Trying to See the Future

We are always planning -  people, teams, organizations all spending lots of time looking ahead, trying to figure out what the future holds for themselves, their projects, and their enterprises.

I recently read an excellent list of the four different approaches that people and organizations take when it comes to assessing what the future may hold, the abridged version is something like this:

1. The future is pretty mysterious and kind of scary.  Let's just see what happens and hope things turn out all right. Besides, we have been pretty successful for a long time doing things the way we do them. We can react if things do really change.
2. We think about the future, sit down and to make some plans about what the future may hold, but conclude that the future (at least for us) looks mostly like the present, and our current strategies, plans, and processes should be just fine. We really don't seriously consider any alternatives to our 'tomorrow looks like today' conclusion.
3. We realize that the future will look quite a bit unlike the present, but what that actually means for us we are not sure.  So we create numerous different scenarios, and develop some strategies for managing for each scenario.  It would be great if we could know more precisely which scenarios are most likely to occur, but we really don't know.
4. We don't want to wait for the future to happen to us, we will design strategies and take actions to actively shape our future.  We will proactively create the environment that will give us the best chance for success.

The original list was written in the context of organizational innovation centered around actual product and service offerings, and how firms' approach to planning for the future affects their ability to innovate.

But I think these same 'future views' are also found in organizations approach to developing their workforce strategies as well.  Think about how these play out in a workforce or talent management context:

1. Future is scary, no real plan to change strategy

This will only work provided all of the following scenarios pan out:

There will be no material change in the competitive environment for the organization's talent.  The demand for and the supply of talent will be more or less constant.  No external factors (demographics, regulatory, new entrants to the market) will significantly alter the current state.  People will continue to be happy in their roles in the organization.

2. We are pretty sure the future looks like the present

This is mostly similar to option 1, but at least we have given some thought to the (unlikely) possibility that the environment will change in ways that will impact our workforce and our business.  So if for example, all of a sudden consumers tastes do change, or the passage of Universal Health Care frees up 25% of our high performers to seek new opportunities, we might, maybe, kind of have some idea of what to do.

3. We know we need to plan for variability in the future, so we develop multiple scenarios

Not a bad approach really, the organization can develop workforce contingency plans to account to rising demand, falling demand, increases in qualified candidates, or decreases in qualified candidates. But there is also the effects of the economy, national and local legislative changes, potential mergers and acquisitions, increases in external competition, etc.  Man, that is a lot of variables to plan for.  Hopefully these scenario and contingency plans can cover all the possible 'futures'.

4. The heck with it, we will make our own future

This approach is probably the hardest to pull off, but when you think about it the only one that makes sense.  There is no way that you can react fast enough for the inevitable changes without having some pre-planning done (Toyota), the future will almost certainly not look like the present (right MySpace?), and no matter how much scenario planning you do, you can never account for all the possibilities that will affect your workforce and your talent strategies.

Building a strategy and developing plans to proactively shape the future may seem risky, but in some ways it is the least variable approach.  If things do go not according to plan, (and they probably won't), the organization would have at least developed some contingencies and will have at least the chance to adapt quickly enough. 

Simply waiting, hoping, or reacting to what the future holds will only work for so long, and if you are going to flame out, better to do that on your own terms.

Show Me the Money

Last night on the HR Happy Hour show we took on the always interesting, sometimes controversial, and seemingly universal subject of Compensation, or put more simply - money.

Now I know that compensation is not just about cash, that the total value that an employee receives from their employer is a complex mixture of cash, benefits, development, opportunity, and probably a million other things.

Or maybe it is really just about the cash.

That is in a way why the subject, and to some extent the show reflected this, can be so frustrating. 

Compensation seems much of the time a 'Me vs. Them' kind of struggle, the little guy employee fighting for his or her fair piece of the pie, against the faceless corporate monolith bent on sharing as little as possible, all the while funding exorbitant executive comp packages. For some reason the value in the exchange always seems tipped in favor of the employer, that cash, benefits and perks always seem to be perceived as having more worth than the employee's time, attention, dedication, and commitment.

Whenever the conversation turns to compensation, there is bound to be some discomfort. Whether it is a deal to buy a car, sell software, or negotiate a salary and benefits package, there are some people that will feel uneasy, mostly due to an imbalance of information and power.

The newest new hire does not know what kind of a deal the last person in their situation was able to swing, so they often go in blind.  The 'man' has the information, the leverage, and the ability to, for the most part, to control the deal.

Don't like what is being offered?  Ok, walk away then, and good luck.

Oh, and by the way, the outgoing CEO just walked away with a $25 million package.

We did not have time to really solve any of these issues on the 'Show Me the Money' show, and I wonder if we talked for another few hours if we really could have.

But it was, and remains a fascinating topic, and one that will never be completely solved as long as corporations and individuals exchange time and effort for compensation.

Have a listen to the show, and let me know what you think. 

Why are these issues so complex, sensitive, and enduring?

Can we ever just be honest and open about compensation and with each other?

Telling Stories with Technology

Or perhaps rather letting people share their story when interacting with technology.

I recently read this post, 'Mad Libs Style Form Increases Conversion 25-40%', on the LukeW Ideation and Design blog.

The main point of the post, which is short and an easy read, is that by altering a typical 'Request for Information' web form asking for Name, email, address, subject of inquiry, etc., to a 'Mad Libs' style form that frames the information in a kind of simple story, and allows the respondent to fill-in-the-blanks of the story with their personal and relevant information.

An example of the before and after versions of a typical 'information request' web form is here:

Usage tests on both versions of the form above (and similar forms on other sites), revealed increases in conversion, i.e. that percentage of visitors to the site that completed the form, anywhere from 25% to 40%.

While the designers don't know for sure what to attribute the increased conversion rate to, something in the more narrative style of the revised form was successful in capturing more information.

I think that workforce technologies could also likely benefit from a similar approach. Think of some of the typical programs that an organization rolls out, like paycheck direct deposit, enrollment in 401(k) retirement plans, or participation in company-sponsored wellness programs, that to the administrators seem like they should be no-brainers for employees to sign up for. But maybe for some reason the participation rate continues to fall short of expectations.

Some organizations might react by simply requiring participation, (at lease for direct deposit), or sweetening the incentives, (free pedometers!), but I wonder of simply making some subtle adjustments to the actual process of registering could help.

Consider taking a bland form (whether on paper or online) for direct deposit that asks for name, address, bank name, bank routing number (come on, you know lots of people have no idea what that is), and so on and replacing it with something like this:

Hi, my name is ___________, and I work in the _____________ Department.  I like the idea of getting my pay faster and not having the hassle of going to the bank every two weeks.  Please sign me up for paycheck direct deposit.  My bank is named ________________ and the little 9-digit number printed on the bottom of my checks is _________. In two weeks the deposits will have started, and I will be able to check my paysubs online and with my bank.

I know it isn't perfect, I am not a professional communicator, but to me it humanizes the process a little, and connects the employee just a little bit more to the process and to the outcomes. The same impersonal field-by-field forms that they have seen a million times can't do any of that.  It also re-inforces the key messages as to the benefits of the process right as the employee is signing up.

Could you alter the 401(k) registration materials in such a way to let the employees (if they care to) share more about their retirement goals and hopes? 

How about the process where an employee adds a new child to their medical coverage, perhaps providing a place to share their excitement and even a picture of their new addition?

What do you think?  Would framing these type of employee calls to action in this way actually be successful?

The Commodification of the Self

I did not invent the phrase in the title of this post, it comes from a piece by Shalom Auslander called 'Meet the Happy New Me, Same as the Crappy Old Me', in the March 2010 issue of GQ magazine, (only available online to subscribers).Flickr - David Clow

The article alternates between funny, insightful, depressing, and funny (again) as it depicts the author's own 'personal branding' journey from, in his words, 'miserable and pissed off' to 'shiny and happy'.

After a series of assignments undertaken as part of an online 'Personal Branding' class, ('Develop a personal catchphrase' and 'Create a logo for yourself'), Auslander asks the question, 'Why didn't anyone seem to think that the commodification of the self was a problem?'

I think it is a valid question.

Has the ridiculously crappy economy and the widespread and persistent unemployment rate conspired to make us all little mini-moguls? Are we all getting overly obsessed with staying on message, carefully constructing our own tiny ad campaigns, looking for just the right post to Retweet, LinkedIn group to join, and event to attend (or vicariously attend). Are we trying too consciously to craft little marketing plans?

Think about all the things we always said we hated, incessant commercials on tv and radio, rampant product placement in mainstream entertainment (quick, what is the 'official' beverage of American Idol? I am sure you know), internet pop-up ads, and maybe most importantly people that simply have to be the center of attention all the damn time.  At least in more traditonal entertainment and communication channels it is (mostly) easy to tell when you are being sold to.

When Simon takes a swig of his Coke, we know what is going on.

And I don't think I am confusing personal branding, which is more or less annoying, with individual entrepreneurship and initiative, which is inspiring.  They are not the same thing, but I can't help but get the feeling that in this age of openness, status updates ('Starbucks Quad Shot FTW!!!!'), and thousands if not millions of people having mostly the same idea, reading the same books, blogs, and advice that the good work (or lack thereof) is getting mixed up with the message.

Some of the people reading this post are really active on social networks like Twitter and Facebook.  I wonder if you thought about the list of the 50 or 100 or so people you interact with the most and relflect on how much do you know about the actual work they do, compared to what you know or perceive about their 'brand'?

I am guilty of all of this too.  It seems many people are to some extent and that is what makes the whole branding/packaging/selling of the self so frustrating. When every network for communication and transmission of information becomes a sales channel for companies and individuals at the same time, I suppose it is only to be expected that everyone is selling.  But selling Coke or iPods isn't the same as selling a person.  Product brands usually stand for just one thing, but people, at least the most interesting ones you know, are deep, multi-layered, and complicated. 

Maybe we need a TiVo equivalent for all these networks as well, so that we could fast forward though all the commercials and focus on the content.

And maybe I need some more coffee.

Stars and Rockstars

The other day on the Brains on Fire blog in a piece titled, 'Leave your ego at your feet', I read this:

“We should lose the term “rock star” from our vocabulary.”...  if you create rock stars, you create an ego driven company (look at us, look at us), instead of a one that is driven by heart and soul. A company that promotes rock stars runs the risk of getting focused on themselves instead of their customers.

The main point of the piece was that organizations and the 'stars' inside of them can get way too arrogant sometimes, can take on too much of air of 'we are the experts, we know everything'.

And if that happens if becomes really easy to get lazy or complacent or out of touch to some extent.

Customers, employees, partners, and the community at large all have incredible amounts of knowledge, insight, and value to add and that often can get obscured by the 'rockstar' glow.flickr - Kevin Cole

There are 'rockstars' in every organization, surely. These people are of course necessary and indispensable, (and unless you are really fortunate, will certainly leave)  but at times the organization can come to over rely on them, and face a significant problem when (and it is when) these stars take their game elsewhere.

Yes, the organization needs stars.  To use a (tired) sports analogy, it is generally understood that in the NBA a team can't win a championship without two bona fide All-Stars.

But the teams that actually do win also have several complimentary or role players on the roster that perform those essential tasks that may not be glamorous, may not lead them to huge contracts, and may not make them household names, but are absolutely necessary to have a winning team.

So yes, your company needs a few 'rockstars', but you likely also need support, input, and solid day-to-day contribution from regular 'stars' and likely even some role players for long-term success.

Professional sports like the NBA are about winning right now, so giving the ball to your star player at the end of every close game really is the only strategy that makes sense. But when that player decides to leave for the big money or bright lights somewhere else (please LeBron come to New York), the team can easily be left lacking, without having invested energy or commitment to building the next star player.

Think about it this way, if your very best employee walked out tomorrow would you be prepared to give the ball to someone else at the end of a close game?