The Squash League

During my younger and fitter days I played squash. My club had a squash league which most of the players joined – whether they were county standard or huff-and-puff standard like me. The fact that most people participated, and enjoyed the leagues, was a testament to how important measurement was to us all. We WANTED to know how good or bad we were. We NEEDED the motivation of playing better players and winning games against our peers. We CRAVED the practice that would make us better.

Such enthusiasm is in marked contrast to how most of us perceive measurement and keeping score in a work situation. So what’s the difference?

Firstly, the squash leagues were designed to measure like with like. If you got put in a league that was too difficult you lost games and slid down the leagues until you found your level. Equally good players rose through the leagues until they found worthy opponents. I never had to be humiliated by playing county players and they never had to waste their time while I repeatedly ran to the corners to fetch the ball. We compared ourselves against similar standards. This is important. If we want measurement to be effective at work we have to be careful how we compare measures. A salesperson working in a complex and difficult market would be best compared to others in a similar situation, whether internal or external to the organisation. Comparing her to someone working in a boom market isn’t going to produce good results; more likely cause resentment and be de-motivating. Whereas comparing people in the same division, or selling the same product, or if the section is large organising results by “leagues” can create positive competition. I’ve seen this work well and badly in large organisations.

The second difference is the way the scores are used. In my squash club I was accepted as a member by good, bad and indifferent players alike. There was healthy competition and encouragement to improve through coaching and “club nights.” Club nights put players of all abilities together so better players could help weaker players. It was done in a spirit of fun, learning and mutual cooperation. Beginners, older players and plain lousy players were accepted just as much as the stars.

Thirdly, there was no blame culture. No one got reprimanded for losing a game. No one got taken aside because they had lost 6 games in succession. No one was ever asked to leave the club because their volleying was too poor. As a result we all participated enthusiastically and eagerly awaited the results of each league reshuffle.

So how can this be replicated at work?

Working hard to engender a no-blame culture is important. If measurement is used as a rod to beat people with, there should be no surprises when it isn’t embraced enthusiastically. Creating a learning environment is also important. If we wanted to climb the leagues, we invested in coaching and hours of practice.

Measurement pointed out the difference between our aspirations and actuality – and work is no different. Improvement comes through taking appropriate actions, such as training, coaching, or doing more of something.

I hate to think where I might be in the squash leagues now – even if I could find my old racquet. But the lesson in improvement and measurement is useful, and doesn’t require nearly so much huff and puff!