the metaphor.  It is a prime example of how management can fall into the trap of rationalising rather than being rational about someone’s capability. ( see http://bit.ly/2ybNlL for an off-topic article about confirmation bias)

I would argue that without qualification, this measure is a specious one.  It is too often based on a shared or converged opinion of a group of people about an individual.  Rarely are capability reviews undertaken to flick the switch to yes, management will just nod and agree that someone is of the right calibre or that someone isn’t.

Taking the ordnance context of calibre, the one I feel best serves the often macho need for senior managers to use such a metaphor, there are a series of appropriate expansions that can add some flavour…  Calibre is the measure of the diameter of a gun barrel, which in turn dictates the diameter and possibly the volume of the projectile(s) that a weapon can propel.  Calibre in isolation as a measure is akin to a plain shotgun barrel, one which will allow a wide projectile or a  number of smaller ones, to be propelled forward in the direction the weapon is pointing.  Shotguns are pretty indiscriminate, casting a wide spread with their standard shot.  However, you can pass a single projectile through a large calibre weapon like a shotgun, it’s called a slug and has very limited range and poor accuracy.  That said, when you do hit a target with a slug, it is highly effective.  So the calibre is less important than what and how you pass things through it.

Barrels have been enhanced over the history of weapons development to include rifling, a series of spiralling lines scored into the inside surface of a barrel to introduce rotation to single projectiles which improves its flight profile over longer and longer distances.  This method of controlling the projectile gave rise to rifles and long range super accurate artillery.  In our context then, it isn’t just calibre, i.e. the breadth and capacity of a person to carry out their duties autonomously that is important,  but also how that calibre is focused, in terms of aim (or strategy), and how the calibre is used (e.g. plain barrel or rifled) which determines the best result for the business.  As always, it is never one person or one layer of people that can solve the woes of a business it is a combination of factors which deliver results.

If calibre is to be used as a stock term in your business, make sure you know how it is measured, ensure the gun is aimed in the right direction through your strategy and ensure the rifling is in place at all levels to provide the right level of management and control over all your people, including those managers whose calibre is usually drawn into question.  Answering the question of whether you have the right calibre of people  in your business should start right where  the question is asked, as I would argue that the question is often asked as a rationalised rather than rational response to the consequences of a lack of clear guidance and management from above.

Tweet This Post