A reminder that even the world's most admired company has hiring challenges

Lots of words are spilled in the HR/Talent/Recruiting space that more or less read something like this - 'Oh sure, that (insert HR/Recruiting/Benefits program of choice here), might work for Google or Apple, but there is no way that applies to us, we don't have a sexy, well-known brand.'

Said differently, it is more or less commonly accepted that companies like Google, Apple, Nike, Goldman Sachs, etc., have incredible advantages in competition for talent by virtue of their brand equity, vast resources, employer brand reputation, and the like. If you are repping one of these companies from Fortune's World's Most Admired Companies list, you would think you pretty much could dial up anyone you need and they would be sold on the opportunity. And that is at least partially, if not mostly true.

But even the World's Most Admired Company for 2015, Apple, faces the occasional recruiting challenge. Yep, I know, hard to believe.  But apparently in the global fight for scarce data science talent, even Apple has some issues attracting talent. From a recent piece on The Stack titled Apple's privacy policies repel the data scientists it needs to create 'predictive' smart phones:

Just for once, it seems that Apple ‘can’t get the staff’. According to a Reuters exclusive, the Cupertino-based global device giant is falling behind in the race to create ‘predictive’ services for smartphones because its privacy policies are too protective of the end-user.

The report has crunched numbers on Apple job openings and talked to various industry insiders, many of whom agree that Apple lacks the best conditions to attract the very limited supply of data scientists necessary to leverage cloud-based services and anticipate the most minute demands of smartphone users.

The reason for the company’s difficulty in challenging the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon for the brightest and the best new minds in data science and analysis seems to lie with its commitment to protect the privacy of its users. The report notes that data retention policies on user-centric information gathered into its Siri ‘personal assistant’ product is a reasonably generous six months, whilst information retained from the user’s exploration of Apple Maps expires after only 15 minutes

So it looks like the world's best talent in the field of data science doesn't like the fact that Apple keeps comparatively less data around upon which to practice their science. Companies like Google and Facebook in comparison, seem to offer these scientists more of a playground for them to challenge themselves with.

A couple really interesting points I think worth noting in this story, that are probably true for both the World's Most Admired Companies and for your shop as well.

1. The work, then challenge, and the opportunity to be your personal best in your field still trumps the 'Brand' or the reputation of the company in general. Apple might be the #1 company in the world to work for, but for this group of highly scarce and talented folks it is the work that matters more.

2. Often the factors that influence a candidate's decision about joining an organization sit well out of reach of the org's HR/Recruiting leadership. No matter how much influence the HR and Talent organization has at Apple, they are never going to impact Apple's customer data storage policies and practices.

3. For a big company like Apple with lots of resources, acquisition might be the best (and only) way to get the talent that they require. The related Reuters study notes that Apple's 'acquisitions of startups such as podcasting app Swell, social media analytics firm Topsy and personal assistant app Cue have also expanded Apple’s pool of experts in the field.'

Interesting times out there when even the most well-known, most valuable and most admired companies is facing recruiting issues. I guess that sort of makes the rest of us feel good, maybe a little anyway.

Have a great Wednesday!

The technology (sometimes) doesn't matter

Before I hit the main point of this post, I want to be clear about something - I think whether in enterprises or for personal use, having the 'right' technology available is often a critical enabler of both indivdual and organizational performance. 

Anyone that has had to deal with older, even antiquated business systems that are slow, difficult to use, have to be accessed through a labyrinth of logins and passwords, and at the end of the (painful) process can't really produce the information you need to make decisions, can attest to the importance of modern tools and technologies. Or maybe it is that aging first or second generation iPhone you are still carrying around. You know, the one that has the tiny screen and doesn't have enough memory and processing punch to be able to run the VERY LATEST version of iOS. The iOS version that you know is better, even if you have no idea how. But you NEED IT.

So here is the point, until last week I was the guy carrying around a (by today's standards), a really, really old iPhone, an iPhone 4 to be precise. Older, kind of slow, I only had 3G network speed. Aside - does anyone actually know specifically how much better 4G is than 3G? Other than it being 1G better?  But I held on to the old phone well past its normal life expectancy for two reasons. One, despite it being old, and small, and slow, it just worked. I was able to get everything done on the phone that I needed to get done. So the small size and slower speeds didn't really matter all that much. And second, and probably more importantly, I had been running a mental debate with myself for months about whether or not to switch to one of the newer Android phones, like the Samsung S5 or the LG G3. Eventually I ended up with the LG phone, primarily since I do not run any other Apple products other than the old iPhone, and am a big user of Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Hangouts, it seemed like a smarter move to go to Android.

But even though I knew that making the switch to Android was the right decision for me, I still put it off for months. 

Why?

Because I fell into the trap that lots of us do these days, whether considering personal technology or even technology solutions for our business - I was placing too much value on the technology itself, and not thinking logically and critically about what I actually needed the technology to help me accomplish.

Keeping up with (and often failing) with Email, checking Twitter and Instagram, catching up on blogs and news with Feedly and Zite, and checking out sports scores on The Score - together these make up I would bet 90% of all the things I do on the smartphone.

And the truth is all smartphones, ANY smartphone including my old iPhone4 are perfectly capable of handing all of these use cases. Quite simply it doesn't matter which kind of phone I chose. ALL of them would do.

Yet I dithered on this 'big' decision for weeks and months, almost to the point where the old iPhone was just about crashing every day. 

The point, (one more time), is that sometimes, maybe more than we think, the technology choices we make don't really matter as much as we get fooled into believing that they do. Whether it is modern smartphones or modern HR or Talent Management systems, chances are pretty good they all will suit most every use case that you can reasonably toss at them.

The technology today is so good and so capable, that success with it is fast becoming not an issue of whether or not you have good enough technology, but rather if you can figure out how to use the capability in the most beneficial manner. So maybe the advice is spend less time lamenting which technology to choose, and more time making the most out of the technology you do choose.

Have a great week!

Operationally Competent, or How to Reserve a Seat at the Kid's Table

We all love Apple, right?

I mean what's not to love, (putting aside for the moment it's tricky and ongoing problems it the supply chain and workers that may or may not exhibit the tendency to hurl themslves from the roofs of factories at an alarming rate), they have redefined the smartphone market, created the tablet market, and converted legions of fans worldwide and morphed from 'the other guys' in computing, to a global and incredibly profitable industrial colossus.

Apple's 2nd quarter in 2012, one that was rated a 'miss' and a disappointment by many analysts just happened to offer up these kinds of figures:

Quarterly revenue - $39.2B

Quarterly net profit $11.6B

35 million iPhones sold

11.8 million iPads sold 

4 million Macs sold

That's some miss.

And with the latest iteration of the iPhone set to drop in September, Apple certainly figures to continue the insane sales and earnings momentum.

Just imagine how much they would earn if they cared about sales and profits.

What's that you say? Of course they care about sales and profits.  Well, take at look at this recent quote from Apple Senior Vice President of Industrial Design, Johnathan Ive:

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money. It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money," he said. 

Makes sense right, and is completely logical for a product company. Focus on making great products first, last, and at all times, and it is likely that financial success will follow. Not terribly profound either, until you did a little deeper into the piece, and find that little nugget that Ive, Apple's guru of design, imparts about the rest of the organization and the process, i.e., those parts of the company not involved in 'making great products'.

What does Ive and Apple feel they need out of those functions, (and in theory, people).

Operationally competent. Not wonderful. Not fantastic. Not 'best in class'. Just operationally competent. 

Don't screw it up for us product builders. Don't get in the way. And, by implication, don't ever forget which side of the table you sit on.

Sure, Apple is kind of an outlier. It's products continue to enjoy such love and popularity in the market that it would be kind of hard for the 'operationally competent' folks to rain on the parade. 

But, if you really think about it, not screwing up might be the extent of their potential contributions as well. 

It's always tough sitting on a General & Administrative Expense line, but it stings a little bit more when you see the differences between you, the G&A guy, and the real earners.

Builder of Great Products v. Operationally Competent.

Choose wisely.

The people that actually use the technology

Last week amid much hype, Apple unveiled their long-awaited tablet computer, dubbed the iPad.

Pause for a moment while the 'feminine hygiene' product jokes mill about for a second in your head.  Are you ready now? Good.

Almost immediately after the details of the product were revealed, a seemingly collective shriek was emitted from various technology news sites, pundits, and longtime fans of Apple.  Most of this outcry was centered on the perceived shortcomings of the iPad.

No camera?  No ability to multi-task?  No USB ports?  And on and on.

One clever post compares the iPad to a rock, with the iPad only coming out ahead by the slimmest of margins.

These criticisms are nearly entirely focused on a cohort of individuals that want the iPad to be a more complicated device.  One that would require a more skilled operator, that would likely fail more frequently, and one that would be more difficult for inexperienced or disinterested users to fully leverage.

And yes, to some (maybe more that I want to admit) users these the absence of these more advanced and complex capabilities render the iPad superfluous and unnecessary. Let's call these people 'power users'.

But for many, the ease of use, anticipated fast web browsing experience, and the simplicity with which their desired tasks can be completed on the iPad will offer a compelling value proposition. Calling up a web site, checking e-mail promise to be faster, easy, and dirt simple. Let's call these people 'casual users'.

So we have on one hand the vocal but relatively few 'power users' clamoring for more and better everything, and what is likely a far wider (and quieter) population of 'casual users' who will likely find the iPad a pretty amazing little device.  The iPad will likely sell millions of units despite these criticisms,(remember many of these same power users thumbed their noses at the first iPod).

I think there are some lessons in all this that enterprise Human Resources technology creators and implementers can learn from the iPad and from consumer technology, popular consumer web sites, and public social networks in general.

For me, the lesson is this:

In the enterprise of say 10,000 people that are the planned users of workforce technology (e.g. a performance management system), maybe 100 or so people could be placed in the category of 'power users'. They need the most advanced functionality, can adapt to a less than intuitive design, and often are willing to spend long periods of time learning how to use the technology.

The other 9,900 or so people are 'casual users'.  Ease of use, simplicity, clear workflows and speed in which tasks can be completed are of primary importance. Use of workforce technologies are almost never their 'job', they are meant to be compliments to help them perform their jobs better.  They technologies can't be seen as a burden, time suck, and require lengthy and frequent pauses to ask for assistance in their use.  And the power users probably can't help all of them anyway, there are simply too many of them to effectively serve.

When an organization deploys workforce technologies to ALL 10,000 employees, the needs, concerns, capabilities, and attitudes of the casual users are of utmost importance.  But it is almost exclusively the power users, and their management that participate in the vendor evaluations, make the purchase and design decisions, and (often) are influenced by which solution has the most of everything.

But for the casual users of most workforce technologies having the most capability does not matter, only the right capability does.  For the vast majority of these users, their real jobs are creating, fixing, selling, answering, not interacting with the latest features in the performance management tool.

The iPad, as has been pointed out everywhere, does not have the most capability, but for a large population of casual users it may have the right ones, and while critics, pundits, and technology experts are all taking turns bashing the iPad, it may very well be that Apple knows what it is doing and is hitting the perfect balance of features, usability, and design that these casual users want.

Workforce technologies should always keep that balance in mind.