Choosing your benchmarks wisely and the legacy of David Stern

Real quick 8 Man Rotation style take for a travel Tuesday. Aside, I am heading out to Oracle HCM World in my favorite city in the world Las Vegas, if you happen to be out there be sure to say 'Hi'. 

Over the weekend I had a brief Tweet exchange with the HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn, and another Fistful of Talent colleague the very underrated R.J. Morris about the legacy of the very recently retired after a 30 year run Commissioner of the NBA David Stern. One of the tweets is embedded below to give a little bit of context, and also because I find embedding tweets to be kind of fun, (I know, i need to get out more).

@RJ_Morris @steveboese @thelance just read that this morning. Hard take. The real ? is what could have Stern done to close the gap with NFL.

— Kris Dunn (@kris_dunn) February 3, 2014

The gist of the conversation regarding Stern was this: By most measures of internal comparison, i.e. taking where the NBA was in terms of hard metrics like revenue, franchise values, player salaries, international growth, etc., Stern presided over a long and sustained period if incredible growth for the league. By every internal standard, the NBA is in a far, far better and more financially successful place today than it was when Stern became commissioner. 

But Stern has his critics too, and rather than dig into all the specific and sometimes subtle elements of his stewardship of the NBA, let's focus on just one. Namely, that while Stern did, by most accounts, a superb job of growing the NBA, it is still far, far less popular and financially and culturally massive (at least in the USA) as the National Football League. The NFL is the proverbial 300lb gorilla of modern American sports. It has widespread appeal, its game telecasts rank among the most popular TV programs week in and week out, the the culmination of the season, the Super Bowl game, has become such an important and ubiquitous event that there are fairly serious proposals that the Monday following the game be designated as a national holiday.

The NFL is #1, by every measure that matters, and when holding up the NBA to that mirror, well then the Association falls short, a distant second really, (and possibly even third behind Major League Baseball), and consequently then Commissioner Stern must be judged as not having really been such a transcendent sports business leader.

But I think that comparison is a little unfair, and perhaps even a little premature, (even as Stern retires). I think if we let the evolution of both American professional sports, and societal and global trends play out a little longer, I think this kind of comparison, or benchmark of basketball to American football will end up looking quite a bit different, and Stern, long gone from the scene, will have to be credited for at least some of these developments.

To me, the NBA is like Apple Computers, in the latter part of the 90s. The NFL, the behemoth, is Microsoft of that same time.

Back then, Microsoft was the undisputed leader in personal and corporate computing technology, was led by a legendary and visionary Bill Gates, and simply dwarfed everyone else in its space with its vise-like grip over almost every interaction you had with a computer. Apple was still interesting, quirky, made a different kind of computer that had its adherents, but never was seen as a serious threat to the MSFT ecosystem.

And then something called the iPod came out and things started to change. You know the story and I don't need to go into all the Apple innovations and the subsequent (or concurrent) missteps from Redmond, but suffice to say the technology world in 2014 does not look anything like it did in 1998 or so.

So back to my NBA and NFL take, and the need to give Stern some room before we all start deciding about his legacy.

I submit that about 15 years from now the NBA will be almost, if not more popular (in America and globally), than the NFL for the following reasons:

1. Basketball, and by extenstion the NBA, is largely an urban or city game. The game is mostly played and celebrated, in America's big cities - New York, Chicago, Boston, L.A.. And America (and the rest of the world) is becoming a more urban place as well. As more people migrate to the larger cities, the city game, basketball, will continue to thrive, often at the expense of football, a game that requires expansive grounds on which to play, lots of expensive equipment, and the type of space not easily found in a big city.

2. Basketball is a global game, played all over the world, while American football is played (seriously) pretty much only in America. As the world shrinks, cultural and sporting phenomena like the NFL, that have only single-country relevance, will eventually become somewhat marginalized over time. While the NFL dominates the American sporting landscape, it hardly registers anywhere else in the world. The NBA, with its global reach, and high number of non-American players is far ahead of the NFL in this regard. Just witness the growing popularity of English Soccer here in the US as a small example of this trend.

3. The talent supply chain is constricting for the NFL. Due to its violent nature, more and more parents are electing to keep their kids out of full-contact football. Every football player gets injured at some point in a season, and as the NFL has learned, many of these injuries can have incredibly serious and devastating repercussions. The recent concussion-related lawsuits, settlements, and high-profile former players revealing their stories of traumatic brain injury are beginning to cast a longer and longer shadow over not just the NFL, but the beginnings or feeder systems for their talent. This will play out over time, surely, but even today if you were the parent of a very talented and gifted athlete, would you steer him toward a violent sport like football where he is likely to have at least a few concussions over time, or a sport like basketball where the injury risks are much less?

4. At the top, I said this was going to be a 'quick take', turns out I was wrong. Sorry about that.

5. The NBA understands social media and new media in general. This is certainly subjective, but if you look at how the league and its teams have embraced digital and social over the last few years, you see an organization that is more forward-thinking than most others. This is a by-product of the NBA's long time strategy that elevates and promotes its star players and personalities. Think about it, only the most ardent NFL fans can name more than a handful of players on their favorite team, and even less would be recognizable. If the new world of media and commerce is about engagement and connection, then the NBA is in a much stronger place than the NFL, where the vast majority of players are faceless and anonymous.

I probably could keep going on this, but I think I have made enough points for now, and besides, I have to get on a plane. But the bottom line to me, taking us back to the question of David Stern and his legacy I think we have to let some of these cultural and global trends play out a little longer before we dismiss Stern (and the NBA) as being somehow inferior to the NFL. Compare the NBA of 1984 to the NBA of today and then no question, Stern was a great leader and executive. Compare the NBA of 2014 to the NFL of 2014 and sure you could say he fell short, but I say we need to let these shifts develop.

Apple wasn't Apple back in 1998. But the world changes, sometimes faster, sometimes slower than we like or anticipate. And being on top of the food chain, even if you have been there awhile doesn' guarantee you that spot forever. Just ask Microsoft.

<post typed on Chromebook> 

CHART OF THE DAY: Where the new jobs are projected to be

Once again from our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, today's chart is all about jobs - more specifically a look at in which occupations the BLS is forecasting the greatest numerical growth in jobs for the ten-year period of measurement, 2012 - 2022.

Take a look at the chart, then (of course) a few comments from me afterward:

Digging in to the data a little bit more (and taking into account the sheer difficultly in making these kind of far out into the future sorts of projections), reveals both some warnings, and some surprises.

First off, something that is not surprising, is that of the 30 areas projected to experience the largest employment increases, 5 are in healthcare, including 3 of the top 4 jobs that are expected to see the greatest increase, (personal care aides, registered nurses, and home health aides).

Combined, the top 5 healthcare related occupations are projected to add 1.6 million jobs over the 2012–2022 decade. 

But while the growth in healthcare jobs is not surprising, given the pressures being put on the healthcare system due primarily to an aging population, what is surprising is what the BLS suggests about the educational attainment needed by workers desiring to actually work in these faster-growing occupations.

From the BLS sumary:

Two-thirds of the occupations projected to add the most new jobs typically require a high school diploma or less, while only five typically require a bachelor’s degree.

Now that little observation is, to me at least, a little surprising, or perhaps just a little misaligned with everything that we typically see about the importance of higher education as it relates to a candidate's job prospects. But upon closer examination of the BLS job growth projections, perhaps we should not be that shocked at all. 

The care aides kinds of jobs, the retail jobs, the food prep and serving jobs, the customer service reps, (all in the Top 10 list of 'growth' occupations), well none of these require (typically), much if any higher education and of course, also typically offer relatively lower wages than the kinds of jobs of the future we like to think about, (like coding apps, designing wearable computers, or working in high finance).

Yep, according to the BLS anyway, job growth to 2022 is going to be mostly about low-skilled, low-wage, low prospects kinds of service jobs.

Actually the easiest kinds of jobs for the robots to take.

Happy Monday.

Your new favorite robot: One that fills your gas tank

I was born and raised in the great state of New Jersey and lived there until I was about 25 or so. Upon finally moving from the Garden State to warmer climes, there were two unsettling realizations I had to come to terms with about what life outside of ChrisChristieLand had in store.

One, at least at that time, it was just about impossible to get my hands on Taylor Ham, (also sometimes known as Pork Roll). If you are from NJ, and also the greater Philly area, you know what I am talking about.

And two, that I suddenly, regularly, had to pump my own fuel at the gas station.

You see New Jersey back then, as it still is now, is one of only two states in the US (Oregon is the other one), that do not allow for self-service dispensing of Class 1 Flammable Liquids at Retail. In other words, when you roll up to the gas pumps in NJ, an actual living, breathing person has to find out what type of gas you want, how much of it you would like, how you are going to pay for said gas, and then actually operate the gas pump, refuel the car, and finally process your payment.

While at times it is a pain in the neck for a motorist to have to be 'served' in this manner, by a person, (if the station is really busy or if the attendant is not terribly motivated, it can take a longer than desired time to get in and out of the station), there are other times, (in the rain ,the freezing cold, if you want to make a quick call or send a text, or if you just don't like smelling like gas for the next hour or two), that being able to wait in the car while someone else fills up the tank is actually pretty cool.

Well for all those folks in the other 48 states that have to suffer the indignity of pumping your own gas, soon help may be on the way in the form of Husky Corporation's new breakthrough - the Automatic Refueling System. 

Check the embedded video below, (Email and RSS subscribers will need to click through):

That is every kind of awesome, right? 

Reduces your refueling time by 30%, is cleaner, safer, and lets you stay snuggly warm and dry in your car no matter what is going on outside.

And, in a surprising turn of events in these kinds of 'robots are coming for all our jobs' stories, these refueling robots would not actually disrupt very many jobs, except some in New Jersey and Oregon.

What these robots 'replace' is the hassle of you having to pump your own gas, and activity which, after the 12,498th repetition has mostly lost whatever allure and glamour it once held.

But these automatic refueling robots do make we worried about the long-term fate of my home state, New Jersey. People are already leaving the Garden State in droves. Full-service gas stations are still one of the few reasons to stay. If those vanish by way of the robot, then what other reasons are there to remain in NJ?

And you can now buy Taylor Ham no matter where you live - shipped straight to your door.

Have a great weekend!

On positive reflection and workplace stress reduction

Quick shot for a 'I have about 7,817 emails to read/reply to Thursday' but want to put off that torture for at least 15 more minutes, (the time allotted to research, write, edit, and hit 'Publish' on this sucker).

Did you catch the HBR.org 'Daily Stat' item from this past Tuesday? If not, here it is in its entirety (please don't come after me Harvard):

Stress levels and physical complaints declined by roughly 15% after employees were directed to spend 10 minutes writing about three things that had gone well each day, says a team of researchers led by Joyce E. Bono of the University of Florida. At the end of the work day, the employees logged on to a website where they were asked to write about events large or small, personal or work-related, and explain why they had gone well. The findings suggest that this intervention could have important effects on employee stress and health, the researchers say.

SOURCE:  Building Positive Resources: Effects of Positive Events and Positive Reflection on Work Stress and Health.

Pretty simple right?

Take about 5-10 minutes at the end of the day and deliberately think about, and document, three positives from the day - work successes, some good news in your personal life, maybe even something simple like your favorite NBA team won the game last night. Do this every day and over time, at least according to this research, your overall stress level is likely to decline, and you will start to feel better overall.

Sounds like it makes sense, lots of us forget to think about thepositives in our work or personal lives and focus on the negative. If you are encouraged/forced to write down or log in an online tool somewhere only the positive things at the end of the workday I suppose that will help you 'shut down' from work in a generally better mood and mental place than you might otherwise. Especially if the final 'work' of the day was something unpleasant or difficult or simply just a pain in the neck, (like the task of reading all your email that I am currently avoiding).

What do you think, would this kind of intentional positive reflection make a difference in reducing your stress levels?

For me, I am not so sure. Maybe it is the cynic/pessimist in me, but the second I sat down to document the three positive items for the day, I would naturally look to pair or balance them with three negatives.

And then I'd probably be back to focusing on the negatives again and stressing and you know the rest.

But what the heck, I might as well give it a shot:

Three positives from yesterday:

1. Scored two First Class upgrades on my flights home from IBM Connect

2. My old reliable truck actually started after 4 days parked outside at the airport in mostly sub-zero temperatures

3. I made it home in time to watch KD and LeBron go at it in one of the NBA's best match ups

I guess all in all that makes for a good day.

I will let you know tomorrow if I feel less stressed. I still have all that email to read though...

Happy Thursday!

The three keys to success on the crew

I had a really fun and interesting couple of days this week at the IBM Connect event in Orlando, a pretty large and diverse event that showcases many of the technologies and ideas from what is a large and diverse company.

Amongst all the showy elements, (an opening mini-concert by the band American Authors and a short comedy set from SNL's Seth Meyers), and the deep dive sessions that focused on collaborative, social, and talent management technologies, I thought the most fascinating part of the show was a short meeting with one of the IBM/Kenexa customers, who shared some elements of her company's recruiting challenges, and how they were responding to these challenges.

The company in question, AMC Theaters, is a large operator of movie theaters in the US, (possibly elsewhere, I am not sure if that came up at all in the conversation), and like most high location high volume retail/service companies has to recruit for many thousands of front-line and entry level positions each year. In the case of AMC, each year means about 17,000 or so new hires for these front-line or 'crew' positions. Efficiently hiring that many folks is not simple, and presents any organization a number of problems. But for AMC, applicant volume is not one of them - with an estimated 750,000 applications for these 17,000 positions coming in annually. For these jobs AMC does not really have to 'recruit', they have to 'select'.

So when AMC set about making changes to the process in order to improve efficiency, ease the burden on theater management, and improve hiring outcomes, there was and is certainly a pretty large 'technology' component. You can't process that many people/positions without a solid tech foundation. But you also don't really get any better at hiring simply by organizing it more effectively in an ATS, you have to actually get better at hiring. And AMC was able to do that, again supported certainly by technology, by breaking down to three elements what it takes to be successful in one of these 'crew' positions. If you possess these three keys, then you were far more likely to be successful on the crew, to stick around longer, and would help drive improvements on the key metrics that AMC tracks.

According to AMC the three keys are that you are friendly, dependable, and you have some ability to sell. They test/screen applicants for these elements up front, (again assisted by technology tools that have helped them develop and validate the tests), give theater managers insight into a given applicant's test results in order to help shape areas to focus on during interviews, and finally make interview and hiring decisions based at least partly on them.

What was interesting to me was their ability to distill all the myriad attributes that could potentially contribute (or detract) from job performance into these three identifiable and validated elements. If you can do that, then you don't really have to waste candidates, recruiters, or hiring managers time trying to discern other nuances of a candidate's background ('So, tell me why you don't have a position listed on your resume from April 2012 to January 2013?'), or trying to teach interviewers some kind of personality assessment parlor tricks.

I dig the approach that AMC has taken towards improving the process for hiring 17,000 front-line workers, many of which have little to no 'real' work experience to draw from. As they have found out, it is likely that the previous experience, or lack or it, doesn't really matter that much anyway. If someone is friendly, dependable, and can sell a little bit, well then they have a good shot at success on the crew. 

And I left the meeting wondering if applying the 'What are the three keys for success on this job?' would make all kinds of hiring/screening challenges easier.

I'm wondering how much time we spend in the hiring process trying to determine the presence or lack of qualities that ultimately, don't matter much at all.

Thanks to the folks at IBM for inviting me down to IBM Connect!