Reboot: Even Superman Can Start Over

I've been a comic book fan, off and on, since I was a kid. You know the old question that sometimes therapists ask, about recalling one of your earliest memories from childhood? Well one of mine anyway is a vivid recollection of buying an Amazing Spiderman comic for 25 cents from a local shop.

Image - DC Comics

I still have that Spiderman book as a matter of fact. Looking through it recently, apart from being amused at some of the old advertisements, I was struck by how little the characters seemed to change over the years. They (mostly) look the same, act the same, and behave in ways we come to expect, and certainly appreciate.

But after 30, 40, and for some even 50 years of stories, (referred to as 'continuity' in the comics world), even classic heroes start to look a little dated, and their writer's and artist's ability to craft stories and images that can still resonate with modern readers, (while not alienating long-term fans), gets increasingly difficult over time.

With that inherent conflict and difficulty in mind, long-time publisher comic publisher DC Comics this fall is embarking on what is being termed a 'Reboot', they are essentially a starting over at issue #1 for all if its currently published titles, including such venerable books like Batman, Superman, and Justice League of America. This reboot or relaunch will allow DC to refresh the characters design, and in some cases, through the magic and creative freedom of the comic book form, make them younger and more contemporary. DC writers and artists can simply inject new life into some traditional characters and storylines that the public probably takes for granted from familiarity.

It won't be easy for DC to successfully pull off this 'reboot'. Fans of these comics and heroes won't simply conveniently forget what are in some cases decades-long interactions, backstories, and emotional connections with these characters. But for DC, the desire to revive an old form of storytelling and genre, and the economic need to attract a new generation of fans to these titles are too compelling and have been deemed worthy of the reboot's risks.

What does this little comic book story have to do with the worlds of Human Resources and the workplace?

To me, the most compelling angle behind the 'reboot' is the human one. Sure, having Flash or Wonder Woman get a new costume is interesting, but for that to actually be successful in the marketplace, DC has to attract, recruit, develop, and reward the best artists, writers, designers, and editors it can find. These supremely talented people are the real key to whether or not this reboot, or really any major commercial initiative will be successful. And for DC, while the allure of the brand, and the ability to make a mark on legendary titles and characters like Superman and Batman surely are a recruiting magnet to some extent, eventually the very best talent will not be content simply carrying on 50-year old traditions.

The very best talent wants to tell their own stories. 

By 'starting over' DC is not just making a play to connect with new fans and readers, they are making a play to their talent community as well. After all, someone makes the Green Lantern green after all. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. 

Anyone want to compare notes on Batman #1 once it comes out?

Putting Performance in Context - Not Every Three-Yard Pass Means the Same

For fans of American football, with the start of the new season just two weeks away, a rush of frenzied activity is underway by millions to rate, select, and position their 'fantasy' teams for the upcoming year.

American football, and the evaluation of its players, has traditionally been much less focused on statistical measurements and quantitative analysis of performance than say other sports like baseball and basketball. There are many reasons for this historical de-emphasis on statistics. For one, there are many, many roles on a football team that don't register simple, easy to grasp numbers like touchdowns scored or yards gained. Second, the nature of the game itself, eleven players to a side, highly structured and orchestrated roles and actions on most every play, make considering 'team' success more straightforward and easily understood than individual performance. And lastly, for many of the most important positions like Quarterback, past attempts to develop statistical-based measures or performance have been considered lacking, as many experienced football analysts claim that simply doing calculations on yards gained, passing completions, and even passing touchdowns registered can only offer partial insight into what defines and demonstrates superior performance for that critical position.

The primary metric that has been commonly used to assess and compare quarterbacks has been the Quarterback rating, a measure that takes into account the raw data surrounding the player's actions (passing yards, touchdowns, pass completion rates, etc.), applies some weighting factors to to the data, and produces a combined score or rating for the player, usually falling between about 85 and 100. But the main problem with the Quarterback rating (apart from no one really understanding how it is calculated), is that it is a statistical measurement only, i.e. it applies no situational context to performance. A three-yard pass completion in the early stages of the game gets weighted exactly the same as a three-yard pass completion at the end of the game, perhaps by converting the play, the quarterback's team was able to secure possession of the ball at a critical stage, and cement an important victory.

Some clever statisticians at ESPN are attempting to improves on the statistical evaluation of quarterbacks by introducing a new metric they all 'Total Quarterback Rating', or QBR. QBR will factor in many of the contextual indicators that play an important role in assessing player performance. Game situation, personnel on the field, formations used and more will all play a role in the metric. This will, hopefully, shine a more complete light on the evaluation of NFL quarterbacks. But it is much, much harder to create and calculate than simple math applied to the game box score.The Sanchize.

In football, and I suppose even in most organizations, the context in which performance is captured is often far more important, and more difficult to account for, than simply tracking the 'raw scores' or activities themselves. Was the quarterback under extreme duress when he passed for the touchdown? Was your sales manager under extreme duress when she successfully navigated through a complex contract negotiation to win that important account? Are you adequately considering the relative experience levels of your key player's support teams in your evaluations? How about the differences in competitive context across markets, lines of business, or geographies?

The first, and necessary step is chronicling performance - i.e. What happened?

The harder part, and even more important part, is understanding the conditions present when it happened, and what that means for the future.

Aside - J-E-T-S - JETS, JETS, JETS!!!!!

Regenerative braking - maybe change isn't always so hard

A few months back I had a piece over on Fistful of Talent called 'Range and Change Anxiety: Electric Cars are More Like Your Company Than You Think , that tried to make a connection between range anxiety, one of the primary psychological barriers that drivers have toward more widespread adoption of Electric Vehicles, (EVs), and change efforts that so often prove tremendously difficult in organizations. The take - that leaders and systems implementors need to take into account both real barriers to change, (cost, technical complexity), and perceived or even imaginary barriers (range anxiety, the fear that the driver will be stranded somewhere even though almost all trips are far too short to actually drain the EV battery).

The less than ground breaking conclusion - that change is really hard, and we make it harder by creating issues, problems, barriers, reasons to say no that sometimes exceed the often practical barriers that most projects also face. Seems kind of depressing, no? I mean if change efforts inside organizations are going to be stymied by any amount of imagined barriers then why bother? Focus on making small, incremental, and low-cost, low-risk changes to systems, processes, technologies and at least you'll have a reasonable chance for success. Then when it comes to have that annual performance review with the boss you'll at least be able to point to something tangible.

Well maybe not all is lost. As a kind of follow-up to the Electric Vehicle adoption story this week Fast Company ran a piece called 'It Turns Out Electric Vehicles Are So Fun To Drive, You Won't Want To Go Back', that reported on the results of a study that provided test EVs to 450 drivers in the United States. After becoming accustomed to the unique and different traits of EVs (like 'regenerative braking', the way some EVs can harness and re-purpose the heat energy from the vehicle's brakes), almost all the driver's had managed to put aside their resistance to EVs.  From the Fast Company article:

But by the end of the trial, the drivers, a mix of high-performance junkies, environmental enthusiasts, and technology pioneers, were hooked: 100% of the survey respondents agreed "electric vehicles are suitable for daily use," and two-thirds were more interested in buying an electric car. Only 9% said they were less interested. "Most households," even those with several other cars, reported the study, "preferred to drive the Mini E," admiring its clean, fun, and efficient attributes.

So once the drivers had the opportunity to actually use the EVs and see first hand how the new technology could not only be more cost and energy efficient, but also improve the driving experience, then at least according to this study, almost all of them were hooked.

Some simple takeaways for organiational leaders and change projects?

Don't discount people's imaginary barriers to change, but the best way to combat them might be to allow more full participation in early phases of change programs, whether it is in planning, early testing, or simply forming communication plans.  The best way for someone to truly believe that their fears are unfounded is to put them to the test, in a hands-on manner if possible.

And finally, if you are 'selling' your change based on some attribute or feature that your community does not care about, or is not directly applicable to making their live's better, the old what's in it for me gimmick, then you'd better hope as in the case of the EV tests, the community finds some other benefits you didn't even think were important.

I'll close wikth the last line from the study write-up:

"The general public thinks that electric cars are all golf carts: slow and boring," she said. "It's not until they drive one, they hear one, that they open their minds that these cars be fun to drive." 

 Substiute 'electric cars' for whatever change project you are stuggling with and see what happens.

Have a great weekend!

The Employer Brand, New and Improved (if it exists at all)

Tonight on the HR Happy Hour Show, (8PM ET, if you don't know what time that equates to where you live, then you have bigger issues than catching a recruiting podcast to worry about), we will welcome Jake Dunlap, VP at Glassdoor.com to tackle the always interesting and occasionally controversial topic of Employer (or Employment) Brand. Glassdoor is the leading destination for employee and candidate authored company reviews, salary information, interview experience, and a whole lot of 'What's it really like to work here' testimonials.Cubs legend - Mordecai 'Three Finger' Brown

Controversial in the sense that Bigfoot, unicorns, or a Chicago Cubs World Series title are controversial - some folks are adamant and passionate that these things exist, attempt to point to (at times) circumstantial evidence to prove they are right, and eventually end up resorting to the 'nyah, nyah, nyah' line of argument to cement home their intellectual triumph.

Like unicorns, we want to believe the Employer Brand exists as more than just a concept, but rather an almost tangible, manageable, and potentially leverageable (I know, I hate that word too), component in our Human Resources and recruiting strategic toolkit. The idea that the way the organization presents and helps shape their brand message - the collection of what the organization values, represents, promises, and rewards its employees, (and by extension its candidates), can help that organization achieve superior results in recruiting, retention, and employee performance is certainly quite compelling.

But whether or not the Employer Brand actually exists is still not a given across the HR profession. Yesterday, Brent Rasmussen writing on TLNT.com shared some of the results of a recent Careerbuilder survey that indicated nearly half of HR managers questioned reported they did not have an employment brand. So despite some evidence to the contrary - that same Careerbuilder survey also indicated that job seekers strongly take into account elements of 'brand' in their decision processes, the idea of organizations possessing a distinct employment brand from whatever face they paint on themselves on the consumer side still has not seemed to achieve widespread or mainstream acceptance in the halls of HR.

Tonight on the show we will talk with Jake Dunlap from Glassdoor about the concepts of employer brand, whether or not it really does exist, (FYI - the Cubs last won the World Series in 1908), and more importantly whether debating about its existence is kind of a silly exercise anyway, and that sites like Glassdoor and a few little social networks you may have heard of called Facebook and Twitter can 'prove' the point of the employer brand advocates and end the debate in about five minutes.

We will also discuss how smart organizations are using all available resources, both ones they can control, and ones they can only guide, to try and portray their unique value proposition to effectively compete for talent, both on the open market, and inside the enterprise.

Employer branding is a great and interesting topic, I hope you can join the conversation tonight.

You can listen to the live stream of the show starting at 8PM ET tonight here, or by calling in on 646-378-1086. You can also follow the backchannel conversation on Twitter on hashtag #HRHappyHour.

Need better information for business decisions? It might not be a technology problem

Recently the MIT Sloan Management Review in partnership with the IBM Institute for Business Value released some preliminary results from a project called 'The New Intelligent Enterprise'. The MIT and IBM researchers conducted an inquiry into how organizations are using analytics for competitive business advantage. The study was comprised of a survey of more than 4,000 executives, managers and analysts from around the world and across a wide range of industries.

Understanding how peers and competitors are leveraging analytics and new tools and technologies to increase competitiveness and make better business decisions has long been a concern of leaders across the organization, certainly in process-heavy aspects of the business like supply chain management, but increasingly in the Human Capital Management space as well. And while there are lots of tools and solutions that are on the market that can help organizations in these efforts to better capture and assess analytical data, some of the MIT/IBM study results suggest focusing on the technology alone may be a mistake.

While the full report and analysis of the research findings are still to be released, several of the study's raw data points were shared by the researchers, and I think the most interesting results were the first and last chart from the piece on Sloan Review site:

Figure 1 - Access to Data Needs Improvement

Source - MIT/IBM

Nice. Most of your key players, the ones you are counting on to make the right decisions, and make them quickly, and often under pressure probably don't have easy access to all the information they need. and almost 20% claim limited or no access to the data they need to success. Ouch. But you know that right? And that's why you are trolling the web, attending webinars, talking to consultants, and hitting the trade shows to find a software solution to address this problem. Sounds simple, get the right tools in, get them in the hands of the right people, and bam! - problem solved.

Except it might not be that easy.

Figure 2 - Technology is not the problem

Source - MIT/IBM

This chart is a little busy, but essentially says that when considering the deployment of better analytics solutions in the enterprise, the survey respondents felt organizational and company culture issues were perceived to be twice as hard to resolve as technology issues. Or perhaps said differently, finding and purchasing a technology solution might only 'solve' about a third of the overall problem.

Perhaps not ground-breaking findings, but worth remembering no matter what workplace technology solutions we try to apply to help solve business problems. We can recognize we have a problem, buy a solution to address the problem, but until and only when the organization is committed to making the kinds of important changes that these projects often require, we will not realize the full potential of the technologies and more importantly, of our people.