Red eye flights, skinny jeans, and being tough enough to work here

Disclaimer: It is a total coincidence that I have the second post about Ford Motor Company in as many weeks. I am not on the Ford payroll. In fact, I have a Chevy truck. So there.

Mission statements, culture maps, or an articulation of the 'vision' or purpose of an organization - these are all fairly common in organizations and often mocked or at least ignored. Usually they are either so vague and obvious that they are meaningless - 'We strive to delight our customers every day', or are so specific and drawn-out that they read like marketing brochure copy - 'Our goal is to be the top-rated supplier of industrial fasteners, ties, and aluminum sprockets to the machine, engine, and turbine sub-assembly markets that we compete in around the world.'

So when you come across a mission statement or a list of operating principles that actually doesn't suck, and doesn't take itself too seriously, (I think a pre-requisite for 'not sucking') that are a part of an organization's DNA it is fairly noteworthy or at least interesting.

So the connection back to Ford, (and once more for clarity, I am a Chevy guy), is this piece from Forbes - Are You Manly Enough to Own a Ford Truck?, that provides a glimpse into some of the unique rules/expectations/operating principles that are apparently a part of the makeup of not just people who buy Ford trucks, but as you will see from some of the items on the list, also the people that work at Ford building the trucks.

Here are a few selections from the list - and I'll have some comments after the break:

• Raw meat is acceptable team food.  Raw fish is not.

• Roller luggage is expressly forbidden, except for golf bags.

• Earplugs are not permitted at NASCAR races or National Hot Rod Association events.

• No whining!

• Airport trams and moving sidewalks are off-limits in order to promote team conditioning.

• No wimpy cell phone ring tones.

• Jackets or ponchos are acceptable rain gear. Umbrellas are not.

• True BFT Truck Team members wear real jeans, not skinny jeans.

• For flights departing at 7 a.m. or later, an office appearance is expected prior to departure. Red-eye flights are expected to maximize productivity.

• There are no “travel days.”

A pretty cool list, if not totally serious, but it does go quite a bit further than most standard mission statements or organizational philosophy statements do to better describe the type of people that will actually be likely to succeed, (or at least get along), in the group.

I like the list because it is descriptive, specific, and funny. The kinds of traits that we often find lacking in most corporate-speak that passes for HR and organizational communication. Are these 'real' rules for working on the Ford Trucks team? Are they actually used in hiring and retention discussions?

I don't know for sure, but that doesn't make them less cool, and it doesn't stop any of us from thinking about our version of a similar list of philosophies, expected behaviors, and personality types of the people that we want to work with and that will succeed.

Have a great week everyone!

Three keys if you want to become a more data-driven organization

So you've bought into it -  Big Data, Moneyball for HR, workforce analytics - all of it. And whatever you call this increased reliance on data, analysis, and more objective information in your talent processes, chances are this represents a pretty significant change to the way you've always done business, how managers and leaders have made decisions, and perhaps most importantly how you evaluate and reward employees.

Of the many tough challenges you have to negotiate if indeed you are the designated numbers geek/quant in your shop, once again the world of sports offers three recent examples, (NOT AGAIN), that help to point out some key focus points or areas of concern as you hatch your nefarious plans.

One - Make sure you as the 'stats' person, knows how to translate the numbers into strategies that are likely to get buy-in from the team. From the SB Nation blog - How and why NBA coaches communicate advanced metric to players, an interesting piece on the Boston Celtics' new coach Brad Stevens and his desire to bring more data and analytics to bear in the organization:

The numbers don't always offer solutions, but they do tend to generate better options and that's all an NBA team can offer with each possession and every front office decision. That's the next step in the analytics movement. What started in blogs has been appropriated by front offices and has now trickled down to coaches. Communicating those ideas effectively to players is the final hurdle.

Two - Make sure the team members know how to and understand the importance of doing more accurate self-assessments in light of the new measurements. It is great when management and leaders make the move towards a more data-driven decision making process, but don't forget the folks on the front lines.

Here is a great example from a recent piece on the WEEI Radio site by former Major League baseball player Gabe Kapler titled STATS 101: Why it's time to re-educate players in meaningful statistics:

To take it a step further, when we discussed our numbers with our agents, it was in the form of the traditional verticals, the ones we used for decades prior. We correctly assumed that our reps were using these statistics in conversations with the general managers of our clubs. We stood in the truth that our value — our worth as baseball players — was wrapped up in these metrics.

Times have changed, but substantially less among players. While progressive front offices have altered the way they evaluate us, we have lagged far behind in the way we grade ourselves. It’s akin to unhealthy communication in a relationship.

Three - Make sure what you are measuring and holding people accountable for, is actually at least largely in their conrol or influence. This really isn't exclusive to a more data-centric approach to business, it applies everywhere. We generally can only control what we can control and penalizing the clever point guard because the slow-footed center can't convert enough of his excellent passes near the rim is not a long-term winning strategy.

More from the Kapler piece:

 If, for example, we taught pitchers about Fielding Independent Pitching — which truly spotlights what a pitcher can control (walks, strikeouts and homers) and removes balls in play, thereby eliminating a fielder’s ability to have an impact on the outcome of a play and consequently a pitcher’s line — we place the responsibility right where it belongs. If we show a hitter how well hit balls and exit velocity/speed off the bat are being examined more and more closely, then the hitter will freak out less when crushing a ball off the pitcher’s forearm and having it ricochet safely into the glove of the first baseman for an out. He may walk back to the dugout thinking, “Ka-ching!” instead of throwing a water cooler and forcing some nearby cameraman to change clothes. 

Let's do a quick review:

One -  make sure you know how to communicate the value and merit of these new statistical approaches to the team. 

Two - make sure the team starts to do their own self-assessments through the lens of these new data-driven approaches

Three - make sure you are holding people accountable for numbers that they can legitimately influence and can they can own.

What other tips or recommendations do you have to transform an organization from one that relies on gut feeling to one that counts on the data?

The State of the Future

Pretty much every HR/workplace/talent blog or blogger has at one time or another taken a stab at defining or predicting the 'Workplace of the future' or tried to opine on 'The future of work.' Speculating on the future is kind of fun for a blogger, I know I have done a bunch of pieces like that over the years. Those kind of posts are also fun due to the complete lack of accountability towards the accuracy of any of the predictions. I could post that intelligent and full articulated robots like Atlas, (aside - Atlas is super cool, and I have to post about him/her/it separately), will replace all HR/Talent functions in the organization by 2020 and pretty much feel confident even if I am wrong, no one is going to call me out about it seven years from now.

But there is another category of folks that spend even more time waxing philosophic about the future - actual futurists. People who spend pretty much all their time trying to spot new trends, consider what new technologies may emerge, (and how existing ones will change the world), and often try to help companies and governments with long, and even really long-term planning.  

And when futurists get together, they talk about the future - duh!. And just like in the HR space when after a big event like SHRM or HR Tech there are articles posted that reflect not just on the event itself, but also on the industry overall. And often these 'state of the industry/discipline' pieces are more interesting than specific or detailed event reports. A really good industry thinker is concerned more with and attempts to make these larger connections and conclusions by piecing together, comparing, and connecting lots of smaller data points.

So why did I start this post talking about futurists?

Because over the weekend I read this really interesting piece titled Dispatch From the Futures: Thoughts on WorldFuture2013, about a recent conference for futurists, and the overall state of that discipline - a kind of 'State of the Future' if that makes sense. 

In the piece, the author breaks down what he/she, sees as some of the challenges facing the folks who get paid to see into the future, and while I encourage you to check out the entire piece, I'm going to drop a couple of the issues raised here, as I think they do resonate with folks in the HR/Talent space.

From the Futurist:

Radar or Canvass?  Is foresight and the work of futurists primarily focused on scanning for dangerous futures (radar) or building new ones (canvass)?  Again, this is a false dichotomy, but an important one.  My sense is that governments and larger corporations focus on radar, while innovative companies focus on the canvass.  And this thought experiment leads me to one of the more interesting questions posed at WorldFuture. 

HR takeaway?

When faced with something new - like the emergence of social media, or of wearable technology, or of changing demands of a new generation of workers - how much time do you spend thinking and preparing for the worst, or at least thinking about things through a lens of risk mitigation? What percent of your time is spent developing ways to positively leverage these changes?

From the Futurist:

New Novelties vs. Megatrends: There is a tension between learning about entirely new future scenarios on one hand and exploring the evolution of already identified megatrends.  Take 3D printing.  Most of my friends at WorldFuture were already well aware of 3D printing and its impacts on the futures.  But, despite the fact that most futurists were all over 3D printing several years ago, this tech is still in its infancy and could revolutionize manufacturing and commerce.  It’s a huge and important trend worthy of study regardless of how long it’s been on your radar.

HR takeaway?

It is really easy to want to jump two or three steps ahead of the organization and push for adoption of the very latest and coolest new thing. But are you getting the most benefit out of the 'old' tools and technologies you already possess? Chances are there is a lot of untapped potential in things that seem old, but really are new to you and your teams. You don't always need to be first to adopt something in order to seem cool.

From the Futurist:

Resilience:  Although very few sessions covered this topic, many of my discussions were on resilience.  If the industrial era was about efficiency, perhaps the near future will be most about resilience, as people and societies develop hedging strategies as a means of coping with dramatic change.  How might we classify these resilience strategies? 

HR takeaway?

Are you assessing candidates for something like resilience? Are you coaching managers and leaders to instill this trait in their teams? Do you even consider yourself and your HR shop to be resilient? If the futurists are right about this one, it seems like you should be thinking just a little about how or not your organization stacks up here.

Like I mentioned you should take a few minutes and check out the entire piece here and I will let it go at that.

You might think that the Futurists are kind of the modern-day snake oil hucksters, but one thing is for certain - the future is coming for you and your organization whether you are prepared for it or not.

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?

Getting reacquainted with the nightmare that is commuting

I have to admit in the last few years I have become incredibly spoiled. Since 2010 or so, for the most part I have been a 'work at home' person, (when not on the road at really tough duty places like Las Vegas, Chicago, or the San Francisco area). I have not had to deal (much) with what the below chart shows, that about 95% of the rest of the American working population put up each day with the commute to and from their workplaces.

Here's the chart I am talking about (hat tip to the NPR Planet Money blog), and I'll have some comments after the break...

Source - US Census Bureau

Notable in the Census Bureau stats on commuting is the decline over the last 50 or so years in the percentage of workers that work at home and the percentage that are using public transportation. The Census folks think that the  'work at home' dip over that time horizon is mostly due to the dramatic decrease in family farmers, (who mostly worked and lived on their own farms). The drop in public transport is chalked up to the rise of the suburban lifestyle which combined to put people farther away from the traditional pockets of employment in the city centers, and are simply not served with as many, or any, public transport options.

Regardless of where you reside across the spectrum of commuting options, it seems to me that one thing is almost universally true - most of us loathe, dread, and hate our commutes.

I thought to post about this today for two reasons, one, I had seen the NPR piece yesterday and found it interesting, and two, I've had to leave my cushy basement home office each of the last three mornings to take my son to a summer camp/program this week.  So instead of my usual groggy stumble down one flight of stairs to the coffee pot, followed by a slightly less groggy stumble down a second set of stairs to the office, I've had to join the other 84% or so of folks out on the road each morning, dealing with traffic, (admittedly not much), traffic lights, and everyone who is not as accomplished a driver as me, (everyone).

And I have been reminded how horrible commuting is, even when it is 'good' by national standards, (the camp location is about 9 miles away, probably 20-25 minutes each way).

What's the point of all this? 

I guess to share the stats in the chart above as they were kind of interesting and surprising. Sometimes we 'work at home' folks socialize and collaborate with so many other work at home folks that we get deluded into thinking way more people also work at home than actually do. If you are working at home, even in 2013, you're the outlier.

And second, to think about some ways we can make life a little better for the 84% in their cars, alone each day. Whether it's flexible starting/ending times to get people out of rush hour a little more, the chance to skip the road all together once a week or so and join us weirdos that work at home, or even some kind of little perk like onsite car washes, oil changes, tire rotations - that kind of thing. It seems to me that 84% of your workforce is likely starting the workday ticked off about something that happened on the road on the way in. That can't be good for those 8:00AM staff meetings.

Commuting is horrible, even when it is easy, and even when you don't have to do it all that often.

I could not imagine going back to that grind every day. 

What can/are you doing to make your commute a little more bearable? Hit me up in the comments.