What Will Happen if we Move the Company: The Limits of Data

Some years back in a prior career (and life) I was running HR technology for a mid-size organization that at the time had maybe 5,000 employees scattered across the country with the largest number located on site at the suburban HQ campus (where I was also located). The HQ was typical of thousands of similar corporate office parks - in an upscale area, close to plenty of shops and services, about one mile from the expressway, and nearby to many desirable towns in which most of the employees lived. In short, it was a perfectly fine place to work close to many perfectly fine places to live.

But since in modern business things can never stay in place for very long, a new wrinkle was introduced to the organization and its people - the looming likelihood of a corporate relocation from the suburban, grassy office park to a new corporate HQ to be constructed downtown, in the center of the city. The proposed new HQ building would be about 15 miles from the existing HQ, consolidate several locations in the area into one, and come with some amount of state/local tax incentives making the investment seem attractive to company leaders. Additionally, the building would be owned vs. leased, allowing the company to purpose-design the facility according to our specific needs, which, (in theory), would increase overall efficiency and improve productivity. So a win-win all around, right?

Well as could be expected once news of the potential corporate HQ relocation made the rounds across the employee population, complaints, criticism, and even open discussions of 'time to start looking for a different job' conversations began. Many employees were not at all happy about the possible increase in their commuting time, the need to drive into the 'scary' center city location each day, the lack of easy shopping and other service options nearby, and overall, the change that was being foisted upon them.

So while we in HR knew (or at least we thought we knew), there would be some HR/talent repercussions if indeed the corporate HQ was relocated, we were kind of at a loss to quantify or predict what these repercussions would be. The best we were able to do, (beyond conversations with some managers about what their teams were saying), was to generate some data about the net change in commuting distance for employees, using a simple and open-source Google maps based tool.

With that data we were able to show that (as expected), some employees would be adversely impacted in terms of commuting distance and some would actually benefit from the HQ move. But that was about as far as we got with our 'data'.

What we didn't really dive into (and we could have even with our crude set of technology), was break down these impacts by organization, by function, by 'top' performer level, by 'who is going to be impossible to replace if they leave' criteria.

What we couldn't do with this data was estimate just how much attrition was indeed likely to occur if the move was executed. We really needed to have an idea, (beyond casual conversations and rumor), who and from what areas we might find ourselves under real pressure due to possible resignations. 

And finally, we had no real idea what remedial actions we might consider to try and stave off the voluntary and regrettable separations (the level of which we didn't really know).

We basically looked at our extremely limited data set and said, 'That's interesting. What do we do with it?'

Why re-tell this old story? Because someone recently asked me what was the difference between data, analytics, and 2015's hot topic, predictive analytics. And when I was trying to come up with a clever answer, (and I never really did), I thought of this story of the corporate relocation.

We had lots of data - the locations of the current campus and the proposed new HQ. We also had the addresses of all the employees. We had all of their 'HR' data - titles, tenure, salary, department, performance rating, etc.

We kind of took a stab at some analytics - which groups would be impacted the most, what that might mean for certain important areas, etc. But we didn't really produce much insight from the data.

But we had nothing in terms of predictive analytics - we really had no idea what was actually going to happen with attrition and performance if the HQ was moved, and we definitely had no ideas or insights as to what to do about any of that. And really that was always going to be really hard to get at - how could we truly predict individual's decisions based on a set of data and an external influence that had never happened before in our company, and consequently any 'predictions' we made could not have been vetted at all against experience or history?

So that's my story about data, analytics, and predictive analytics and is just one simple example from the field on why this stuff is going to be hard to implement, at least for a little while longer.

The end of Reader and the trouble with filters

I am not sure how you managed to find this post today, but as most of us have heard by now, the demise of the once dominant feed reading platform Google Reader means you're certainly not reading it there.

Google Reader was for me, the primary mechanism where I discovered, (via the previously sunsetted 'shared items' feature), consumed, saved for future reference, and shared interesting content out to my friends and social networks. Reader was almost always an open tab for me in Chrome (Google please don't get any silly ideas about axing Chrome), and I easily checked it five or ten times a day.  Most nights, the last thing I'd do was run through the 400 or so feed subscriptions I had to make sure I had not missed anything important, seen what my friends and colleagues were writing about, and most importantly for me, saved items for possible use as sources or ideas for blog posts, articles, HR Happy Hour Shows, etc.

Reader, more so than any other mechanism, became the primary filter through which I interacted with information and experienced what was going on in the world.

Sure over time, other and arguably better news and information tools began emerging, primarily developed to take advantage of the display and touch capabilities of iPads and smart phones. News readers like Pulse and Flipboard, and my personal favorite Zite, have taken news and content discovery and consumption into the modern technology age. They look great, they are fun to use, and they continue to get better at presenting content in personalized ways. Zite, when given feedback in the form of 'likes' and 'dislikes', over time will 'learn' what content you'd probably be most interested in, and will then serve up more of the content it expects you want to see, and less of what you don't. 

So while I still relied on Reader as my primary source of news and information, tools like Pulse and Zite began to fill in some of the gaps and problems that Reader, (and really my use of Reader), exposed. Namely, unless you actively sought out new and different sources of information, you'd pretty easily fall into the trap of reading the same kinds of information sources all the time, and perhaps more importantly, you'd end up reading (again mostly), the same things everyone else you knew was reading too.

And if you spend a lot of time hanging out with the same kinds of people that read the same kinds of things, well, that all can get kind of boring kind of quickly. 

The demise of Reader should not simply be an exercise in finding and replicating how we used Reader in some other tool. Rather it should be an impetus for all of us that love to read, that love to be challenged by new ideas, that are looking for perspectives that are different from our own, (and that of our friends), to more actively seek out and share something that is just a little bit different, just a little out of our comfort zone, and maybe something that is not the same thing everyone else is reading too.

Since Reader is gone, we have a chance and a reason to think a little bit more expansively, and to loosen up the filters that we were comfortable with, and that we applied to ourselves and to how we experience the world.

What are you reading that is different or interesting or makes you a little uncomfortable? 

Without you I'm nothing. I was talking about my phone.

Clearing out the RSS reader over the weekend, (you still remember Google Reader, right?), and while scrolling through the out of control list of 'starred' items, I ran into two pieces having to do with mobile technology and smart phones, while seemingly unrelated, also serve as unintended companion takes as to the relentless takeover of our normal lives by our devices.

First, the links to the two pieces, and then after the jump, (Yes, I know there is no such thing as a jump. It's Wednesday. Take it easy on me.), some thoughts on how or if this might have relevance to you as a talent or technology pro.

1. From the BBC Online - Bouncers checking Facebook on phones as identification

2. From the MIT Technology Review - New App Watches Your Every Move

In the BBC piece, we hear about bouncers and doormen at a few nightclubs and bars requesting a look at some potentially underage patrons smart phones in order, (allegedly), to have a look at the would-be club-goer's Facebook page to ty and verify their age and match their name and other personal information to the ID card they presented at the door. Sort of creepy, but in a way sensible from the point of view of the bouncer.

In the MIT piece, a new location-based App called Placeme is reviewed. Placeme essentially logs and stores your comings and goings, and takes advantage of the smart phone's sensors, GPS and Wi-Fi capabilities to figure out where you go and for how long, and stores this data in a private log on the phone. No manual 'check-ins' needed, it just happens. Later, you can look back at the logs and track your activity in case you lost your debit card after a big night out, or I suppose, need some kind of an alibi.

So much of our identity is tied up in and captured by our devices, that it only seems sensible and fitting that a quick scan of someone's Facebook feed or their last few text messages would be more telling than a (perhaps dodgy) West Virginia drver's license card that looks like it might have been manufactured with an old Polaroid camera, some clear tape, and a little ingenuity. And since no one I know, (willingly), goes anywhere without their trusty iPhone or Android, then having an automatic running log of where you've been, what you've been doing, and with whom you've been doing it with, (that is probably coming), might have some utility for productivity analyses or even some kinds of self-improvement regimes. 'Why can't I lose weight? Maybe it's because all I do is go to bakeries and bars.'

For the workplace professional, some implications are pretty easy to see. Many of us already do social-media scans and checks of prospective candidates, so one day having some kind of app that candidates could install that would 'submit' or  quickly supply relevant and permissible information on the spot is not too far a stretch. And as for the Placeme app, well certainly for drivers, delivery persons, outside sales people, and more, access to a real-time and running log of movements and location-status updates would be beneficial for lots of reasons, some good, some not so good.

I guess the real takeaway, aside from some simple and kind of obvious use cases, is that while we talk all the time about how mobile is taking over the world, and have seen or even delivered presentations citing statistics about how mobile will soon become the dominant means for accessing the internet in the near future, I am not sure at all that as workplace professionals we are thinking about how mobile and smart phones are changing more common things, simple things, and even possibly changing us as people.

We take our phones everywhere. We start to break out in a cold sweat if we can't locate our phones, if even for a few minutes. The first thing we do in the morning is reach over to the night stand and check in on our phones, (don't lie like you like to, you know you do this).

With all this considered, I think the organizations and solutions that start to think more fully and carefully about these changes and their impact on people, work, and communities will be the ones that stay ahead of the game. I think there has to be more to this than simply re-purposing what we do today to 'fit' a smaller screen, or to figure out how to make phone users see and click more ads.

What do you think - is mobile truly and significantly change the way your business works? Or the way your employees want to work?

Please submit your resume, three references, and a facial scan

For recruiters and Human Resources professionals sorting through mountains of applicant resumes, conducting and reviewing scores of interviews, checking references, and doing the requisite online social media stalking research, of candidates; hiring is a lengthy, challenging, and certainly inexact science.Source - PLoS One

Sure, over time and with experience professional recruiters and HR gurus can and do certainly get better at managing these processes (and the right technologies implemented in a smart manner definitely can help), but even with years of practice and refinement, the hiring process itself can still resemble a long, slow, dreary march, filled with mostly sequential and incremental steps meant to answer a fairly basic question - 'Is this the kind of person we want to work with?'.

What if there was a way not necessarily to usurp these processes to drive to the answer to that question, but to supplement or attempt to confirm the conclusions drawn from the interview processes with a little bit of technology and science that claims to offer an accurate assessment of a person's basic character elements, without being beguiled or influenced by factors that can possibly be more easily manipulated by the candidate?

Take a look at this piece from the CNET - 'Software can tell if you're mean and ugly', a piece that describes a new kind of facial recognition software that claims that 'using machine-learning techniques, it also examines images of faces for other social traits, such as competence, trustworthiness, meanness, dominance, and extroversion.'

Competence? Trustworthiness? Meanness? 

Those sound like the kinds of traits that might have plenty to do with success on the job and the assessment of these traits is in large part what the recruiting and hiring processes are designed to determine. Could a simple facial scan when processed by this new software actually drive a better, more accurate, and quicker understanding of these critical personality factors?

According to the CNET piece the software claims to have achieved between 91 and 96 percent accuracy for at least three traits - dominance, threat, and meanness. 

Now before you go crazy in the comments about all the legal and ethical problems with incorporating a crazy technology like facial recognition scanning in the hiring process, I will be clear in stating that I don't think this kind of technology has a place (at least right now), in any candidate assessment process.  But the technology is kind of interesting, and it might just have other applications we have not thought of as yet.

And it also helps to point out that despite all the time, effort, and application of years of experience that we bring to bear on the hiring process, sometimes the best way to get a bead on someone is to just look them straight in the eye, (and also assess their shape, alignment, and equidistance).

What do you think - will this kind of technology ever have a place in the recruiting process?

New Technology and Staying Relevant

Technology, whether its in the workplace or in our personal lives, advances relentlessly, and it can be really daunting and perhaps frustrating for some to keep up. And of course there's the question of should you even try to stay on top of the latest developments in things like augmented reality or whether you need to sign up for an account on the newest social/reputation/gaming/location/baconated viral community?

Here's some unsolicited advice that might help you decide whether or not a new shiny object is worth the investment of some of your most valuable resource - your time, and by asking and evaluating your answers to a few basic questions hopefully you'll be better able to make an informed decision.

1. Do I have any idea what this new 'thing' is?

If the new tool or technology is 100% foreign to you, never heard the name before, don't recognize any of the people that might be talking about it, and as yet, can't find anyone with a Twitter bio professing to be a 'ninja' or 'rockstar' with said new technology - then it is safe to take a pass for now. Let some other folks with more time on their hands sort out the relevance and potential use cases for you.

2. Who is reporting about this technology right now?

There is a kind of progression and hierarchy in the popular tech blogs and aggregators, and mainstream media about new technology.  This progression can be roughly used as a layman's guide about when to take a closer look at a new technology or gadget.

Killer Startups.com - Still safe to ignore. 

TechCrunch - Still generally ok to wait it out. I'll keep an eye out for you and let you know if anything that pops there is relevant.  

Mashable - Probably still ok to ignore, but at this point you might need to feign interest as all of your online friends will have read the same information you did and you don't want to seem out of touch.

The New York Times - Now it's time to take a look for sure. In fact it may already be too late.By now the rest of the world now knows about the new technology too. So you won't be 'cool' for talking about it with the Twitter crowd, but inside your own organization you still might be able to pull off some early adopter cred.

Does this technology have anything to do with my job/business/industry?

The directly relevant technologies to your business or industry are generally easy to spot.  They usually have a tagline of 'The Pandora for ABC' or 'The Foursquare of XYZ'. If ABC or XYZ are things your company does or provides, it might be worth your time to take a closer look. That is assuming of course you know what Pandora and Foursquare are. If you don't then, chasing their imitators might be a waste of energy.

Is this technology/tool/gadget/service the answer to a real problem that anyone that has any influence over my success and happiness needs to have solved?

Your boss. Your customers. Your spouse. What you really want from your investment of time, resources, and possibly money out of a new technology is a way to solve problems. But not really your problems, rather someone else's problems.

Be careful of adopting too many tools or toys that really seem to only benefit you. Sure they can be fun for a while. But you run the risk of ending up like the guy who has spent his life collecting Star Wars figures or PEZ dispensers. You might get some acclaim and (limited) reward from those communities, but do you really want to be known for that? As we'd say in the sports world - that is not tremendous upside potential.

So that's it, a some short guidelines to try and help you to assess that fancy new technology all the cool kids are talking about.

What's your take? How do you decide when to spend time on a new toy?