In the new movie Moneyball, the art of sabermetricstakes center stage, as this real-life saga of Billy Beane and theOakland A's unfolds. Sabermetrics is the analysis ofbaseball through objective, empirical evidence, especially baseballstatistics that measure in-game activity rather than industryactivity, such as attendance. By focusing on actualcontribution to a team, use of this formula theoretically enablesteams to hire undervalued players, in turn bringing salaries inline with affordability.

In Moneyball, author Michael Lewis examines thedisparities between big market teams, such as the New York Yankees,who can fund a roster of big name, high-paid, free agents, andsmall market teams struggling to fill the stands. A primeexample was the 2002 season, where the Yankees had apayroll of $126 million, and the A's had a payroll of about $40million. Despite the disparity, the two teams tied for the bestrecord in baseball, each winning 103 games, though both lost in theplayoffs. The A's, as it happened, lost to the small-market Twins,who paid their players just an iota more than Oakland.

Salary Evaluation

In any industry, sports or otherwise, there are invariablybig-name players and those trying to make a name forthemselves. In any organization, salaries are a large part ofoperational budgets, often exceeding the 50-percent mark in termsof capital outlay. So it makes perfect sense to evaluatesalaries, provided there is no detrimental impact to quality oroutcomes. As I discuss in Re-Adjusted: 20Essential Rules To Take Your Claims Organization From Ordinary ToExtraordinary, the quality of a claims staff is often drivenby far more than just salary. In thisweek's expose, we will discuss what steps can be taken to puttogether the winning team.

In addition to compensation, we will examine the followingkey characteristics of the successful team:

1. Passion

2. Attitude

3. Intuition

4. Innovation

Like the new film starring Brad Pitt, concepts similarto sabermetrics can be applied to any profession, includingclaims. By using objective evidence, it is possible toselectively identify the characteristics of “A” players, “B”players and “C” players, with the latter being the greatestimpediment to success.

As basketball coaching great John Wooden once said, “I'd ratherhave a lot of talent and a little experience than a little talentand a lot of experience.” In translating this during my own careerwhen challenged with growing a claims organization, I found thathiring talent with little experience provided a wealth ofopportunities to train, develop, and motivate a pool of employeesto consistently exceed expectations.

This can be equated with using the draft as opposed to a freeagent acquisition. Like any organization, there is a time anda place for the latter, but when looking for consistent, long-termresults, there is no substitute to effectively using the draftmodel.

In my experience, there was initial resistance from a hierarchythat was accustomed to hiring experience in lieu of absorbingtraining costs. After all, why train a talented individual togo work for someone else? Then again, what better way toprovide young talent with an internal path to long-term careeropportunities than building bench strength and having a strongsuccession plan in place?

When applying sabermetrics to claims, there are a fewconsiderations. First, consider that an organization's rostermay be composed of 20 percent “A” players; 60 percent “B” players;and 20 percent “C” players. Second, recognize that 80 percentof organizational challenges—such as delays, excuses, absenteeism,and lack of compliance—will come from the latter. Third, it is worth noting that the largest poolof people, the B team, will either move up or down, depending onstrength of leadership.

Don't Mistake Judgments for Results

One key fundamental of sabermetrics is to not mistake judgmentsfor results. A judgment would dictate that a two-year claimprofessional cannot be an effective manager. A result wouldreflect that a two-year claim professional that moved intomanagement most likely had a work group that consistently exceededexpectations. This is a key fundamental difference.

This is not to say that there aren't “A” players with extensivetenure; there are. However, what it does reinforce is thattenure should never be the sole determiner of quality. Rather,the effective organizational model moves away from tenure; itfocuses on the quality of the individual and his or her ability todeliver consistent results.

So how does one determine whether a person has thosequalities? In some organizations, personality testing isused. There is no question that this can be beneficial inclaims where it clearly takes a certain type of person to besuccessful. For those who have spent time in the trenches, beit in the field or in management, there is a ubiquitous recognitionthat claims is not for everyone. Nor should just anyone beconsidered for this type of career.

When not using external testing, consider all of the qualitiesthat the person brings to the table. What is hisbackground? Has he worked in chaotic environments, requiringsnap decisions? Has she attended big, bureaucratic schoolswhere simply changing classes could be an exercise infutility? Has he been forced to multi-task and think outsidethe box in environments where exceeding customer expectations is arequirement for job continuity? Has the candidate had directinteraction with, and influenced decision makers?

These are just a few of many questions that should be asked whenlooking to develop a team built for success. It is important toremember that failure is not fatal, but failure to change very wellmight be. It is the little things that make the bold goalsattainable. It is this level of focus from above that canfundamentally transform any team from ordinary toextraordinary.