Technology, Service, and Dehumanization

My pal the great Paul Hebert had a fantastic piece over on Fistful of Talent titled 'What HR Should be Thinking About in 2013', an examination of some of the most important and interesting business and product/service challenges facing organizations, and how HR departments can or should be responding to these challenges. The entire piece is excellent, and I encourage you to read it all, but I wanted to call out two (related), trends Paul highlighted and compare them to another, different example where business, policy, and pragmatism seems to be at odds with what we 'know' to be sound business advice. Retro Robot

First - the two bits from Paul's piece at FOT:

CUSTOMER-FACING EMPLOYEES ARE YOUR BRAIN AND YOUR BACKBONE.

The crucial element in any customer experience is still people, no matter how much technology has transformed the landscape. The larger an organization, the more it relies on the thousand tiny decisions its frontline employees make on a daily basis. And listening to their collective wisdom is more important than ever.

NOTE TO HR:  Nothing really to add here – just go read that paragraph 100,001 times before starting your next initiative.

HUMAN INTERACTION HAS NEVER BEEN MORE PRECIOUS.

There’s almost no transaction that can’t be automated today, from buying groceries to learning about health issues. And customers are starting to resist. Look for places to act more human. 2013 reverses the trend toward automated everything, as humanity becomes the crucial differentiator between a beloved brand and a commodity.

NOTE TO HR:  This is my mantra for 2013 and on. Just change the word customer to employee in the previous paragraph.  It truly is about BEING HUMAN.  And you all SHOULD be the experts at it!

Both of these trends or areas of focus boil down to essentially the same thing - the return of the importance of real and human interaction at the most important customer touchpoints -, which for many kinds of industries are often the responsibility of the most junior and lowest-paid employees. Think call center reps, cashiers, customer service agents, food service folks, the guy who parks your car at the valet - you get the idea. So the advice from both Fast Company and Paul makes perfect sense - listen to your front-line staff, make your organization more 'human', don't jump to automation just for its own sake, etc.  

Hard to disagree with that line of reasoning. Or maybe not so hard. Take a look at an excerpt from another piece from the Wall St. Journal online titled, 'Can the Tablet Please Take Your Order Now?':

Carla Hesseltine is considering buying a few tablet devices for her bakery so customers can place orders for her signature M&M cupcakes on their own, straight from the counter.

The reason: She fears the $7.25 an hour that she currently pays her 10 customer-service employees, mostly college students, could rise, perhaps to $9 an hour under a pledge by President Barack Obama earlier this month.

In order for her Just Cupcakes LLC to remain profitable in the face of higher expected labor costs, Ms. Hesseltine believes the customer-ordering process "would have to be more automated" at the Virginia Beach, Va., chain, which has two strip-mall locations as well as a food van. Thus, she could eliminate the 10 workers who currently ask customers what they would like to eat.

Did you get all of that? A local cupcake shop thinks it smart, cost-effective, and beneficial to replace their front-line, low-paid workers, the ones that make up the vast majority of customer touchpoints, with a couple of iPads and a custom menu app that will allow customers to place orders without having to actually talk to any of the staff.

And Ms. Hesseltine's cupcake shop isn't the only one thinking about how technology and automation can reduce or even eliminate or at least reduce the human interaction between customers and front-line staff. More from the WSJ piece:

Tarang Gosalia, of Cambridge, Mass., hopes he can get away with having fewer employees waiting on customers at the three hair-salon franchises and one frozen-yogurt outlet he owns by using Square, a three-year-old technology brand designed to streamline credit-card transactions. He is planning to test it out starting in June to see if it will make accepting payments easier and faster for his staffers—and therefore allow him to downsize. About 70% of the 35 employees who work for his combined businesses currently earn $8 an hour, the minimum pay required in his state. Raising prices to offset the higher payroll costs strikes him as too risky, because he worries his sales may suffer.

Some entrepreneurs see a promising market in selling technologies to small businesses that might help them to streamline operations and do away with low-wage workers, or retrain them for higher-skilled jobs. An automatic hamburger flipper currently in development could replace low-wage line cooks at a beachside burger joint, for example.

FastCompany could very well be correct, that '2013 reverses the trend toward automated everything, as humanity becomes the crucial differentiator between a beloved brand and a commodity', but as the examples from the WSJ piece tell us, at least for small businesses, (and I bet many large ones as well), cost, compliance, and even the lack of available talent are still conspiring to drive organizations to at least consider further automation and technology-driven substitutions for human interaction.

Technology can be liberating, it can free up time and resources for people and organizations to actually provide better customer experiences, but it also can be really dehumanizing at the same time. When tablets replace counter help, when robots are the new short-order cooks, when the check-in, check-out and everything in between becomes just a series of user interfaces, touch screens, and customer-machine interactions, we are moving in the opposite direction from humanity as a differentiator.

I think the real challenge for HR and business in 2013 (and beyond) isn't deciding whether or not to automate, but rather making the critical decisions about where and how the organization can afford to automate and where it can't.

Have a great weekend!

What matters more than money and other sick day questions

A really quick shot from me today - as I am neck deep in some kind of horrible flu/cold/whatever diseases are floating around the redeye home from Las Vegas on Saturday nights. It is gross. And no fun.

When you are feeling sick and kind of not very productive it is a natural to let the mind wander a little bit - to start questioning what you're doing and second-guess the decisions you've made. For me today the main question I'm asking is 'Who can I convince to come over and make me some chicken soup?'

Organizations too should ask themselves questions, at least that is the premise in an interesting piece on the Fast Company Co.Design site titled 'Forget the Mission Statement. What's Your Mission Question?'. The piece advocates that organizations shouldn't try to craft lofty mission statements that are often vague, shallow, and instantly forgettable, but rather should think more deeply about their cause, purpose, and reason for their existence by answering or at least contemplating several key questions.

Here are the key questions that FastCo recommends organizations should examine when seeking to better understand their mission:

1. Why are we here in the first place?

2. What does the world need that we are uniquely able to provide?

3. What are we willing to sacrifice?

4. What matters more than money?

5. Are we all on this mission together? 

I think you'll agree they are probably valid not just for organizations or corporations to evaluate - even individuals could benefit from a little self-examination as well. What do you think - should organizations take a 'sick day' from time to time and think about these big questions?

Hopefully you won't wait until you are as sick as I am to take the time to think about them as well.

(and please send me some soup)

(and if you do ask yourself these questions and decide you need to find more 'meaning' in your work, check out a site called ReWork, they have a new and interesting approach that might help.

Job Titles of the Future #2 - Hacker in Residence

Over the weekend while cleaning out the files of 'Stuff I meant to blog about, but never got around to it', was this piece from Fast Company - 'How LinkedIn's "Hacker_In-Residence' Transformes an Ordinary Job Into a 'Dream Job'.

The piece is a brief interview with LinkedIn's Matthew Shoup, the afore-mentioned 'Hacker-in-Residence' for the professional networking leader. And yes, that it his real title - check out Mr. Shoup's LinkedIn (natch) profile here. The Fast Company piece is set up to take us through how his role at LinkedIn evolved over time, he was hired into the much more sedate and traditional title of 'Technical Marketer', and to give some insight into the unique ways he approaches his role as H-I-R, (his 'office; is a picnic table outside, he measures interactions with colleagues like a marketer would - impressions, clicks, and conversions, etc.).

But the individual employee evolution and the quirky new job title is only part of the appeal I think. What is more interesting and meaningful in a general sense is the idea of transformation that is inherent in the story - both as an individual (moving from 'Technical Marketer' to 'Hacker-In-Residence') and organizational, (a company that is wildly successfully and growing rapidly and like many before it, is certainly in real danger of losing the speed, agility, and innovation capability that is a strength of begin really small).

How does LinkedIn manage this?  Shoup attributes this to the idea of transformation:

LinkedIn gives employees the ability to transform their careers in order to do things they’re super passionate about. There’s a culture of transformation and innovation at LinkedIn, and that's one of those things that keeps employees engaged.

When you think about it, it seems incredibly simple for organizations to describe, but for some reason(s), harder to execute. And usually when founders, early employees, or other 'stars' leave growing companies it gets chalked up to 'Well, the same skills that are needed to start a company are not the same ones needed to help run an established company.' Mix in the ever-present growth the bureacracy and administration and rules, (about job titles, pay grades, office locations, PTO, and on and on), and for truly innovative types (and hackers), life as a corporate drone seems pretty unappealing.

But even established companies like LinkedIn still need these kind of people, maybe more than ever. And chances are your company needs some of them too.

How to make a start? How about crafting your own Hacker-In-Residence role, or re-writing the job description of the most creative person you have and include something like this:

'The common thread between all of the hats you will wear is that you will get to traverse multiple disciplines to solve business problems with creativity, and bring innovative ideas to life.'

Sounds like a cool job to me, and one that the people you never seem to be able to find (or keep), would be a perfect fit for.

Happy Hacking out there.

Your customers as characters

Most organizations exist to sell something - a physical product, or some type of service, or a combination of the two. They spend tremendous amounts of time, energy, and resources creating these product/service offerings, perfecting them as far as it is possible, offering them for sale, identifying the target consumers for these offerings, and finally investing varying amounts of additional time, energy, and resources attempting to convince these consumers to make a purchase.

Sometimes it goes really easily for the provider - the product is new, even revolutionary, or it solves a problem in such a new, elegant, and powerful way that the product seems to sell itself. Think the original iPod, or later, the iPad. Or the product has an embedded, loyal, and rabid fan base just waiting to get the latest or newest version of the product. Think a new installment in a successful movie or video game franchise like Star Wars or even Angry Birds.

But for most products or services on offer, the customer needs some convincing - they have time, flexibility, other competitors' options to consider - the 'sale' is certainly not assured, and the difference between winning and losing often comes down to which not (only) has the better product, but which one actually understands the customer's problem more deeply, and can speak more precisely and convincingly about how their solution can solve that specific problem.

I know that sounds really, really obvious and basic, but I think that all too often providers can lost sight of that simple truism - focused too much, and sometimes single-mindedly on the product or service itself, and not how that product or service would actually exist in the customer's environment. Adding one more feature to the product, tweaking some minor element of the service package, or poring endlessly on ad copy, website design, or the 'tone' of the company Twitter account. When the customer has lots of options and choices, these incremental additions or improvements probably do less to sway decision makers than the providers like to think. Once the 'essential' or expected capabilities or services are present, and in a mature market they usually are, the provider that can connect, almost on an emotional level with the customer has the best chance of winning.

How can providers get better at making that kind of connection, and focus more on solving a problem rather than delivering a product?

This piece, about home furnishing provider IKEA's strategic approach offers at least one suggestion:

Göran Carstedt, president of IKEA North America, summoned his top executives to a large meeting room to share his strategic plan. They arrived prepared for a flashy PowerPoint presentation complete with charts and graphs. Instead, Carstedt told them a story about a mother. He depicted a detailed scene of her and her husband getting two kids off to school in the morning. She gets up, makes coffee, wakes up the children, makes breakfast, and so on. Then he paused and moved to the heart of the matter: “Our strategic plan is to make that family’s life easier by providing them with convenient and affordable household items in an accessible location. Period.

Carstedt, in short, wanted IKEA to enter the scene, to populate it with IKEA-supplied usefulness that customers would appreciate having in their homes as they conducted their daily lives. He wanted his executives, in effect, to write IKEA into their customers’ story in a way that improved the story for the characters that populated it. Brilliant! As Carmen Nobel, senior editor at Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, notes, “IKEA has made very clear choices about who they will be and to whom they will matter, and why."

That, in a nutshell, sums up why people might be inclined to go with an IKEA table or dresser or bed, from among the literally hundreds of available options. Thinking more deeply about how their products interact and exist in the flow of their customer's lives allows IKEA to rise above a simple provider of easily substitutable products. Somehow, just by thinking of themselves as a fundamental an important element in a customer's home, they are freed to think more fully, and holistically about the products and how they will play a role in the customer's story.

A good lesson to take to heart I think, for providers of all kinds of products and services.

Happy Tuesday!

VIDEO - For when you're certain you could do the other guy's job better

It can get pretty tempting to see someone struggling a little bit in a job, or maybe doing fine in a job that you just don't see as very difficult or challenging and think to yourself -

'Look at Jim Bob over there in Marketing or PR or Comms, (doesn't really matter what), anyone could do that job. Heck, they should let ME do that job for a while, I'd show them it's not that hard and I'd get some things done.'

Yep, it's pretty easy to critique from the sidelines, and it's really common, (you know you've done this at least once), to devalue the relative complexity and contribution of functions of the organization that from the outside seem kind of simple, so simple that anyone could do them. Never mind the fact that it is pretty likely some folks in Operations or Logistics are looking at YOU, Mr. or Ms. Talent Pro and are saying the same thing about HR and Recruiting.

Guys are especially guilty of this kind of hubris I think, and nowhere is that kind of misguided confidence/arrogance manifested more completely in the context of sports.  Most guys have played at least some sports in their lives, more watch professional and amateur contests on a regular basis, and still more 'retired' from their chosen sport more than a little disappointed in how far and how successful they actually were as athletes.

It was from this shared experience of frustration, combined with a good dose of the 'He isn't that great/that isn't so hard' I referenced at the top that led to video below, (email and RSS subscribers please click through), a basketball contest between retired journeyman NBA player Brian Scalabrine, and four talented, but definitely amateur players that all, to a man, must have been thinking - 'Scalabrine? He was a bum. He rode the bench for most of his NBA career. I can take him.'

Check the video below, (you don't need to watch the entire thing, a few minutes will give you enough a feel for what went down.

Long story short?  Scalabrine, the 'bum', and during his career one of the worst players in the league, and no longer in what passed for his 'prime', crushed the assorted challengers by a combined score of 44-6. 

And while the challengers were certainly not professional caliber players, they all tried out for the show to play Scalabrine and were vetted as talented amateur players. From the video you can tell they all were actually pretty solid - the kind of guys that probably dominate their local gyms or rec leagues. But up against NBA-level talent, even the last guy on the end of the bench talent, and now too old and slow to keep playing talent, they all were exposed for what they really are, a bunch of guys who now realize, if only a little, what an NBA player can do.

So what? So what that a few playground ball players lost to a just-retired NBA player? What's that got to do with me?

Maybe nothing. 

But for me, well I just like the little reminder that often even the worst guy at a given job might still be pretty talented at that job, and perhaps more importantly, just because a job looks easy doesn't mean it is, and that just anyone could do it.

Congrats White Mamba...