Close your eyes and imagine this scene. You are walking home. It is late March and spring is in the air. The sun is high, despite being almost 5 pm. As you turn around the corner, you see a guy who is loading a massive armchair onto his truck. He managed to lift one corner and now is desperately trying to push it further in, but it looks as though one of the legs got stuck. As you approach him, he looks at you, smiles and asks: "Hey, I am so sorry, it seems that I overestimated my abilities. I can't do it, would you be able to help me, please. If only I can get this other leg further in..." What would you do? I guess, like most of us, you will help the poor fellow, perhaps quietly thinking how awful this piece of furniture is. Still, in a couple of seconds, it will be over. He will smile and say thank you so much. And you will say, no worries, and be on your way home. 

Now, let's imagine another scenario, and in it, the same guy again struggles with the armchair, he looks at you and asks: “Hey, listen, I will give you a dollar if you help me load this, what you say?” Well, what would you say? There is a chance that you will walk by, shake your head and perhaps add a could a couple of invectives, which I am not going to write here.

Why so much difference? Same scene, same people and the same, ugly looking, brownish armchair. The monetary offer changed everything. In the first scene, it was purely social. Someone needed help and help was offered—no expectations for the return of the favour. It was reasonable, and we all do things like that all the time. 

In the second scenario, the introduction of the payment changed the outcome. What if instead of a buck, the guy offers you a hundred dollars? Would you do it for a hundred bucks? You bet you would! So, you can do it for free, or for a more considerable sum, but two bucks will not be enough to make you put your bag on the pavement and lift the hanging furniture? It's actually quite complicated. Social norms and market norms do not mix well, and when they do, people often get upset. What is normal for a monetary exchange is not healthy when you apply social standards to the same transaction. 

Let's leave this quiet street and hope that someone appears to help our guy loading his truck and turn into Ibbaka Talent platform street. It's a lovely street paved with many skills - the building blocks at the lowest level of the platform. The platform itself consists of Skill Profiles and Competency Models. Both sides connect at various touchpoints. 

Skill Profiles help you understand and organize your skills, and one of the key actions is the ability to self-rate each skill. We have prepared a five-level scale. However, it is possible to apply a custom scale for the skill rating process. Once you self-rate skills, you can ask people to assess your selection. To confirm your choice, or not. In return, you will do the same - people who are part of the same team or working on the same project are invited to cross-assess each other's skills. It is a social thing - one may expect that if I help you, you will help me. But, since it is all private and nobody will be able to tell all the details—Ibbaka Talent hides SkillRank™, or the score results until there are enough to make it impossible to connect the assessment to a team member—peer review falls into the realm of social norms.

What about manager review? Is it still social or not? After all, it's manager and managers are responsible for promotions, pay raise, acknowledgments and generally things directly related to your career. Is it still social, or with manager assessment, we move into something more like market norms? And if we do, what measures are applied to limit the exposure of these two? To begin, manager assessment becomes part of SkillRank™. There is no separation in the eyes of individual users. Is a manager rating more important than a peer rating? It depends. For instance, a peer with higher expertise, let's say a guru designation on any given skill, will carry more weight than a manager with only a solid rank. There are more variables - the number of teams or projects connected to a skill or number of raters. The algorithm responsible for the SkillRank™ pulls data from many sources.

Work is not only a source of income - for many, it is also a source of pride, motivation and self-realization. It becomes apparent when we met someone while travelling or by chance. People will not share right away information about their pets, their apartment, or what they are passionate about. They will, however, discuss their work without holding back. What we do is pretty important. Even more important is who we are working with, our team, our company. The company initiates the ties between employees, but then, a large part of interactions move to the social sphere. This social aspect of work is critical - it is responsible for engaging employees on a much higher level, and supporting each other through the skill assessment makes a win-win scenario possible—a win for individual and a win for a company.

Do you want to learn more about Ibbaka Platform? Click the link below, and we will be happy to setup a demo for you.