Dan Erwin

A New Strategy for Predicting Work and Career Success

Predictions of success have always had a lot of cachet. Indeed, as a management consultant on numerous occasions my clients asked me to interview a team member for the sole reason of predicting success. It was usually framed as “How ambitious is this guy?” “Do you think she’s a quick study?” “What do you think about (insert any name) for that job?” A recent study of that question plowed some fascinating, fruitful new ground.

The research by Minbashian, Earl and Bright initially rehearses the bad news, information that’s been around for awhile. For the typical person, performance increases decelerated over time, plateaued at 2.93 years, and then started to decline thereafter.” I’ll add another statistic: major learning for most employees comes to an end approximately six years into their career. Entropy seems to be the more typical response to one’s career. And that’s not true merely of business professionals. Add lawyers, physicians and accountants to the same mix. Presumably, these findings reflect the effects of learning and changes in motivation that occur over time.

BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS. . .  this most recent research ignores performance capability and focuses on mind-sets that enhance long-term learning and the acquisition of new skills. That focus jives with what we know about Ericsson’s deliberate practice, Dweck’s mindsets and how to be brilliant. The researchers take one of the Big Five personality dimensions, openness to experience (the others are neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and study 228 recent university graduates in a single large Australian-based professional services company. The participants were studied over a four-year period, using feedback from their managers as well as the participants.

Research conclusions
The consultants in the sample accelerated their growth, learning much faster than typical business folk. And, inevitably, they also decelerated their learning much slower than most business people. The researchers suggested—rightly, I believe—that for these individuals, learning and acquisition of new knowledge and skills becomes a goal in itself, not simply performance. The researchers also suggest that work success patterns may only emerge over time. Since there are related studies, both supportive and critical, I’d like to see a bit of research replication to fully confirm the findings and add some how-to insights.

Can you generalize?
The sample consisted of consultants operating in a relatively complex environment that provided many opportunities for growth. The researchers suggested that the results may not generalize to businesspeople who work in less complex situations which provide less opportunity for growth. Still, today’s work contexts and workforce face an acceleration of project complexity, making the research highly useful.

The researchers did not look at the inherent disposition of people who go into consultancy in the first place. Many, if not most who go into the consulting field are inherently oriented to complex situations where there is the excitement of learning, change and opportunity.

How can you identify those open to newness?
Since this is early-stage research, there were no recommendations for identification of such employees, nor were there any suggestions for developing this potential.

Openness to new experience is usually understood to involve active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity. I believe that the over-arching text may well be curiosity.

One of the more intriguing findings was that “conscientiousness” was not related to long term performance. That’ll go against the grain of some managers.

Although the Big Five Personality Inventory and several other assessment instruments are available to assist in employee selection, it strikes me that people with the relevant behavior can be identified by a few well-placed questions. “We have a number of very stable work settings, as well others that involve a great deal of change and new learning. What is your preference for project work?” “Tell me some stories about the different challenges you’ve faced.” That’s a simple-minded format, but it is an important focus. The questions need to be framed in such a way that the respondent believes that his past performance is equally valuable. But in most settings, I’d trust the employee’s insights and documentation on openness to new experience more than his stories about performance. It is not as readily doctored.

Although the history of selection processes has inevitably focused on examining performance-personality issues at work, the study demonstrates that this more dynamic measure can be of great value. Furthermore, I believe, as noted above, that this kind of information is often more readily accessed than looking at past performance. But if there are conflicts between actual performance and openness to experience, that’s a heads-up for further conversation and analysis.

Flickr photo: by Skorlo

After Giving Tough Feedback, What's Next?

Getting the news that your performance is inadequate can be harsh and even alienating. Most managers know that they need to be thoughtful and even careful when delivering critical input to an employee. Indeed, there are numerous processes that enhance the critical feedback situation. Yet, few employees know how to accept and use feedback to their advantage. Often, the internal consequences for employees are not at all pretty.

Truly effective feedback is fundamentally developmental. In other words, the manager  focuses on the future far more than on the past. It’s also highly descriptive. What specific behaviors did you observe? Stay away from inferences and interpretations of motives. Boston University has an especially useful summary on the subject entitled, Giving Constructive Feedback.

What goes on inside the recipient?
Managers always hope that recipients know how to accept and use feedback. But for many all feedback, especially when unsolicited, is toxic. The internal responses vary. Some allow anger and defensiveness to cloud their understanding. Some allow their emotions to escalate. A minority of employees will respond with guilt and fear, reacting internally with shame. Some provide explanations which the manager usually dismisses as excuses. And if the feedback is negatively exaggerated, some will focus on all the feedback rather than just the information that can be helpful.

The consequences
What happens next all depends on the recipient. But the research reveals three responses. First, many will avoid their manager—often for up to two weeks. But even if the avoidance is limited, it’s also typical for the feedback recipient to be very cautious in passing on information to his manager. He filters the information and arranges it in such a way to make certain that the manager knows he heard the feedback and is doing something about it. That takes place in spite of the fact that often the recipient didn’t understand the feedback. So after feedback it’s not unusual for creativity, productivity and information flow to go south for a few days or weeks.

Furthermore, for all but the simplest of tasks, learning the correct actions typically requires some active search and processing about what will achieve the desired outcomes. And if the task is fairly complex, that increases the need for the person to explore the different impacts of actions. That’s a double bind. If the manager’s feedback amounts to handholding (highly specific, concrete and timely input) throughout the performance, you’ll get what you want—yet inhibit the learning. Alternatively, if you provide less frequent and specific feedback—no handholding—the result is often poorer practice, but better learning. That’s the result of the employees searching for action impacts.

What’s a manager to do?
In one word: reconnect. And go about it starting the next day. Look for some definite behaviors on which to give positive feedback. If she asks tough questions during a meeting, commend her for them. And use your smiley face on the person occasionally. Yeah, I know. You think she’ll view you as fake, but guess what? That rarely happens.

In your wandering about the office, you can also check in on personal matters.  “How was your son’s basketball game?” “Did your daughter hear back from her college application, yet?”

After giving tough feedback, the key issue is to be sure to connect with the employee and rebuild the relationship. Take action until you’re certain the employee is comfortable continuing the relationship with you.

Flickr photo: by Daniel Bachhuber

A Coach's Nightmare: When My Career Theory Is Wrong. Dead Wrong.

As a research-based consultant, I’m used to getting my ideas tweaked by new research. After all, I think of myself as a fairly flexible, open guy, so a small adjustment to my theories and ideas is usually illuminating. But unknown to Harvard’s Rosabeth Kanter, yesterday she took a Shillelagh, a big club to one of my big ideas. Her blog, Why running a family doesn’t help you run a business, knocked me back on my heels. And I yelled a silent Aaargh!, knowing full well that she was quite correct and I was quite wrong. So there, I admitted it Prof Kanter.

Kanter lays out her case with panache, acknowledging the conventional wisdom first. Here’s her argument:

In theory, those years of family work at home could look great on a resume. Consider the skills required: setting priorities, training others, organizing complex logistics and schedules, and using interpersonal sensitivity to handle difficult people problems. Indeed, some advocates have argued that the time women with advanced degrees spend out of the workplace managing a family is valuable experience for managing back in the paid work world.

I agree it is valuable experience — if the paid job one returns to involves managing a handful of people who are vulnerable and can't leave. Otherwise, the operating skills for family manager are nothing like the qualifications for workplace professionals.

Her reasoning and evidence that follows are flawless—and quite correct.

Suffice it to say, that I’ve taught the very opposite and spent time preaching to the choir of empty nest women wanting back into the workforce.

To err is human
Yet I’m certain that most of us go through life assuming and even insisting that we are right about everything. And that includes stuff from the origins of the universe to how to load the dishwasher. That’s why Moliere’s comment is spot on: It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I’m right.

But I’ve figured out why, primarily, I’ve wanted so badly to be right. It was all about my allegiances and the narratives I’d built around them.

WYSIATI
In his fascinating book, The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb introduces the idea of narrative fallacy to describe how flawed stories of the past shape our view of the world—and our expectations for the future. I have three daughters, all of whom were raised to be professionals just like their mother. Inevitably, as a father of smart daughters, I experienced male chauvinists who drove me nuts. After all, every father wants his best for his daughters, and their achievement was always tops in my priority list.

So, for instance, when my youngest was a high school freshman, I found myself in a teacher conference that raised my ire. Her male math teacher rather pointedly said, “Kris does very well in math, especially for a girl.” Knowing that her husband was about to become slightly volatile, my wife kicked me under the table, got my eye and essentially said (nonverbally) “cool it.” But you get the point. And so in later life, after having kids, they went back into the workforce rather successfully. Clearly, because of my family allegiances I got caught up in the narrative fallacy about mothers going back to work and began to preach it.

The narrative fallacy
The narrative fallacy is a decision error that most of us make largely because we are gripped by the illusion of understanding. As Daniel Kahneman explains them, they arise inevitably from our continuous attempt to make sense of the world. And inevitably also, the explanatory stories that people find compelling are simple: are concrete rather than abstract; assign a larger role to talent, stupidity , and intentions than to luck; and focus on a few striking events that happened rather than on the countless events that failed to happen.

Taleb clarifies the issue even more, suggesting that we humans constantly fool ourselves by constructing flimsy accounts of the past and believing they are true. The core of the illusion is that we believe we understand the past. That implies we should also know the future, but in fact we understand the past less than we believe we do. Thus WYSIATI: what you see is all there is. . . takes over in spades.

Resolving the narrative fallacy
I seriously doubt that any one of us will ever fully block our narrative fallacies, but there are a number of strategies we can take to limit their power over our lives.

The beginning place is a lot of stupid mindsets, rejected and reframed intelligently here by Daniel Kahneman:

• Our thinking is designed to jump to conclusions with little evidence.
• The world is far less predictable than we believe.
• Luck plays a much larger role than we believe.
• Because of WYSIATI, only the evidence at hand is questionable.
• The amount of evidence and its quality don’t count for much because poor evidence can make a very good story.
• Considering how very little we know about most situations, the confidence we have in our beliefs is preposterous.
• The notion that we’re essentially rational is no more than an economist’s pipe dream.

Blocking errors like the narrative fallacy is simple in principle: recognize the signs that you are in a cognitive minefield, slow down, and engage in controlled thinking that emphasizes facts, statistics and thinking about your thinking.

It’s a lot harder than we think. But much of the best decision making and learning consists of challenging old ideas and assumptions.

So, I should have asked what made me think that running a family helps in runnning a business? Why do I think that? What evidence supports that reasoning? What’s the quality of the data? How else can I look at the success of a few empty nesters returning to the workforce? And especially, what evidence rejects that reasoning?

Well. . . you get the point. So thanks, Rosabeth Kanter. I guess.

Flickr photo: ashishvosharma99

Big Data: The All-Important "Why" and "How"

Nearly 10,000 have visited my postings of two blogs on Big Data on a couple sites since January 17. There’s no question that big data is “hot” and that the business landscape is shaped by data more than ever before. Google’s Eric Schmidt tells us the world creates 5 exabytes of data every two days. That’s really big data. (FYI: Exabyte—Cisco says annual global IP traffic will reach two-thirds of a zettabyte or 667 exabytes in 2013).   But the real big data question is not how much, but so what?  

Recently, the Economist Intelligence Unit, with support from SAS Software, set out to answer that question.  They surveyed 752 senior executives from a broad range of sectors and countries. They also conducted in-depth interviews with 17 executives, consultants and specialists regarded as data pioneers. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the respondents had been working with big data for at least three years, and nearly one-half of the respondents said that their companies are well ahead of their peer firms and have a defined data strategy.

What’s significant about the results is that they are reflective of a growing consensus in the field of big data. The consensus research also confirms my blogs on the big data IT fumble and the data scientist as “sexiest career.” The summary highlights of the research are as follows:

The link between effective use of big data and financial performance is strong. Top performing companies, the so-called strategy data managers, process data more rapidly, see the rewards across all business disciplines, place a higher premium on data than their peers, collect more data from everywhere and use data more broadly across the business.

The survey suggests that there is a correlation between big data and financial performance. But a chief problem with all survey research is the omission or de-emphasis of other factors. The firms surveyed tended to be successful firms prior to the use of big data. It’s probable that the big data leverages other success factors.

Still, it’s arguable that big data is a highly significant competitive advantage. At this point in its development, firms without that expertise are liable to be left behind.

Well-defined data strategy is always the top priority, not collecting and processing information. One of the intriguing research bits is that 46% of executives from companies that significantly outperform their peers financially have a “well-defined” data strategy. Inevitably and always, the strategy should be based on key business priorities. The role of the data strategy, then, is to identify the problems the firm wants to solve. But the data component serves those priorities and, therefore, is developed afterwards.

Strategy is key: big data merely supports strategy.

Talent matters as much as technology. Research finds that executives need to ensure that analytic thinking is not confined to the It department. Especially valuable is a sidebar, “What’s in an algorithm?” detailing training that works with employees with little or no knowledge of data science, showing employees how to create a data plan that results in a series of business recommendations.  Yet, a close reading of the language of the research conclusion indicates the need for still more clarity on this issue.

As I emphasized in my blog, Big data: the IT fumble, the uses of big data emphasize that IT and data science are very different animals. Any observant employee is aware that when it comes to data or even the use of the term, data, the ship is listing way over to the side of IT. The lack of professional data scientists for the discipline makes the problem even more serious. Data scientists will need to understand the business as well as cognitive and behavioral sciences. One principal at Deloitte Consulting recommends that companies may need to search academic departments or consider sharing a data scientist. So it can’t be emphasized enough that people are at the heart of the discipline, not data.

The biggest gains from big data impact are in customer-facing areas. The report recommends that social media and web-tracking technologies are especially useful for collecting customer data. Loyalty cards and user-generated web content have already led to significant changes in retail and entertainment. Of course, consumer products companies have long used customer data supplied by information and measurement companies like Nielson. Thus, marketing and sales groups have built-in experience and history of using customer generated data, making analogies to web-data an easier reach for those firms.

Evidence of the use and advance of data is everywhere. As the report indicates, an ecosystem of data-focused companies is springing up and creating new businesses. Still further, analysts at the McKinsey Global Institute estimate that just one sector—the US healthcare industry—could create US$300bn in value annually if it used big data to drive efficiency and quality.

The “why” of big data is fairly obvious. It’s the “how” that creates and will continue to create frustration, while at the same time creating significant business success. That’s typical of an evolving discipline.

Flickr photo: by Laura ATL

The Six Key Competencies for Career Success in the 21st Century

Dissect America’s corporate strategies and needs throughout the past 12 years, sort through the business-related research and anecdotal material, engage executives and entry-level employees, study the best journals and books, engage the top consulting firms and storied business school faculty and you’ll find a phenomenal consensus on the needed competencies for career success. Though these competencies are oriented to parents and college students, they also provide a relevant perspective on learning and career pathing for those already in the workforce.

 

Reduced to the most basic elements, here’s the list of key competencies: 

1.    A technology background or related expertise in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) majors. You want to major in a liberal arts program outside those technologies? Excellent, but make sure you get four to six STEM courses. (Major in sociology, but add statistics, computer science, etc. Or, major in English lit, dance, German studies, or archaeology, but pick up some STEM background along the way.)

The actual value of the STEM competencies is that they provide the primary means for innovation for both business as well as the nation. They are our ultimate competitive advantage in the global marketplace. In short, without a robust STEM workforce, we will become less competitive in the global economy. However, without the broadly educated liberal arts grads, including those with liberal arts STEM majors—not mere technicians--we lose much of the creativity and intuition crucial in the workplace where fuzzy issues and dense problems, clashes of ideas and deep-seated ambiguities are the status quo.     

 2.    Complex thinking and problem solving. If the faculty in your college major is half-way decent, the subtext, often unstated, is that your major discipline works on the basis of a specific set of cognitive models. My undergrad history major forced me to think big picture, look closely at data and analyze potential causes underlying historical events. Applied to business, I found myself with superb analytical, tactical, cause-effect and strategic competencies. Translated into business categories, here is what one English major learned. In the global marketplace, however, these are merely foundational competencies. You’re going to have to constantly build upon thinking skills. That will include the ability to evaluate evidence, to see patterns in recurring problems, to draw adequate inferences and conclusions, to think metacognitively and to use relevant vocabulary.

3.    Written and oral communication. The demand for communication competencies in the 21^st century profoundly outpaces that of the last century. It’s not merely the multi-lingual nature of a diverse global world or the emphasis upon service economies and face-to-face relations. At bottom it’s the flattened hierarchies with individual responsibilities for every person. Thus, success now requires the ability to use communication to bridge gaps between interdependent groups, to build and use networking intelligence, manage relationships, and create a motivational environment that will inspire the cooperation and contribution of others.    

In this new economy, the majority of more experienced, older workers struggle to communicate effectively. But Gen-Yers seem to have special needs at this point. As a warning, Arthur Levine, former president of the Columbia Teacher’s College and now president of The Woodrow Wilson Foundation, puts it this way: This generation is not very good at face-to-face relationships. The image that comes to mind is two students, sitting in the room they share, angrily texting each other, but not talking. They all want to have intimate relationships, they want to get married and have kids, but that’s hard to do if you don’t know how to talk with another person.

4.    Adaptability, which includes the abilities to respond to and manage change, and know how to learn. Few companies have a career ladder and few careers are linear. Instead, employees will need to adapt to a market which is a dynamic, evolving system in which the further you try to assess the future, the more difficult it is to predict the outcomes. At its heart, adaptability is about the skills of change. It implies the ability to get from where you are now to where you want to go--and along the way, deal competently with the miserable middle between now and then. It also implies focus, constant learning and political smarts.

Adaptability is built upon the recognition that our world never stays the same, that dynamic change, not stability and permanence, is constant. Adaptable people understand that experience and work are chaotic, fragmentary, deviate from cherished values and is given to imponderable ambiguity. Adaptation, itself, comes out of encounters with novelty that may seem chaotic. In trying to adapt, we often have to deviate from cherished values, behave in ways that we’ve barely glimpsed and seize on clues that are merely fragmentary.

5.    Creativity. Most people tend to think of creativity as beautiful designs such as great art, architectural masterpieces or the Apple iPad. The fact of the matter is that though business always needs creative masterpieces, business needs far more creativity and innovation in mobilizing talent, allocating resources, developing processes and building strategies.

 But the most important fact about creativity is that at its heart it is a highly collaborative enterprise, not the lone genius in his/her workroom. The unifying idea about creativity, which debunks a mile-high stack of creativity myths, is that even seemingly solitary artistic pursuits involve improvisation, collaboration and communication. The surprising reminder for many is that nothing is perceived to be creative unless people can communicate that insight to others. One of the more fascinating insights I gained from consulting at 3M, one of America’s greatest creative firms, is that a creative team often searches for others who can communicate the value of their creation. Otherwise, their work is dead in the water. Surprisingly, the keys to creativity are going to be collaboration and communication, making this competency available to anybody who’s willing. Once more: the eccentric, lone genius is the exception, not the rule.

6.    Entrepreneurialism. The first thing most think about this subject is of a business person who builds a business from scratch. That’s merely one very minor reflection of an entrepreneurial, adventuresome spirit. A more generic perspective of entrepreneurialism includes the ability to take initiative and risks in order to put new ideas into play. In short, it’s finding useful and/or profitable solutions to problems. Furthermore, in today’s world the entrepreneurial person regularly rebuilds his job and career in order to adapt to business needs or change jobs.

Entrepreneurialism is tightly related to creativity, especially to its communication side. A study by Hargadon and Sutton showed that the entrepreneurial process was remarkably similar across all companies. It included the ability to capture good ideas, keep the ideas alive, imagine new uses for old ideas, and put promising concepts to the test. One of the fascinating things we know about entrepreneurs is that they are good “noticers.” The Wall Street Journal’s Shellenbarger, for example, writes that entrepreneurs notice “unmet needs and ways to fulfill them.”

What’s most obvious about this new competency set is that a high school degree gets you nowhere, that a bachelor’s is merely foundational and that success in the new economy will require constant learning and growth. Initially, you might think the academic portion of these demands to be a bit much. I’ve found that a typical liberal arts bachelor’s degree, requirements, major and all, provides space for meeting these basic expectations. However you read this blog, don’t miss the point that these competencies form the backdrop, indeed, the new normal for career success. So, go on about the business of acquiring and honing these skills, regardless of where you are in your career.

Flickr photo: city college

"The Luck Factor"

Almost 25% of company founders and business-builders believe that luck is a major factor in their success.  What’s most surprising is that people generate their own luck. But lucky charms, amulets or knocking on wood won’t do it.

Richard Wiseman, the British psychologist, has studied luck from a scientific perspective, learning that it is not strictly random. Wiseman finds that lucky people tend to be more skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, they listen (pay attention) to their intuitive ideas, use positive expectations and work hard to make lemonade out of lemons. They take a resilient attitude toward life. If you know your psych, you recognize that there are a lot of spin-offs from empirical research built into his “luck factor theory,” beginning with the extensive research on the personal impact of positive attitudes.

In addition, Wiseman finds that unlucky people are generally much more tense and anxious than lucky people, and research has shown that anxiety disrupts people’s ability to notice.  On top of that, those same unlucky people shy away from the very change and variety that would add to the potential for good fortune.

In sum, Wiseman concludes that the differences between the lucky and unlucky people are striking. Lucky people tend to imagine spontaneously how the bad luck they encounter could have been worse and, in doing so, they feel much better about themselves and their lives. This, in turn, helps keep their expectations about the future high, and, increases the likelihood of them continuing to live a lucky life.

The new role of luck
Luck—or even better, serendipity--that aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident, assumes a far more important role in this new economy. In the fascinating new book, The Power of Pull, by John Hagel III, John Seely Brown, and Lang Davison, the authors emphasize the role and importance of serendipity. They define it as the ability to find people and the knowledge they carry with them. In today’s world, where you don’t even know what you’re looking for, finding and attracting knowledge people is key.

Why is this so important? As Pull puts it, when we dive below the surface of events that get so much attention—from both journalists and bloggers—we find that our foundations are constantly shifting. For most of us there is an enormous distance between where we are today and where we’ll need to be in order to fully take advantage of changing opportunities. Not only do we have to keep our eye on the ball—that long-term directional focus—but we all have to amplify our own efforts with the resources of others.

Think about it: if you’re exploring new sets of problems, new territories—what Hagel and buddies call an “edge,” it’s always very, very helpful to learn from the experiences of others. Luck, what I like to think of as “serendipitous encounters,” is not only the best way to gain insight and resolutions, but often the only way to gain those insights. Indeed, as I reflect on those “lucky encounters,” I celebrate my good fortune in the richness, insight and even the blessing they’ve brought to my life and profession.

Creating your own serendipity
In “Pull” the authors argue strongly and wisely for the “shaping” of serendipity rather than treating it as merely a matter of chance. They talk about our all-too-common experiences of needing to know, but not needing to know what you need, and what really exists, much less how to find it or whom. MIT’s Sherry Turkle adds that as a result of internet search engines, fewer and fewer of us really know how to engage in search outside of Googling the internet and using its other search engines. Because the internet completely manages search processes for us, knowledge of those processes has gone the way of the Dodo bird, profoundly limiting resources beyond the internet. Indeed, there seems to be little understanding, for example, that ideational and personal search tends to flow in significantly evolutionary and haphazard formats and that those processes can be manipulated for both ideas and people. Those who grew up, trained in library skills, would understand the processes. But what Hagel and colleagues do for us is a huge updating and revision of the 20^th century environments, knowledge and skills for the 21^st century.

Serenditipitous environments
Pull suggests five environments for enhancing serendipity.

• Geographic spikes—more people live in large urban centers than in any other part of the globe. Different cities offer a wealth of options, providing gathering places for increasing the probability of serendipitous encounters. Most of us think automatically of Silicon Valley for software or Los Angeles for producers and directors. One of my friends is interested in the future applications of technology to food resources and has located in the Twin Cities precisely because of UMN and the many food industries and resources in that area.
• Conferences—These “moving circuses” are especially useful because participants have self-filtered. They provide opportunities for meeting people with information, making possible likely serendipity.
• Online social networks—Virtual environments provide plenty of potential for shaping serendipity. Admittedly, as these environments grow there is potential for low-productivity encounters. Still, choosing the social platforms of interest can provide insight into which initial contacts to pursue.   
• Connection platforms—these platforms help people connect around needs. Open-source software sites such as SAP’s Developer Network are one kind. But eBay and Amazon provide another kind of network. For example, I’ve picked up a couple exceptional contacts simply by reading Amazon’s reviews on a niche book.
• Institutions—Many institutions develop conference strategies, providing options for contacts with people of similar interests. Universities, major industries and large corporations, as well as national conference planners all fit into this category.

Serendipity (luck) comes to those who. . . . know where and how to shape it.  As the authors put it, to get better faster at whatever it is you do, you’ve got to be supported by a broad array of complementary people and resources from which you can pull what you need to raise your rate of performance improvement. And what are the competencies you’ll need to achieve that? Well, that’s for another blog.

Hagel, John III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison, The Power of Pull: How small moves, smartly made can set big things in motion. (New York: Basic Books), 2010.
See especially: John Hagel's blog, The Edge
Turkle, Sherry, Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. (New York: Basic Books), 2011.
Wiseman, Richard, The Luck Factor. The skeptical inquirer, May/June 2003.
Flickr photo: tim geers

A Paradigm Shift in Human Resource Management

I’ve been dreaming about the issues David Ulrich and colleagues’ new book, HR from the Outside In, deals with since the 1990s. Until this book came out, the ruling gods of Human Resources were recruiting, training, benefits and supporting the business. The obvious consequences were that HR managers and execs had no seat at the table, didn’t understand the firm’s business and acted passively around line managers and execs. The more serious consequences were that HR failed to center on the goals of the business and contribute significantly to business performance.

HR from the Outside In offers a radically different orientation to Human Resources, reframing the whole game and resolving issues I’ve faced in both small and large companies all over the nation. Ulrich argues that “aligned, innovative, and integrated HR practices make a dramatic difference in individual and organizational performance.” That’s a mouthful, and you’ll need to work through the book to fully understand the importance of what he’s saying. What’s unique about the book is its emphasis upon a new HR mindset that starts with the external context in which the business operates and the goals of that business--not internal disciplines and technologies. To achieve these objectives, the authors focus upon personal effectiveness and the relevant knowledge for both HR professionals and departments to improve business success. 

In a book such as this, where a major shift in a discipline is proposed, the authors need to provide a rationale for their thinking. And so their first chapter is largely devoted to this changing external context which justifies their shift in the discipline. The writers think of their rationale as “trends,” enumerating six ever-changing issues which drive their research and conclusions: society, technology, economics, politics, environment and demographics. In the following chapters, they show how different companies around the world emphasize HR and deal successfully with local and national issues relating to their “trends.”

Their goal is straightforward, as the authors lay out plainly in three statements: determine what HR pros should be and do to be seen as personally effective, what pros should be know and do to improve business success, and what they should focus upon to improve business performance.

As a result and in order to achieve this objective, the authors lay out six (extensive) competencies for the future of human resources. They include such domains as credible activist, capability builder, change champion and tech proponent. The most important focus, the foundational objective of the book,  is the chapter about the strategic positioner: HR professionals who facilitate business strategy through their objectives and practices. Although the authors provide ways for getting at business strategy and applying it to HR, the most useful and unique means for getting at strategy issues is found in the chapter on building capabilities. There, the authors detail an approach that takes the strategic emphasis seriously, and walks the reader through a six step process for aligning HR practices:

• Business: where will we do a strategic HR linkage?
• Environment: What are the business trends?
• Strategy: What are the strategic drivers for the business?
• HR investment: What are hr priorities?
• Action plans: Who will do what, when, where and how?
• Measures or metrics: How will we measure progress?

In our tumultuous times, HR has a significant contribution to make to the success of businesses, a perspective not readily understood or even shared by many outside the field. Indeed, HR from the Outside In offers a highly transformative process, fit for today’s business world. Thus, this book deserves to be on the shelf of every practitioner and put into daily practice.

Dave Ulrich, et al, HR from the Outside In. (New York: McGraw Hill), 2012.
Flickr photo by Sean MacEntee

Clients to Avoid--Or Remake

The phone rings—with a potential client on the line telling you he’s interested in your services. And, he’d like you come in and make a presentation. Beware! There’s a high possibility if you’re a consultant or sales rep you’re going to be disappointed. Very disappointed.

As often as not, the client has already made a decision and he wants to use you to confirm the decision he’s already made. You’ll be giving away your time, your planning, your intellectual software--and walk away frustrated by the fact that you’ve been used.

One frustrating learning experience
Quite a few years ago, one of my long-term clients told me that his boss--a person he just happened to have little respect for--had asked about my coaching services and been given my name. Shortly afterward, I got a phone call from the VP, asking me to come in and talk about my services. I walked into a conference room with him, and a few minutes later, in came his director of human resources. She immediately sat down and asked about my services, my coaching processes, my success/failure rates, telling me also specifically what “I needed to know.”  

Being quite gullible at the time, I shared proprietary information and spent an hour answering her questions and listening to her analysis of the situation. As the meeting closed, the VP said he’d get back to me. A few days later the HR director called, saying she’d decided to work with another firm. The job was wired and I’d been screwed. It was obvious that I was used to confirm a previous decision.

I’ve learned a number of things from such experiences. For example, if a person tells me exactly what he wants without my analysis and input into the situation, there’s a high possibility he doesn’t know what the hell he really needs. Furthermore, if he knows exactly how I should go about the job, that’s another red flag. And if a client wants to know specifically and immediately how you’re going to solve the problem, there’s a high potential that you were brought in solely to gain free ideas for confirmation of decisions already made. All of these situations mean that there’s little possibility of a job--and that you’re being used.

Avoiding customers not ready to buy  
As a result of these experiences, I’ve taken a number of steps to make certain that I never fall for them. Here are my strategies:

• Do a brief interview of the customer on the phone. Take the time then and there to start assessing the potential of the situation. Ask questions and get the person to detail his needs and objectives. Even ask who else he’s talked with about the service you offer. Pay close attention to how the client prioritizes his need. It can be a very long time from contact to contract. Depending on the size of the potential contract, the conversation may not be worth your time.  
• Tell them you charge for the interview. Sometimes you’ll get a monetary offer for an interview without asking. Recently a marketing firm wanted to talk with me over the phone about a number of issues regarding senior clients, promising a $50,000 job with one of their customers and offering me $200 for my hour-and-a-half conversation. I knew very well that the promise of a contract is worthless, but I said I’d think about it. So they sent me a list of the information they wanted. I turned them down flat. The manager called me back, asking if I’d give them an hour for $200 and help them analyze a proposal they were making. First of all, I told them, I don’t work for $200 an hour and secondly, what you’re asking for is exceedingly valuable information. So unless you’re willing to sweeten the pot, thanks, but no thanks.

 Problem solving for clients in an interview inevitably involves my proprietary, intellectual software. Let the client know he’ll be charged up front for the interview. Physicians do it all the time. Unless the client is one with which you’ve had a long-term working relationship, up front charges are fair game. I’ve never had that expectation dashed. Furthermore, the surprising consequence is that the majority of the 20 to 25 times in which I made the demand, I also received the job. I think, without looking at related research, that most business people appreciate a consultant who knows what he’s worth and will agree to the contract without discussion.

• Briefly discuss the client objectives and talk about tentative parameters before you commit to a presentation.
  You may find it useful to talk about tentative solutions and objectives. But be certain the client understands they’re tentative.
• Be ready to undo the client’s decisions
  Very often clients think they know what they need. However, you should always approach the first meeting as an opportunity to remake the client’s problem, solution and even objectives rather than merely respond to them. You’re brought into a situation because you have a product or service that a client needs and can’t handle with his staff. By seeking to undo the decisions the client has already made, you will find needs the client may be unaware of—and, of course, offer solutions you can provide.
• Plan for contractual revisions.
  In some situations, the client will definitely want your services, but won’t like the intitial proposal. You may need to make several revisions, plan for several meetings and do quite a bit of joint thinking before you and your client reach agreement. Again, make certain that your client understands that an interview fee will be paid up front separately, and/or be included in the final contract.
• Be ready to walk away. Don’t be a wuss. If the conversation has gone nowhere by 30 minutes, get up and walk away. Otherwise you’re going to be the loser.

 The more proactive your approach to the client’s phone call, the better the results for you. The passive consultant or sales rep who permits the client to make the bulk of the decisions, will find himself on the short end of the stick. You want seriously relevant information before you get into a decision mode. Clients who are resistant to these approaches are not worth your time. I’m aware that a great number of consultants, even sales reps, might find some of these protective steps gutsy. However, they’re quite realistic and very much to your advantage.

Flickr photo: by angusmci

It's Still Not What You Know, But Who You Know

“Even in a digital age, word of mouth is the best way to find a job,” says Businessweek's Chris Farrell in the June 18 issue. That's still true for recent grads. I’ve been thinking for some time that I was wrong-headedly beating a dead horse on the issue of face-to-face networking. Especially with the all-present digital networking buzz. Turns out, says the research, I wasn’t off the mark.

The online networks are trying to replicate the word-of-mouth, face-to-face networking. But with limited success. A large body of research reveals that 50% or more of all new jobs are gotten through informal channels such as family or friends. And that’s still true today. Indeed, even Charles Purdy, the senior editor at Monster Worldwide, reinforces the fact that “Hiring has always been based on reputation and who you know.” 

Social networking tools, says Chris Farrell, allow people to build up a network. Ummmm. Not quite. What Farrell and many others fail to emphasize is that the ultimate key to success is a high quality network. The potential for a high quality network built solely on the web is seriously limited. 

Really effective networks provide information about jobs, work, organizational culture and useful company contacts. McKinsey’s James Manyika says that for recent grads, a quality informational network is difficult to come by. And as Wharton’s Peter Capelli has emphasized, employers control everything about the process. “They define the job, they create the requirements for the job, then they decide how the word gets out to people, recruiting-wise. They set the rate of pay, which helps determine how the attractive the job is, and then they handle the selection part where they look at the applicants and sort them out.” That makes for very poor odds unless you’ve got an internal company contact or just happen to be the purple squirrel a company is looking for.

On top of all that, the recent study by Capelli emphasizes that the hiring software really sucks. And further, companies tend to be looking for someone who has the exact experience they’re looking for—the so-called purple squirrel. That’s a very unique person. This means that you’re going to have to figure out how to get around the hiring software. So the best advice is to see whether you can get to a real person where you can make the case about why you’re the employee they’re looking for. Of course, once again, you need that quality contact or two.

Who you know: the “quality contact”
One route to the quality contact is through internships. It’s new and even tough for students to be thinking about internships early in their college career, but using summers for those internships is one route to quality contacts. Strategic thinking about an internship is a must. If at all possible, it’s important to intern at medium and larger firms with people in the know. Make certain you do your best and get to know the knowledgeable folk.

The second route is often overlooked: temp jobs. Temporary grunt jobs at middle-sized or major corporations can help with your finances, but also provide contacts who can recommend you based on your observed performance. Temp firms also provide a great deal of free training, what other companies are less willing to do. More and more, people who’ve been out of work for a long period of time are finding that temp jobs can offer a lot more than a few bucks: training and contacts.

The third route to quality contact is through volunteer work with strategic non-profits. Non-profits are always looking for free helpers. Non-profits inevitably have a few people in the know in the work community. They’re good for contacts—if you’ve performed well for the firm.

My little network secret
Few seem to be aware that the best networked folk are non-profit fundraisers. If a fundraiser has been in the business for a few years, she or he knows everybody of substance. "They know somebody who knows somebody."  But you’ll probably need a good contact to get to that fundraiser. They’re going to be very cautious about recommending someone.

Networking rule number one
Networking is all about giving, not getting. So before you start making those contacts, figure out what you can bring to that person. That’ll require some creative thinking and the insights of experienced folk. But you’re not going to get very much help unless you’ve got something to give. Networks are like banks: You can’t withdraw unless you’ve made some deposits.

But keep this on the front lobe: It's not what you know, but who you know.

Flickr photo: malbordesign

Recent College Grads: The Revolving Door and Parent Support

A survey of Generation-I, four year college grads between 22 and 26 years old, finds that they have little professional or geographic staying power. The study, fielded by Braun Research and funded by Adecco Group, was a telephone survey of 507 recent college grads. 

There’s plenty of research surrounding the validity of self-reporting, indicating that it is only moderately trustworthy. Still, a nationwide survey like this, can serve as a “pointer.” 

Intriguing findings:

Only 3% of recent grads said they’d expect to stay at any given job for more than five years. A job offer with higher pay, from a dream company or in a dream city would result in a move for more than 50% of grads. (I’ve always recommended that staying in the same job more than 3 years is nonsense and usually unwise. So I’d want to know what the survey meant when grads were quizzed about staying at any “given job.”) 

A striking 91% of recent would only continue working at a job they didn’t like for up to a year. In fact, 1 in 5 would only stay for three months before leaving a job they didn’t like. Salary, benefit and perk cuts, along with work that doesn’t fit their interests are killer reasons for these stats. 

Recent grads expect to stay connected to personal life—even at work. Certain activities will prevent grads from taking a job that they might be otherwise interested in. The list of important connections is highly reflective of the technology bent of the generation.

• 23% wouldn’t stay if personal phone calls are prohibited.
• 20% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted to check personal emails.
• 15% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted texting.
• 12% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted to visit social media websites.

Nearly 30% of recent grads report that their parents are in some way involved in their job search process—and in some cases, very involved.

• 13% use parents’ personal network.
• 11% parents locate job listings for grads
• 9% parents rehearse job interview.
• 8% parents forward resume or cover letters for grads. 

More than half of recent grads report that parents help pay living expenses. The assistance is significant.

• 32% of parents help with cell phone expense.
• 21% of parents help with food.
• 20% of parents help with health insurance.
• 17% of parents help with rent.
• 17% of parents help with utilities.
• 13% of parents help with student loans.
• 12% of parents help with transportation. 

Students who graduate from college and are in that 22 to 26 year-old group are a very select group. It suggests that parents are very supportive of a huge proportion of college grads. I’m curious to know what you think about these statistics?

Flickr photo: U Chicago graduation