The downside of measuring everything

KD had a great post on HR Capitalist about the (potential) link between pay and performance at Gawker media, as evidenced by the below chart that showed that one writer, Neetzan Zimmerman, (his traffic is in light green on the chart) on the staff of 15 or 16 was responsible for 99% of the site's overall traffic, (and revenue, or at least the opportunity to earn revenue).

KD, rightly, concluded that this situation likely presented Gawker a huge and obvious 'Pay for Performance' situation, where if Gawker were truly taking the capitalist/meritocratist approach to business and talent management, they would have dropped about a third of the staff, allocated all that salary budget to Zimmerman, and told the remaining nine or so staff to shut up, (while showing them the traffic chart), if they didn't like being paid about 20% of what Zimmerman was getting.

While we don't know what Gawker actually did, we do know that Zimmerman left to chase something else, so at least it seems on the surface a gigantic rise in salary or performance related comp was not on offer.

But rather than talk about what Gawker should have done, (or do in the future with their comp/performance strategy), I'd rather think a little about a world where having the access to data and the analytical tools to actually do more data-informed performance becomes more and more prevalent.

One of the most common reasons true pay for performance isn't done, or isn't done successfully, is that it just is really hard to accurately and fairly quantify and measure performance in the first place.  Unlike the staff of writers at Gawker, who can be reasonably and pretty fairly judged on their performance by web traffic to the site for their articles, which is both easy to measure and not subject to the whims of any manager's opinion or rating biases, most of the rest of us have jobs perhaps a little more complex, variable, and nuanced.

The kinds of jobs that don't allow easy and clean measurement, and consequently don't facilitate easy comparison of workers within and across work groups. So we invent things like competency models, and core job functions, and 360s, and talent reviews and calibration in order to come up with some kind of repeatable, reasonable, and defensible method to rate and review folks. And after all that the difference between the annual salary increases for the 'best' performers and the average performers might be a percent or two. 

But going forward driven by the amazing technological advances that are on the horizon we will live in a new world of increased connectivity, improved capability to capture data about the effectiveness of previously untraceable things from a new and improved set of wearable devices, company-issued apps or smartphones that will both broadcast and track our every move, and the nascent internet of things that will provide data on our interactions with machines, (and how fast and effectively we respond to their needs). 

Yep, in the (near enough) future almost all kinds of jobs and the relative performance of the people doing those jobs will be measurable. We will be able to measure everyone. Everything that they do. All the time.

Man that will be great.

<You had better get back to work now. Trust me.>

Chromebooks and when technology gets too capable

Recently I needed to replace my personal laptop as my old trusty netbook (remember those?), that had like most aging computers, arrived at that place of only occasional and mostly unreliable service. Lots of system freeze ups, a battery that won't hold a charge, and on operating system that was more or less a dog from the day it was new.

But the reasons I bought the original netbook a few years back to be a kind of backup, and secondary device, (lightweight, easy to pack for travel, great battery life, etc.), hadn't diminished or really changed that much for me. I used the little netbook to check my Google Reader (the old days), write on the blog, do some basic web surfing. It didn't really matter that the netbook didn't have a full MS Office suite. I did (and still do), 'real' work that is most often translated via Word documents and PowerPoint decks on my 'real' work machine. Which no matter where I have worked over the last few years seems to consistently have been one of those massive Dell 'enterprise' laptops.  Big, sturdy, heavy, has way too much hard drive storage, and takes about 28 minutes to boot up each day. But it has everything I need and is probably not much different than what 90% of the folks who are reading this are using for their primary work computers.

But for the netbook replacement I didn't need all the things that make the Dell, well, a big old Dell work machine. I didn't need MS Office, didn't need a ton of storage, (thanks to Google Drive and Box), didn't need anything big and super fast and heavy - in fact just like the old netbook small and light is what I was looking for in something new. I wanted to be able to occasionally leave the giant Dell at home when I am out on the road. Lugging the big Dell through the Detroit airport while running to make a connection has not exactly been a joy over the last few years.

So since what I really wanted was a new Netbook, and no one really makes Netbooks any more, I settled on the 'new' Netbook so to speak, namely, one of the new Google Chromebooks - mine is made by Acer. You've probably heard about Chromebooks for a while now, they are lightweight, super fast, run the Google Chrome operating system, and essentially are only useful when they are connected to the internet via WiFi, (but think about it, when was the last time you were NOT on WiFi when you needed to get something done). 

Chromebooks are on a roll as we head into 2014. Over the holiday season, two of the top three best-selling PCs on Amazon.com were Chromebooks. And Chromebooks have begun to get enough traction that mighty Microsoft, whose Windows and MS Office business is potentially really threatened by Chromebooks, has put out a series of attack ads that knock the Chromebook, (including one featuring the stars of my favorite reality show Pawn Stars), as machines that are only good for one thing - getting online. And if you can't get online for some reason, then the Chromebook is more or less a shiny brick.

Some of that FUD from Microsoft is close to the truth, even though the Chromebooks are a little more capable, (even offline) than the attack ads make them out to be. But even if they were completely true it wouldn't really matter at all to the Chromebook's primary value proposition, and it wouldn't change the essential truth about technology that the increasing popularity of the Chromebooks help to reveal.

Namely, that really often mature and established technologies, (like PCs), are way too capable and complex than is really required by the vast majority of their users. With all the extra capability that traditional Windows-based PCs deliver, they also bring lots of additional and potentially excess that marks a trade off or really a balance between actual user need, technology capability, and price/value. And most of us, particularly when considering technologies that we will use for work or in the workplace, are pretty bad and making these kinds of value judgements optimally.

Why?

Because we fall into the trap of only considering the situation on two variables - capability and price. 

Technologies generally get better, i.e. can do more things, support more processes, have more options to consider that will enable even more capabilities, etc. as they climb up the price ladder. And the less expensive technologies, like the Chromebook, well, they can do less things. Pretty simple and pretty much how we make technology decisions.

But what we miss, and I definitely see this from bouncing back and forth between the big old Dell and the simple Chromebook, is that how much that extra capability translates into complexity which when it is not really needed, actually detracts from the overall user experience.

Right now, for me, the tasks and activities that the Chromebook supports can all be done on the Dell PC as well, and the Dell is fine at all of them. But all the excess of the Dell, the 10 minute boot time, the messy file system, the constant 'Installing update 1 of 57, please do not unplug the PC' messages when you really, really need to pack up - they actually detract from the overall user experience, at least some of the time.

We often make the mistake, whether it is assessing the utility of something like a Chromebook, or evaluating a more complex enterprise technology like an LMS or ATS, of assuming that having the maxmimum amount of capabilty is always inherently better than the alternative, i.e., having some subset of that capability.

But that extra capability, even if we think it benign since it usually goes unused and consequently ignored, can often make what we actually do want and need to use that much more difficult, and ineffiecient, and complex.

With the Chromebook less is starting to seem more and more like, well, more. 

I wonder if we will start seeing the same kinds of effects in our enterprise technology too.

Have a great week!

Job Titles of the Future #8 - 20 Jobs to Pick From

My friend Raluca shared the below Slideshare presentation with me, a really fun look at a topic that I have also had some fun with here on the blog, of course I am talking about Job Titles of the Future.

In the presentation, (embedded below, Email and RSS subscribers may need to click through), the folks at advertising and marketing firm Sparks and Honey offer up their take on how trends in technology and society are conspiring to create a new set of opportunities, i.e., jobs of the future that don't exist right now.

Take a look through the slides and I will have a couple of comments after the jump:

20 Jobs of the Future from sparks & honey

Pretty cool, right?

Of the 20 jobs of the future I think my top choices for most interesting and/or most likely to pan out in some kind of material way have to be 'Corporate Disorganizer', (a kind of nod to all the hubbub going on about the Holacracy stuff), 'Alternative Currency Speculator', (any time a new market forms there are always going to be speculators. And I love the movie 'Trading Places.'), and also 'Digital Death Manager', (a little macabre but I think on the money. Just what does happen to your Facebook or Twitter accounts if you pass away?).

Anyway, it is an interesting take with some ideas about what the future might hold. With the world of work changing every day, it pays to at least to attempt to stay on top of where the next year's and decade's opportunities are going to lie.

Have a great weekend!

LIVE Tonight - #HRHappyHour Show on Collaboration and Coaching

HR Happy Hour 175 - Improving Communication, Collaboration, and Coaching

LIVE - THURSDAY January 9, 2014 - 8:00PM EST

Call in on 646-378-1086

Tweet your questions and comments - use the Twitter hashtag #HRHappyHour

This week in the first LIVE show of 2014 hosts Steve Boese and Trish McFarlane are excited to bring Sean Conrad, Senior Product Analyst & Sales Trainer at Halogen Software back to the show this week.  Sean and Halogen are both big supporters of the HR Happy Hour and we feel equally strong about what Halogen Software has added to the industry over the years.  This week, we plan to talk about ways that organizations can improve their communication, collaboration and coaching techniques.
 
Halogen recently launched two new modules to address these needs.  Their new 1:1 Exchange meeting module and the Halogen Myers-Briggs module introduce innovative approaches to workforce improvements.  Listen in as we talk about the modules as well as other ways organizations can approach these challenges.

You can listen to the show LIVE at 8:00PM EST tonight on the show page here, or using the widget player below:

Online Business Radio at Blog Talk Radio with Steve Boese and Trish McFarlane on BlogTalkRadio

Sean is a interesting and fun guy and it should be a great show - make your plans to join us LIVE on Thursday or catch the replay anytime from the show page or using iTunes or on Stitcher Radio on Android devices.

Hope you can join us tonight!

HOT SPORTS TAKE: What is more important than culture?

It's been a huge few days in the sports world - with the NFL playoffs over the past weekend, the NBA finally getting interesting, and the wind up of the College football bowl season and final BCS Championship game. there has been plenty of fodder for sports talk shows, articles and columns that feature that essential element of sports coverage these days known as the HOT SPORTS TAKE. 

This is where some blowhard, (in the case of the blog you are currently reading, that blowhard is me), goes on some silly, shouty rant about a coach, or a player, or a team, or sometimes an official about how they variously choked and lost the big game, is actually a terrible, mean, no-good person, and by losing the game and/or being a mean person they have therefore insulted America or tradition or the scared honor of the lunkhead sports stars of a bygone era. The rise of the myriad number of online sports sites has certainly contributed to the genre, but by no means is this a recent phenomenon.

Actually come to think of it, my take probably doesn't completely merit the HOT SPORTS TAKE definition, as I really am not in a snit about any specific player or coach or team, but rather wanted to use a sports analogy (again) to back up one of my workplace/talent management takes from the past. Namely, that in contrast to the tiresome (and incorrect) cult of 'Culture Eats Strategy' I contend, still, that talent trumps everything. Talent is more important than strategy. Talent is definitely more important than culture.

What completely non-scientific and impossible to prove or disprove evidence am I going to cite?

Just a random call to the 'I can't remember which show but they are all the same so it doesn't really matter sports talk show' following the recent NFL playoff games.

(Transcript lightly edited due to my failing memory and to better make the point I am trying to make)

Host: Next up Jim from Hoboken. Go head Jim.

Caller: Hi Mel - I just want to say I hated the body language of the Chiefs/Eagles/Bengals (doesn't matter and I can't remember) at the end of the game. They just don't have a winning mentality. They just don't have any team chemistry. It's like they don't like each other.

Host: Winning mentality? Chemistry? They fumbled three times and had 12 penalties. What's the 'winning mentality' have to do with that?

Caller: But Mel, the play calling was terrible. They gave up on the run in the second half!

Host: They had a receiver drop the ball in the end zone for what should have been an easy touchdown. That play would have put them ahead in the game with less than 4 minutes left!

Caller: And all the penalties Mel. They couldn't seem to stay onside all game!

Host: Their top three lineman were all out hurt and they had to play rookies and reserves.

The reason they lost the game was simple. The other team is better. They have better players. They have more TALENT!

You fans want to go on and on about whether the Quarterback likes the Running Back or the coach's play calling is shaky or there were bad calls by the officials but all that stuff doesn't matter.

What matters, in this order, is Talent first, execution second, coaching and play calling third, and last by a mile is whether or not the guys like each other or chemistry (Note: this is the rough equivalent of 'culture' for the HR types). But make no mistake about it, the team with the most Talent wins these games 9 out of 10 times. 

And don't forget that.

<scene>

I continue to believe Talent trumps all - whether it's on the football field or in the executive boardroom.

Great players make great plays.

Happy Wednesday. 

(First official 8 Man Rotation post for 2014 logged)