Please tell the robot where you see yourself in five years

Note: I warned you on Monday - it is unofficially 'robot week' here on the blog. Bail out now if this is not your kind of thing. Don't worry, I won't know if you did. Probably.

Researchers and engineers have long identified manufacturing, warehouse operations, and even more 'advanced', complex, and interactive processes like patient and elder care as potentially fertile ground for the further automation and robotization of the economy and society. While each new encroachment of these increasingly better, smarter, cheaper, and more reliable pieces of technology, many of us pause to take stock of just how near or far we see our own roles and jobs from this impending and inexorable onslaught.

And also increasingly, the answer to the question of 'Just how close is my job to being replaced by a robot?' is 'Closer than you think.'

For the folks who read this blog, mostly HR and Talent management professionals, 'basic' kinds of automation have mostly made our jobs better, easier, simpler, and allowed us to spend more time on complex and higher order activities. Instead of endlessly keying and re-keying data on dumb terminals, we have our employees process their own transactions on their iPads. Instead of calling up references for soon-to-be-hired candidates, we send the references a link to an online survey and have some software send us any red flags or exceptions. You get the idea. 

Automation in HR has no doubt helped make our operations much more efficient, reduced errors, and with the latest batch of exciting new technologies, given us insight into our organizations that would have only a few years ago been impossible to see.

But will automation in HR ever go even further and reach into one of the 'essential' HR and Talent functions - the actual assessment of a candidate in the traditional interview setting? Some researchers at LaTrobe University Business School in Australia are betting that the answer to that question is 'Yes'.

Check this excerpt from a piece on the Australian Financial Review site, 'Interviewed for a Job by Sophie the Robot':

With big eyes, a feminine voice and some interesting dance moves, Sophie is rather cute but don’t let that fool you.

Sophie could soon be conducting your toughest-ever job interview, monitoring not just what you say but tiny twitches in your eyebrows that give clues about how you really feel.

Sophie and her fellow “human-like” robots Charles, Matilda, Betty and Jack plus two as yet unnamed robots are the product of a research joint venture between La Trobe University Business School in Melbourne and global electronics giant NEC Corporation in Japan.

NEC provided the robots and La Trobe is adapting them for use in recruitment, health care and as “emotionally engaging learning partners” in Australia. Rajiv Khosla, who has been driving the project since its inception, says the robots are a “world first in the area of recruitment”.

Sophie was already involved in trial interviews of candidates for sales jobs, asking 76 questions about selling.

“She captures their [candidates] cognitive verbal responses and captures their emotional responses by monitoring changes in their facial expression,“ Khosla says.

Khosla insists robots will not replace humans conducting later stage interviews or employers making final hiring decisions.

Sure, the interviewer robots are just here to help the process, that is all Mr. or Ms. HR Director. There's no way a robot for gosh sakes would be better at assessing the validity, truthfulness, accuracy, and the like of a candidate's responses.

There's no way a robot would be able to compare, in seconds, and with astonishing precision the information provided in the interview with a candidate's resume, LinkedIn profile, social web exhaust, old resume from five years ago they forgot was still on Monster.com, and so on.

There's no way a robot would be able to sense subtle eye movements, increase in respiration, body temperature changes, as different questions get asked and answered.

There's no way a robot could, in fractions of a second, compare and contrast dozens of candidates' answers to the same questions and produce detailed analyses on quality and accuracy, and perhaps truth across these answers.

There's no way a robot could also compare the new candidate's responses and reactions with the last persons hired into similar roles, and how the successful and not so successful hires reacted in similar circumstances.

There's no way a robot could conduct dozens and dozens of interviews across a high volume hiring period for retail or food service without getting tired, crabby, maybe even a little forgetful.

Nah, no way a robot can do all that. We need people for all those things.

Happy Wednesday.

More evidence that texting is the best way to connect with talent

A few months ago I had a piece on the blog titled 'The most engaging method of communication you're not using' about the increased growth and the massive engagement levels driven with text communications.

I used the below chart from Business Insider to back up much of my take on how if you really want to engage with people - employees, candidates, prospects - whomever - that getting permission to communicate via text was the way to go.

 

A practically equal number of texts sent and received across all age cohorts indicate incredible engagement and interaction in the medium. When people receive a text, they generally reply. And the sheer volumes of messages being sent by members of the 18-34 year old age range both indicate that more and more texting (or similar short, disposable communications tools), will need to become a tool in your toolbox if you want and need to effectively connect with people.

Want a more practical and real-world, (ok a sports world) example of how this change in communication methods is playing out with top talent?

Last week American soccer star Clint Dempsey transferred from Tottenham, the English Premiere League club he had been playing for, to the Seattle Sounders of the US-based Major League Soccer. This was pretty big news for US soccer fans, as well as relatively important news for world soccer in general.

Dempsey is not only a club-level star, he is probably the US National Team's best all-around player, had seen success in a top-flight European league, and is still relatively close to his prime playing years. And with the World Cup only one year away, for a player of Dempsey's ability and national team importance to move to Major League Soccer and away from the English Premier League was a big story.

But back to the point of this post and how texting plays into this.

Check two excerpts from a recent SI.com interview with Dempsey, as he describes the process of changing clubs, his role on the US National team, and some of the communications that took place between him and club and country leaders over that time.

SI.com: Did you have a heart-to-heart at one point with Tottenham manager André Villas-Boas?

Dempsey: I didn't. I really just had a heart-to-heart with my family, talked to my wife, to my mom and dad, to my brothers and my sister. And had a few sleepless nights just going over that decision and wanting to make sure I was making it for the right reasons, and that I felt good about it. You have to get that gut feeling that you're doing the right thing. It was good for me to be back with Tottenham in preseason and be around it to make that decision instead of being removed from it on vacation in the summer. I was able to be there, be in training and really think about it.

After I left, [Villas-Boas] sent me a really good text. He was happy with what I was doing and I was going to be part of his plans. He wished me the best. I'm grateful for him. He gave me an opportunity to see what it was like to play at a big club. So I'll always be grateful for that, just to get that experience.

Later in the interview, Dempsey discusses some upcoming US Men's National Team games and his conversations with coach Juergen Klinsmann.

SI.com: Have you had a chance to talk to Klinsmann since you made the decision to go to Seattle?

Dempsey: Just text. He said he wasn't going to bring me in for this game, but he was looking forward to making history in Costa Rica [in the World Cup qualifier on Sept. 6. The U.S. has never won in Costa Rica in nine tries] and making sure we book our tickets to Brazil [for the World Cup]. I'm excited about getting my 100th cap, and hopefully we do make history in Costa Rica.

Did you catch that?

Dempsey leaves one high-profile English Premiere League team Tottenham - and only communicates with Villas-Boas, his former manager there via text.Text me, bro.

Then as the move to Seattle impacts his fitness and availability for some upcoming National Team games and again he only communicates with US manager Klinsmann via text.

A top talent like Dempsey makes a major career move and the two most important executives involved in the process only interact with him via text message.

And no one, not Dempsey, not Dempsey's family, not the author of the SI piece, raises any objections or questions about the choice of text messaging as the communication method. No one asks, 'He only sent you a text? He didn't call? He didn't have a meeting with you?'

Look at Dempsey's quote again "After I left, [Villas-Boas] sent me a really good text."

He sent me a really good text.

And it seems like for Dempsey, 30-year old soccer star, that is just fine.

Ford is desperate for talent - what should they do?

There has been plenty of interesting news about venerable auto manufacturer Ford this week. In the same week as the company reported an outstanding quarterly earnings report, ($38B in revenue and more than $1B in profit), it also indicated its plans to hire as many as 3,000 new engineers and other professionals this year.

You might think that for a well-known company like Ford, one that is currently enjoying a run of improving business prospects and results, and in a time where there is still comparatively high overall unemployment and low labor force participation rates in the US, that filling these 3,000 positions would not be terribly challenging. But at least according to comments from some Ford execs, you would be wrong. Check out what they had to say about their hiring challenges:

“It’s much more difficult getting the right people” than it was in decades past, laments Felicia Fields, group vice president of Human Resources for Ford, reflecting a shift in “the type of people” the automaker needs in an era when high technology systems have become as much a part of today’s vehicles as traditional, mechanical devices.

“It’s more difficult, more complex,” she says, and not just because of the different skills workers may need in today’s auto industry. The problem is that Ford is no longer just competing for talent against the likes of GM, or even Volkswagen or Toyota, but also against consumer electronics firms ranging from Apple to Google to Dell.

Ford has to convince some skeptical prospects that the auto industry can offer as much of a challenge as Silicon Valley, while also trying to promote Detroit as an appealing home base – something that can be particularly challenging at a time when the Motor City is in the midst of the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.

It sure is a bit of a recruiting quandary that Ford is facing. At the same time when growth, a rebound from the lows of the recession, and an aggressive and optimistic strategy calls for expansion, (and more talent to power these plans), they are also faced with competing for talent against foes they are not familiar with, and for many of these positions, having to lure people into a geographic area (greater Detroit), that is less than enticing, (to be charitable).

Yep, having to mix it up with Google and Apple, convincing people that the auto industry is cool, and selling Detroit at the same time? That is a challenge for sure.

So faced with this situation what should be the play for Ford?

Play up the auto industry rebound and a chance to be at the start of that?

Sell the lower cost of living, lifestyle, and I don't know - the Pistons (who are going to be better this year), to the technical talent that would normally head to Silicon Valley or New York?

Raise the comp and ben and perks packages to get them closer to what the talent can demand, (and likely expects) in order to level the playing field with the Valley tech companies?

Something else?

Why is this interesting or relevant to the average HR/Talent pro?

Because today this talent challenge is Ford's problem to solve - tomorrow it may be yours too. 

So what should Ford do?

25 slides on recruiting, no pictures, lots of bullet points, read it anyway

If you are having problems explaining the recruiting process, process step participants and owners, the overall goals of the recruiting program, and even the desired outcomes to your team, your hiring managers, or even your leaders - then I think you would do a lot worse than to share and walk them through this simple, 25-slide deck from legendary Silicon Vallley VC Daniel Portillo. (the slides are embedded below as well, email and RSS (are there any of those left?), will need to click through).

Recruiting: Good to Great from Daniel Portillo

The money lines from my point of view (assuming you are way too busy to look at 25 slides) with some SMB comments after each point

Slide 5 - The goal of recruiting is more than just a repeatable process, it is about crafting an overall experience.

SB - Definitely needed, and definitely requires that you have the time to take a step back and be really thoughtful and mindful of the overall process/experience. This is more than 'we should treat rejected candidates well', in fact it is probably more about how to treat highly desired and hard to find candidates in a way that respects their time and career aspirations.

Slide 7 - When 'setting up' the candidate, make sure you understand what will the person work on the first 3, 6, 12 months? Why is it interesting?

SB - If you can't 'sell' what is interesting about the job, no one with a decent other option, (including staying at the job they have now), will give you a second thought. If the job isn't inherently interesting, then there had better be some other compelling factors you can push to the center of the table, (insane comp, telework, lots of stock, etc.).

Slide 9 - Who are the decision makers? Parents, wife, kids, etc…

SB - Does anyone, I mean anyone, take a new job without at least talking it over with someone close to them? Do you factor that in at all? You probably should.

Slide 15 - When in the 'evaluation' stage - Make sure you ask:  'When have you gone out of your way to do something or learn a skill that wasn’t required?'

SB - Probably my favorite line of the deck. Speaks to curiosity, ambition, engagement  - all the things we say are important to organizations today.

Slide 17 - 'Don't hire someone to be the weakest person on the team.'

SB - I like this one too, and have never seen it before. But you have to think about any new hires impact and effect on your existing team before bringing someone new on board. Being the new guy/gal is hard enough - if the team figures out that the new hire is also not all that talented then you have a flame out waiting to happen.

Slide 22 - On what kills the candidate experience? One thing is 'People who don't know what the hell they are talking about.'

SB - This one cuts right to the candidate feeling that their time is being wasted. Everyone you put in front of the candidate should understand the process, the role, and why this candidate in particular is being considered. This is a by-product of companies simply including too many people in the process in what is usually a CYA move set up by someone.

Slide 25  On compensation for tech talent that have lots of options - 'Companies are essentially paying 2 years ahead of current experience.'

SB - This one is really simple, but bears repeating especially for 'non-tech' companies that do need to bring in engineers and developers from time to time. You have no shot at competing for the 'top' talent if you don't raise the comp to what everyone in your shop will consider is overpaying. That is just the way this market works right now.

Ok, that's it from me on this. Take a look at the deck if you are interested and let me know what you think. 

I'm just happy to see a simple, plain, boring deck full of words and bullet points still be so interesting and compelling that it didn't matter how simple and boring it was.

Happy Wednesday.

WEBINAR: Why you shouldn't pick your talent like you did your sorority sisters

I think the biggest scam going in the HR/Recruiting/Talent game right now is this idea of 'Hiring for Cultural Fit'.

I've written about it a few times on the blog (most recently here), but the main point I keep coming back to is that 'Hiring for cultural fit' is simply code (and a convenient excuse) for 'Hiring more people that look/act/think/come from/share the same college just like us.'

I think it takes the focus off of what is usually more important criteria that needs to be considered in the hiring process, AND, it puts HR/Talent pros in a position where they are set up to fail.

For the geeks out there  - I'd say it is the Admiral Ackbar take on hiring - 'It's a trap!'

But fear not, O true believers, there is another way out of this trap. And my friends over at Fistful of Talent are ready and able to step in to help you learn how to focus on what really matters when making selection decisions in the hiring process.

Why is this important?

Because people have an innate and subconscious tendency to hire the most attractive, smooth-talking candidate when making a selection decision. But having the most attractive pledge class on the block may not always prove to be the best hiring strategy for driving your house’s bottom line.

That's why FOT'ers Tim Sackett and Kathy Rapp are going Greek this summer with the FOT webinar FOT’s 2013 Rush: Why You Shouldn’t Pick Your Talent Like You Did Your Sorority Sisters, brought to you by the team at Chequed.com.

Join Join your hosts Tim and Kathy on July 17 at 1pm EST and they’ll hit you with the following:

1. A deeper look at the old way of hiring paralleled to sorority rush. Skit Day and behavioral interviewing, matching interview polos and Lily Pulitzer-laden ladies, Pref Day and the final offer… sorority rush has bad HR written all over it. But adding more steps does not always lead to the best hire; that’s why FOT is giving you an actionable plan to align your hiring process with your desired candidate profile.

2. FOT’s complete guide to dumb things your hiring managers do when making hiring decisions — and how to change them. In order to break the mold you have to know what the problem is, right?  We’ll cover items like hiring based on alma mater, handshake, favorite flavor of fro-yo, etc. in true FOT fashion. You guessed it — we’re calling out common biases and aligning them with your favorite Greek characters from pop-culture for easy reference when making your next hire.

3. We’ll explore the cliché “Hiring With Your Gut” and breakdown when that good old standard makes sense, when it’s lazy and when it may get someone fired (for a variety of reasons). While the paddle is optional in this section, not having a defined hiring process tied to an underlying job profile is not. Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered in this section.

4. Five rush strategies to end the Stepford Wife plague in your house today. Ready to mix up your pledge class? We’ll show you how to go from the House Bunny to a balanced group of team members in 5 simple steps.

5. We’ll wrap this webinar by bringing in an industry expert from Chequed.com for a little game of “It’s the freakin’ science, dude.” Hiring isn’t an art—it’s a science. We’ll give you the cliff’s notes on why so you can ace your next hiring exam.

Forget what you learned in college, and put FOT’s rush system to work at your company for a more balanced team today. Who knows, we may even get crazy with an FOT rendition of Shout to close this thing out right…

Register today: