REPRISE: You call it 'culture' - to the talent it might just be 'policy'

Note: The blog is taking some well-deserved rest for the next two weeks (that is code for I am pretty much out of decent ideas, and I doubt most folks are spending their holidays reading blogs anyway), and will be re-running some of best, or at least most interesting posts from 2013. Maybe you missed these the first time around or maybe you didn't really miss them, but either way they are presented for your consideration. Thanks to everyone who stopped by in 2013!

The below post hits another theme that I kind of obsessed on in 2013 - what an often amorphous concept like culture means in the workplace and how it impacts how we manage talent. The piece originally ran in February 2013.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You call it 'culture', to the talent it might just be 'policy'

Fresh off last week's launch of The 8 Man Rotation, 2012 Season free Ebook on all things Sports and HR, I am stocking the pond for the 2013 edition with another dispatch from the sports world - but one that I promise has more broad relevance and applicability.

In baseball, and perhaps in all of North American major professional sports, the New York Yankeesare the most famous, most successful, and most storied franchise in history. Legendary players, achievements, 27 World Series championships, and the occasional bit of controversy have been the hallmarks of the team throughout its long history.

With this long history comes tradition certainly, and traditionally the Yankees have continued to reinforce elements like their uniforms, which are the same design, more or less, as they have always been, and with no player names on the back, only numbers. The Yankees shun most of the other 'entertainment' elements that have become a fixture of professional sports - they have no costumed mascots or cheerleaders. They try for the most part to project a sense of professionalism in how they play the game, and how their players, (employees really), also project themselves when they are representing the team.

For players this means (among other things), an 'appearance' code - uniform shirts buttoned and worn a certain manner, and curiously enough still in 2013, a ban for players on facial hair.  Yep, you read that correctly. If you want to play for the Yankees that means no mustaches, beards, goatees, Van Dykes or facial hair of any type.

The Yankees ownership obviously feels, and has for a long time, that the facial hair ban helps to ensure and support their company brand and culture - professionalism, attention to detail, and very 'corporate' in nature. To them surely this 'rule' really is not so much a rule or a policy, but an outward manifestation and expression of that culture.  And it is entirely up to them as an employer to feel that way.

But one man's (or company's) culture is another man's policy - and in some cases this culture/policy has the effect of deterring otherwise 'top' talent from the organization. The latest example of this in action for the Yankees - check these quotes from the Tampa Bay Rays' pitcher David Price. Price is one of the best pitchers in the league, and when he becomes a free agent in a couple of years, would be precisely the kind of talent the Yankees would pursue. 

Here's what Price has to say about the Yankees and facial hair:

"If I ever did hit that free-agent market, there would be teams I wouldn't sign with simply because of the stuff that I've heard -- every rule they have."

Taking note of his beard, I told Price he'd have to shave if the Yankees traded for him.

"I wouldn't stay there very long then,” he responded. “I wouldn't sign a long-term deal there. Those rules, that's old-school baseball. I was born in '85. That's not for me. That's not something I want to be a part of."

Sure, you can get a little cynical here and tell me - 'If the Yankees offered him $10M more than any other team, he's shut up and sign the contract and shave the beard.'  That could very well be true, but that isn't really the important point to me. 

One man's 'culture' is another man's policy. Sure in this case maybe the culture/policy is having its desired effect - preventing what would possibly be a bad hire. Price, if he went to the Yankees would bristle over the facial hair ban, and probably lots of other culture/policy issues as well.

Not judging anyone here - the Yankees have been really successful for a long time doing it their way, and Price has an absolute right to his opinion and his desire to be treated as a professional.

Not judging, but just reminding that living up to and reinforcing your culture means sometimes turning away some fantastic talent that doesn't see your culture the same way you do. 

REPRISE: Jagger, Warhol, and another guy you've never heard of

Note: The blog is taking some well-deserved rest for the next two weeks (that is code for I am pretty much out of decent ideas, and I doubt most folks are spending their holidays reading blogs anyway), and will be re-running some of best, or at least most interesting posts from 2013. Maybe you missed these the first time around or maybe you didn't really miss them, but either way they are presented for your consideration. Thanks to everyone who stopped by in 2013!

The below post is about my favorite themes in 2013 - talent, and the threat of automation and robotics to workers and originally ran in January 2013.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jagger, Warhol, and another guy you've never heard of 

Check the letter below, a fairly famous one at that, written in 1969 from the Rolling Stones Mick Jagger to the artist Andy Warhol regarding Warhol's impending collaboration with the band on the cover art for their soon to be released album:

In three short paragraphs, and with 100 words give or take, Mick schools us all on the difference between the Talent - himself, the band, and of course Warhol; and the 'support' types like the unfortunate Mr. Al Steckler, who will look 'nervous' and can essentially be ignored.

I post a lot on this blog, perhaps too much, about the challenge and threat that increased automation and robot technology pose to the workforce and workplaces of the future. But I don't think that the changes and potential disruption that more powerful automation technologies, smarter artificial intelligences, and the increasing acceptance of robots in all kinds of workplace environments can be ignored. The primary challenge for many of us, and certainly for the next generation of workers, will be to find ways to ensure we can continue to create value - unique, hard to copy, and certainly hard to automate value.

This is not really a new requirement, although the pace of technological advances are making it more pressing. Back in 1969, Mick Jagger already it pegged. People like himself and Andy Warhol, well they were the creators. They were the important parts in the machine. And they'd enjoy the spoils - did you catch the line in the letter were Mick basically tells Warhol to name his price for creating the album cover art?

In 1969, for a non-creative, non-essential type like Steckler the worst think likely to happen was he'd be ignored and maybe marginalized a little. In 2013, the risks of being someone branded as a non-creative, worrying, nervous, functionary I think are far worse.  We can get a robot to handle those jobs soon enough. 

And the robots won't get nervous or bother the talent.

Have a great week all!

Uber, surge pricing, and data at work (at work)

The on-demand black car service Uber took quite a bit of flack over the weekend for implementing what is known as 'surge pricing' during a pretty nasty snowstorm in New York City. If you are not familiar with Uber, (and you should be because it really is an amazing service), the basics are pretty simple. Users use a smartphone app to summon a black car or equivalent that picks them up and then are taken to their desired destination. The entire payment transaction (including leaving the driver a star rating) is executed via the app, for prices (at least in my experience) ranging 15-20% more expensive than 'regular' taxi service.

But during times of extremely high demand for rides and low supply of on the road drivers (like on a Saturday night in a bad storm), Uber implements 'surge pricing', essentially increasing the cost of rides anywhere from 2 to even 6 or 7 times the normal fares in order to balance demand with supply. The ECON 101 logic is pretty simple - the increased prices (which users are warned about in advance of booking a ride) will serve to simultaneously reduce demand while increasing supply, as more drivers will be enticed to get out on the road in order to earn increased fees during the surge pricing period.

In addition to using basic pricing flexibility to manage and try and balance supply and demand, Uber also is attempting to mitigate the one really frustrating piece of the typical customer's experience, (I can attest to this one), which is the simple lack of availability of a car when you need/want one.

But the backlash from last weekend's surge pricing in NYC seemed pretty harsh as people took to Twitter to vent about their frustration with Uber for radically increasing their prices during a time of "crisis" in the city - it seems like there were scads of celebrities that were particularly peeved about having to pay what they felt like were exorbitant prices for transportation around town.

Putting aside the natural lack of sympathy I have for anyone complaining that their on-demand, door-to-door, black car service costs too much (on a Saturday night in the busiest city in America and during a snowstorm), I wanted to highlight this story as one of the very few that we see that showcases how data, technology, and the combination of the two are actually conspiring to benefit the front-line worker - in this case the Uber affiliated black car drivers.

Normal taxi drivers or even limo drivers might see a little extra in their pay rates for working a Saturday night, but certainly could not take advantage of the dramatic increase in demand for their services as the Uber drivers who braved the storm were able to realize.

Through a combination of new technology, absence of the pricing regulations imposed on traditional taxi services, more flexible labor rules, and most importantly, the presence of information of the increased demand, these Uber drivers were able to make better and hopefully, more informed, data-driven decisions about whether, where, and when to provide their services.

Most front-line workers never really get the exercise the kind of labor pricing power that we see in this example. Last Saturday night lots and lots of pretty well-off people wanted black car service on one of the worst weather nights of the year. The kind of night that most folks would rather stay home and stay warm, much less venture out into the cold and wet and storm to work for their normal pay.

Thanks to data and technology at least in this example, the Uber drivers who did venture out into the weather did a little better than most front-line workers.

It looks like they were paid what they deserved. Which is not always easy to say, both for black car drivers and for the celebrities they ferried up and down Manhattan last Saturday night.

The key to success in Grand Theft Auto (and possibly at work)

Quick shot for a rainy Thursday, a lightly edited conversation between myself and 'P', the soon to be taller than me kid and sound editor for the HR Happy Hour Show:

Setting - 'P' playing Grand Theft Auto IV.  Me, doing something very important, surely.

Me - 'So are you good at this game?' (it is hard to tell, mostly it is just lots and lots of things blowing up and crashing, with some ancillary shootings, rocket launches, etc.)

P - 'Yeah, I am pretty good.'

Me - 'What would you say is the key to becoming good at this game?'

<Pause to think about it>

P - 'You can't be afraid to get your hands a little dirty'.

And scene.

It's a jungle out there my friends.

Happy Thursday.

You're not just the product, you're the (unpaid) employee too

With the rise and subsequent IPOs or gigantic acquisitions of the largest social networks like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram, an often-repeated observation about the users, (and source of content/value) for these platforms has been, 'You're not the customer, you're the product.'

The idea in the sentiment is simple - the end users of these social networks create all the content via status updates, photos, or in the case of LinkedIn, a catalog of all your professional credentials, and the owners of the networks then package, parse, and sell this information to (variously), advertisers, 'power users', or other services. And as long as the individual value equation for consumers/users remains in balance, i.e. you feel like you are extracting more value out of say using Facebook than your perceived cost of allowing Facebook to sell ad space that shows up in your feed every time you open the app, then you happily will continue to use the service, supply more content/inventory, and keep the machine running.

Remember, you are not the customer, you are the product.

But if you are the product, or more accurately, you are an active contributor to building the product, then would it be too far a stretch to say that you are also the employee?

Take a quick look at this piece on Business Insider about a recent case being raised by some power users of the review site Yelp, that derives all of it's value from the end user comments, ratings, and reviews of restaurants and bars.

A group of reviewers recently filed a class action lawsuit against Yelp, claiming that the company should treat them like employees and pay them for their reviews.

The suit argues that since Yelp's business model and success is dependent on its over 42 million user-submitted reviews, the company technically employs those users and should fork over some cash (wages, reimbursement of expenditures, and damages). The plaintiffs believe that willfully volunteering to share their thoughts about a business makes them employees because Yelp can only make money if it has their reviews.

Yelp, which went public in 2012, told Circa that the case is a "textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit" and said that the law does not support the idea that voluntarily using a free service equates to an employment relationship.

Sounds kind of crazy, right?

I mean, Yelp or LinkedIn or Facebook does not force you to create content for them or to have a profile on their networks.

There really is no hint of an employment agreement or relationship that is established between any of these services and their users. So it does seem on the surface anyway, that the Yelp user's lawsuit doesn't have much merit.

But if we seem to pretty easily accept the entire notion of 'You are not the customer, you are the product', then why doesn't it make logical sense to take it to the next step, in that you as one of the millions of builders of at least an element of that product should not be compensated somehow?

Every time I get an email from LinkedIn pitching me to upgrade to one of their premium, paid accounts of some kind, I have the same reaction (I say this out loud too, although no one seems to listen) :

"Pay for a LinkedIn account? They should be paying me."

And they should be paying you too.