WEEKEND READING: On Age and Scientific Genius

Building on one of the themes of the blog, i.e., the changing nature, demographic and otherwise of the modern workforce, I submit for your weekend long-reading consideration a recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper titled Age and Scientific Genius, by Benjamin Jones, E. J. Reedy, and Bruce A. Weinberg.

In the paper, the authors examine the relevant literature to determine the relationship, if indeed one exists, between age and great scientific discovery, or 'genius.' Note: Nobel Prizes and great inventions are used as proxies for 'genius' in this analysis.

Turns out there is a relationship, and it might be a little different than your think, and most interestingly, it might be changing.

Take a look at the first of two charts from the paper. First, the 'headline' chart tracking 'genius' against age:

So genius peaks at about 40 or so, then literally and figuratively falls off a cliff as we age.

That can't be good news for one, many of the folks that are reading this post; and two, for workplaces overall that as we have explored before here on the blog, are more and more comprised of 'older' workers.

But maybe the news is not all bad for those 40-plussers. Take a look at how the genius/age relationship is changing over time.

According to the researchers, and like everyone else, geniuses are getting older.

Or said differently, geniuses used to be younger. The peak age for great scientific achievements keeps moving to the right of the curve, particularly since 1965.

So if this trend continues, maybe it is good news for those of us staring at, or even looking back upon, our peak genius years.

On Age and Scientific Genius is an interesting look at the effects of time and generational shifts on the production of great scientific work. Take a look at the paper over the weekend if you have some time, I think even you can spare a few minutes before getting back to the workshop or laboratory.

Have a great weekend!

It's pretty easy to be a bad interviewer

I've never been a recruiter and have not spent a significant amount of time doing candidate interviews over the years. I have, however, done about 175 HR Happy Hour Shows/Podcasts that are (mostly) centered around asking questions of guests and trying to evoke interesting answers. So I like to think, like most people do probably, that I somehow 'know' how to interview well, and that in fact, interviewing isn't really all that hard.

And even if I didn't think that somehow I'd cracked the interviewing secrets, a simple Google search on 'Interview tips for the interviewer' reveals about 1.7 million results - surely with all that content available it should not be all that tough to become at least competent, if not proficient, at conducting interviews. Then fold in the usual familiarity with either the subject matter, (in the case of interviewing someone for a position in your organization), or the subject him or herself, (as in the case that I want to mention, talking to one of your family members).

Here is the scene, (edited slightly for clarity and due to my failing memory), starring Me as 'Me', and my 13 year-old as 'P'.

Me: So, P, do you have any concerns about your class trip to Washington D.C. that is coming up?

P: No.

Me: (after a pause). See, I made a mistake in the way that I asked you about the trip. I asked you a 'close ended' question. Do you know what a close ended question is?

P: No.

Me: I did it again. A close ended question is one that can be correctly answered with either a 'Yes' or a 'No'. What I should have done is asked the question differently, with an 'open ended' question. With an 'open ended' question, you can't just answer Yes or No. You have to give a little more information and hopefully share more of what you are thinking. Do you see what I mean?

P: Yes.

Me: Ok, let's try again. 'What concerns you about your upcoming class trip to Washington D.C.?'

P: Nothing

<scene>

There you have it. Even though I think I am pretty clever, even though a big part of what I do involves talking to people and getting them to share information, even though there exists almost unlimited resources from which to learn, and finally, even though I was familiar with the subject matter, (the class trip), and extremely familiar with the subject, (my 13 year-old), I still failed as an interviewer.

He still was able to tell me just about nothing, I failed at coaxing him to elucidate, and I don't really know anything more than if we never had the conversation.

What is the point of telling the story?

I think it is this - that we probably don't spend enough time thinking about getting better at interviewing because we think that one; it is easy, and two; we are already as proficient as we need to be.

It is kind of like driving. Everyone thinks they are a good driver, yet the roads are full of lunatics.

Ask around your HR shop sometime, I bet everyone thinks they are good at conducting interviews. That can't possibly be true, right?

Ack - that was another close ended question!

Happy Thursday!

CHART OF THE DAY: The Return of the Quit

Since many of us in the USA have been a little preoccupied with the relentlessness of global warming that has cleverly disguised itself in the form of the coldest, snowiest, most miserable winter ever, you'd be excused if you didn't notice a little phenomenon or trend developing in your workforce reports and analyses.

Employees are quitting again. 

Well, to be fair, employees always quit, even in bad economic times. But take a look at today's Chart of the Day, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics year-end JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) report which suggests that the 'quit rate', i.e. the voluntary separations as your HRIS probably calls them, is trending higher and higher.

Here's the chart, and then (of course), some FREE commentary from me:

Source - BLS Jolts report Dec 2013

Some thoughts:

1. 'Quits' are a function of several factors, (personal circumstances, the magnitude of the jerkitude of your managers, people self-selecting out as not being in the right job, etc.), but most observers of the Quit rate on a macro level ascribe movements in the rate to worker's confidence in their ability to find another, and what they think will be a likely 'better', job.  The rate moving up, to a level that is approaching the pre-recession level, is a signal that overall job market confidence is rising.

2. So while you and many other HR/Talent pros are lamenting about 'hard-to-fill' jobs, simultaneously more of the workforce are thinking of themselves as 'easy-to-place'. I'm not sure how that apparent paradox will work out, (probably very differently depending on location, skills, etc.), but it is kind of interesting and amusing at the same time.

3. How you are thinking about and reacting to news of a good employee quitting is probably changing too. In 2008 or 2009, you might have reacted by thinking, 'What is she crazy? Where is she going to find another job with as good pay/benefits/cupcake Friday like we have here?'. Now? Probably you'd think more along the lines of 'Hmm... She's going to XYZ Corp? I wonder if she could bring me over there too.'

4. Last, while the Quit rate increasing kind of feels like it is a good thing, there is certainly some warning signs as well. For one, those recent quitters might find that their skills and experience are not in as high a demand as they figured, and thus end up spiking the unemployment rate in the short term, (as well as having to take a boatload of grief from people questioning their sanity for quitting a perfectly good job). They might find, even today, that keeping a job is much easier than finding a job. And increasing worker confidence might put pressure on companies to increase wages, which can also have a detrimental effect on growth and profits.

So take a look at the JOLTS report if you are interested in this kind of data, I think it gives a little more color and depth to the more widely reported headline of the total rate of unemployment.

Are you seeing an increase in 'quits' in your shop?

Ready to quit yourself?

Have a great Wednesday!

EVENT: The Health & Benefits Leadership Conference

One of the cool parts of my job as Co-Chair of Human Resource Executive's HR Technology Conference, (set for this October 7 - 10, 2014, more information here), is the opportunity to get involved with some of the other initiatives and events under the Human Resource Executive banner, including the upcoming Health & Benefits Leadership Conference, to be held in my second favorite city in the world, Las Vegas, from March 17 - 19.

The Health & Benefits Leadership Conference is the nation's newest and most innovative Benefits event for HR and Benefits Professionals. Attendees will gain immediately useful solutions and ideas to help craft a solid benefits program that will attract new employees, retain top talent, improve employee dedication, enhance productivity and more. More than 50+ thought leaders will be on hand and will share how they are implementing innovative ideas and trends into their organizations, and getting results.

And like the HR Technology Conference, the Health & Benefits Leadership Conference focuses on showcasing what the leading companies and executive innovators are doing today in their strategic approach to health, benefits, wellness, and rewards to help their organizations meet their most important talent and business objectives. You will hear from leaders at great companies like Adobe, Walgreens, The Home Depot, Marriott, Cargill, Twitter and many more. Conference Program Chair Jennifer Benz has assembled a fantastic line up of speakers and sessions.

And, even your humble blogger (me), will be on hand, to moderate an Ideas & Innovators general session, where you will see six thought leaders each present a new, challenging, and cutting edge concept in a fast-paced 'Ignite-style' format, that will be sure to provoke you into thinking about a business challenge in a brand new way.

You can see the full program at www.BenefitsConf.com and if you can (and you should) join me and over 50 Benefits thought leaders in Las Vegas next month, you can register using Promo Code BOESE14 to save an additional $75.00 off the going rate.

Hope to see you there!

You will be corrected (if you're wrong)

The alternate title to this post is, 'It's just about impossible to BS your way to the top, or even into the bottom any more.'

If you haven't checked it out yet, I would recommend the latest Malcolm Gladwell book titled David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, a fascinating look at how we think about (apparent) disadvantages and obstacles in business and in life, and how, often, these kinds of challenges prove not to be disadvantages after all.

One of the 'underdog' examples in the Gladwell book is from about 20 years ago and tells the story of a guy who during a shared cab ride from Wall St. out to LaGuardia Airport in New York, talked his way into an interview (and was a few days later, hired), to be an options trader at at a big financial services firm. The catch was that in fact this guy had zero job experience, no industy connections or references, and did not have the kind of educational background that would have gotten him past the first few knock-out questions that the bank would have had in place (had there been such a thing at that time). But he was able, in that one hour in the cab, to pitch and present himself as a sharp, experienced person that was worth pursuing.

Long story short, he went on to be really successful in that job trading options, (he essentially taught himself, was smart, and a bulldog that out worked everyone), and has gone on in his career to become a rich and powerful executive at one of the big Wall St. powerhouse firms. Great story of someone who was able to overcome some disadvantages, turn at least a couple of them into assets, and succeed where it might have seemed that a middling and non-descript career was probably his most likely outcome.

Great story for sure, but what I almost immediately thought about after reading it was how there is probably no possibility of it happening today.

The 2014 equivalent of the 'Guy conning a busy manager in off the cuff conversation to give him an interview for a position he has no education/experience to qualify for' might be something like a guy hitting up a hiring manager with a well-crafted and interesting LinkedIn connection request, (because LinkedIn is now so big and out of control they have a couple of shared connections), but that shows a profile with thin, and not relevant job experience, an educational story that doesn't 'fit' the candidate profile, and no meaningful recommendations or endorsements. If the hiring manager even noticed the request, and this is a bigger if, forwarded the profile over to anyone in HR or Recruiting to review, there would be little to no chance of the guy getting a second look, much less a call in for an interview or a job offer.

And I totally get why that makes sense, it is hard enough for many jobs to find people that are qualified or nearly qualified so they can hit the ground running (as your hiring manager demands), and there are a raft of other kinds of jobs where you are turning away really good candidates, so in either case chasing after any kind of 'No way he is a fit, but what the heck, he's got charisma, let's call him in for an interview anyway' type of candidate is kind of a long shot no one has time for.

I'm not saying if this is bad or good, really, it's just how it works today. Today, the guy in Gladwell's book almost certainly would not get hired at most established firms. You would check his story first, and you'd find it lacking. LinkedIn is the new scoresheet.

He'd have to find another way in to the industry (or start something on his own).

Thanks to the social net (and more advanced technology), we can now know just about everything about anyone who wants a shot at working for us.

I wonder if that has made hiring easier or harder.

Have a great week!