What does package delivery have in common with Top Music of 2013 lists?

Two exhibits, seemingly unrelated, (actually not seemingly, these are unrelated), but to me are both interesting in and of themselves and even more interesting when placed in a larger context, (and if you are willing to suspend disbelief a little bit).

Exhibit A - This is the one you already know all about, released not coincidentally on the eve of Cyber Monday, which is of course Amazon's plan to (someday) deploy unmanned drones to deliver small packages in less than 30 minutes.

Exhibit B - You might not of caught this one, I'm not really sure why I even read about it as I am not a user of the Shazam app and not really a big music person at all, but here it is from the Econsultancy site - Shazam, Big Data, and the Future of Year-end Lists. 

Since you know all about the Amazon stuff and everyone can get the pretty obvious implications to work and workers of such a plan, let's focus on the Shazam story a little. In case you are unfamiliar, Shazam is a smartphone app that you can use to recognize the name and artist of any song that is playing (as long as it is audible), in a process called 'tagging.' The user is then given the option to tap a link to purchase and download the song.

So in the course of the year the millions of Shazam users 'tag' millions of songs, and create a massive amount of data about music exposure, trends, and general buzz about artists and songs. Shazam is now (quite sensibly) using this data as input into it's 'Best of 2013' music recaps. 

The bigger implication of this? Check out the excellent take from the Econsultancy piece:

The beginning of January in music journalism is typically a barren wasteland of occasional punditry and arbitrary list-making. The bulk of these lists are written by experts using their own opinion and instinct.

Shazam has jettisoned this tradition in favour of data, maths and algorithms.

This is obviously a far more scientific approach than traditional methods, which removes subjective opinion and puts the list in the hand of Shazam’s 400m users. It is Shazam’s way of using huge amounts of data in order to predict future trends.

A more sensational writer would proclaim that big data is the death of music journalism. Obviously it’s not. What’s the point of publishing a list of the top artists to watch in 2014, curated by 400m users, if 400m users technically already know who to watch out for?

Amazon and its delivery partners someday maybe, would theoretically need far fewer drivers and driver helpers (and trucks and all the folks that work on keeping the trucks running), if they can successfully deploy an unmanned drone air armada to do at least some of their deliveries. And probably before the Amazon drones are a reality, unmanned and self-driving trucks and vans seem both closer to reality and availability, and disruptive to the job prospects in an industry already struggling to supply enough human labor. Not really surprising given how advances in technology have traditionally eliminated jobs and job categories in the past.

But the Shazam story is much different, and newer, and perhaps even more important since it isn't a theory or a prototype or just a nutty idea. Rather it's a simple example of how data, math, algorithms, and actual, regular people are being combined and mashed-up to disrupt something else entirely, the realm of the 'expert.'

Who needs some hipster music critic or tastemaker to grace us with his/her opinion about what the best songs or books or restaurants are when we have Shazam, Spotify, Amazon, Yelp and dozens of other sites and apps that create data that 'removes subjective opinion' and presents only findings that are backed by that data?

We don't need subject matter experts at all really, at least in these discrete fields, we only need one kind of subject matter expert, the data scientist/programmer type that can make sense of the data for any field at all really. After all, data is data, right?

It is really easy to see a future and understand one where truck drivers and other kinds of manual and medium-skilled roles are going to be increasingly threatened by technology.

It is much different, and up until now kind of unthinkable, to see a future when professional 'experts' are going to be needed less and less.

Here is the advice I give to my 12 year-old son, (I know he is not really listening, I just like hearing myself talk) - "Be the chef, not the guy trying to tell everyone else where they should eat." 

70 is the new 50?

Overheard from one of the talking heads on CNBC this morning in the context of a discussion on the potential candidates for new CEO of Microsoft: (Note: I am paraphrasing the below exchange as best as I can from memory, as I was still a bit groggy waiting for the coffee to brew).

Host - Now how do you feel about Alan Mulally from Ford to be the next Microsoft CEO?

Expert guest - I think he'd be fantastic. He's done an amazing job at Ford, he has ties to the Seattle area, and would be able to turn around that company.

Host - But is he able to take that job and do it well for say another 7 years? Isn't he something like 68 years old now? (Note: Mr. Mulally was born on August 4, 1945 making him, indeed, 68 years old).

Expert guest - Sure he could. Why not? 70 is the new 50 after all.

(Chuckles around the table).

Except that it really is not all that funny.

The issue really isn't whether or not Alan Mullally would in fact make an excellent CEO for Microsoft and even at 68 years old still has the energy, drive, good health, mental agility, etc. necessary to succeed in such a big, complex job. 

Rather, to me, what made me stop what I was doing and shake off my still-waiting-for-the-coffee early morning stupor was the really casual way in which none of the show's other participants really pushed back on the notion that '70 is the new 50'.

Is that really accurate? And is that how folks working today need to contemplate their working lives? Planning for a future where you will need to (or be expected to), be churning out the widgets at 70?

To me this is not some long term trend playing out over decades and decades, it seems much more like a one generation shift. 

I suspect most of the folks reading this blog are in what we'd consider their 'prime' working years, probably between 35 and 55. And probably most of the folks can look back just one generation, to their parents, and see how the arc of their professional lives looked much, much different and sets up in contrast to the '70 is the new 50' point of view.

And since I don't know your specific story, I will share mine, (and assume it resonates, if not, please share in the comments).

My Mom was mostly a stay at home Mom until the kids were older and two of the three of us were out of the house. She then had a few different part-time jobs, a couple that she really liked, but then opted out of the workforce for good at about 55 or so. 

My Dad, after leaving the Army, worked for one company his entire professional career, held various management and administrative roles, and retired for good at about 62 years old, (and was 'ready' to retire way before that).

I suspect the stories of your parents are similar. And I'd also suspect at least for many of us today, we expected our stories to play out along similar lines. But it does seem that, in just one generation or so, these expectations, borne out of a combination of economic necessity and some measure of changing cultural and societal pressures, are being rapidly altered.

The talking head on CNBC might have been (kind of) joking when he said '70 is the new 50.'

But let's pretend for a moment it was not a joke, and it really is more representative of how more and more of our careers will look.

Are we ready for that?

Are our organizations ready for that?

Will you ever see your Grandkids while they are still young enough to spoil?

Do not attempt

Did you watch any TV over the weekend?

Of course you did. We all did. And please no comments along the lines of 'I don't even have a TV' or 'I only stream Hulu to my iPad'. If you are one of those people, you are still the outlier, still the exception, still kind of annoying.

So over the weekend I caught a new (I think new) commercial from the good folks over at Jeep. The spot (embedded below, email and RSS subscribers will need to click through), was one of those artsy kinds, with lots of quick cut scenes of people out and about in the woods or on trails or climbing up things, a soundtrack of an old Bob Dylan song with his typical incomprehensible lyrics, and an overall message of 'When you were young, you could do anything, be anything, go anywhere. Now you are older and you think you can't do all the crazy, adventurous, exciting things you used to do, (or wanted to do, but never got around to them before you took a boring office job, signed on for a (too big) mortgage, and became 'responsible.' But you still can do these things, well, if you drive one of these cool, off-road capable but probably won't see any terrain more dangerous than the mall parking lot on Black Friday, new Jeeps!

It actually is a decent commercial as these things go, and in its final, dramatic, inspirational image we see someone about to embark on a base jump, leaping off a canyon or ridge of some kind, about to hurl his or her mini-parachute in the air that will ostensibly help guide them down to safety below. The voice over reminds us that 'You can still throw yourself at the world head first again' while we see from behind this amazingly exciting, probably dangerous, and likely something 99% of us would never try, leap off of a perfectly good mountain.

But as we watch that tremendous leap of faith and adrenaline and courage, and internalize that since we are listening to an old, obscure Bob Dylan track that this must be cool, a tiny disclaimer appears on the screen. 

Do not attempt.

No, this amazingly exciting (potential) life and set of adventures we portray in our Jeep commerical, they aren't really meant for you to try. (We really just want you to buy a Jeep. And be careful.).

And we don't want to be held responsible just in case anyone watches our little minute and one second of inspiration and actually thinks that yes, they can crawl out of their cubicle and climb mountains, walk around shirtless, and stare pensively into campfires.

And yes, there are lawyers somewhere that told us we have to place Do not attempt right over the images just in case someone out there is crazy enough to Attempt and ends up lying in a broken heap at the bottom of the valley.

What's the point of all this?

As usual, there is not much of one.

Except to think that maybe on some if not all of the 10,249 articles that will be published today telling you how to better engage your employees, or how to manage people, or to find and recruit 'top talent' that at least some of them should come with the same disclaimer.

Do not attempt.

Have a great week!

Star employees and the assignment of credit

As loyal readers know, I am all about the fashion and as such, am a subscriber and regular reader of GQ Magazine. 

In the most recent GQ, buried in an interview with journalist and TV personality Keith Olbermann, who as you might know has kind of a checkered career past and has burned lots of bridges with many of his former employers, like CNN, MSNBC, and ESPN, was an interesting take from KO on how star employees interpret and assign the credit for their success.

Here is the take from Olbermann:

So I don't think there are huge divergences between my personality and what they see on TV. And I think that's why I have been gainfully employed doing this. I'll always deliver what an employer wants. At some point they decide the result is more trouble than they want, or they convince themselves that they have created all this success that I created for them. As in my last prominent employer at NBC, which they're learning that perhaps they were wrong about that.

Olbermann has had lots of success, and been a star or high performer (who eventually flamed out) at every stop along the way. But it would be a mistake to only focus on the flame-outs and not on the psyche of the star performer that Olbermann speaks to so candidly.

Look at that part of the quote again - At some point they decide the result is more trouble than they want, or they convince themselves that they have created all this success that I created for them.

While from the outside, anyone looking at Olbermann's career arc would tend to focus on the 'He is more trouble than he is worth' argument, stars like KO usually see it from the latter point of view - that they themselves are driving success, not the company.

I think the quote provides a really useful reminder for any leader or manager or organization that is grappling with one of those similar 'It is worth keeping this guy/gal around?' kinds of conundrums.

Star performers can be prickly. They can demand a lot. They want to be paid more than your salary range says is permissible. Like Olbermann, they can be a real pain in the a$$.

But before you decide to simply cut them loose and be done with their ego and BS, make sure you ask yourself who is really responsible for their success, and if indeed, it is repeatable or transferable.

It's ok to let the star walk if they want too much, or they become too impossible to work with, but be ready to explain to someone in an expensive suit how the drop-off in organizational performance was worth it.

Have a great weekend!

It's a good time to be a truck driver, (until the self-driving trucks take over)

And when I say 'good time' please do accept that as a relative comparison to say burger flipping, making lattes for annoying customers, or working the graveyard shift at the Kwickie Mart.

I caught this really interesting piece on Forbes, DOT's New Curb on Driver Hours Is Hurting Productivity, Truckers Charge, that while seemingly a dull piece about changes in Federal work rules governing working hours for commercial truck drivers that would only be interesting to say actual truck drivers and trucking company operators, actually to me reveals much about the future of work and the automation of work here (and likely everywhere).

First, take a look at the main point of the piece in Forbes, then a take from me on why this matters more generally, (and why robots are involved, naturally).

Rules limiting the number of hours that commercial drivers can be on the road are resulting in a marked drop in productivity, trucking companies claim.

The latest Hours of Service (HOS) rules were put into place on July 1, 2013 by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. They state that drivers of commercial motor vehicles can be on the job for a maximum of 11 hours, following 10 consecutive hours off duty. They must take a minimum 30-minute break during the first eight hours of a shift. Their maximum average work week is capped at 70 hours, down from the previous limit of 82 hours.

The trucking industry fiercely opposed the tighter rules during public hearings, but to no avail. Today, a trucking company whose driver exceeds the limit by more than three hours can be fined $11,000 per offense, and the individual driver faces civil penalties of up to $2,750.

During the public comment period, truckers warned that the rules would cut deeply into their productivity. Now, they say, that is precisely what has happened.

Schneider National, one of the nation’s largest truckload carriers, predicted back in February of 2011 a productivity drop of between 3% and 4%. Four months after implementation of the HOS rules, Schneider is reporting declines of 3.1% on solo shipments and 4.3% on team shipments.

Pretty straightforward, right?

The Feds tighten up the rules around how long in a day and for a week that commercial truck drivers can be behind the wheel, thus creating an artifical constraint on labor supply, (I am not going to even try to get in to the debate about whether or not this change in rules was needed or makes sense, because I simply do not know), and the trucking companies begin to feel the pinch in lost output and productivity.

The simple solution, and the reason this story was interesting to me, would be for the operators to simply hire more drivers. But it turns out, this would not be an easy solution at all.

From a related Bloomberg piece on the changes in truck driver working hours regulations:

Adding more drivers to payrolls will be a difficult undertaking. The industry was 158,000 drivers short of what it needed to meet demand in the second quarter, according to (trucking industry analyst firm) FTR Associates.

The shortfall probably will widen by the end of this year to 251,000 truckers, the biggest deficit in nine years, and reach a record 338,000 by the end of 2015, according to FTR’s Driver Shortage Surplus gauge. The economic expansion and higher turnover help explain the industry’s labor shortage.

“Every cost gets passed down,” said Sean McNally, a spokesman for the ATA, an Arlington, Virginia-based industry group. “As the labor market tightens and as demand for drivers goes up, typically wages go up as well. The competition is already fierce for good drivers. This is only going to increase that competition.’

An industry and job function that had been already been facing labor shortages, (Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be truck drivers), and now feeling even more of a pinch from a forced reduction in labor capacity (in the name of safety, at least according to the Feds). In the short term, it seems like wages are going to have to rise at least some in order to get more people recruited into becoming commercial truck drivers. Of course the operators, (and their downstream customers), don't like to hear that. Increased wages means lower profits.

But longer term, it seems like while we have read lots and lots over the last two years or so about self-driving cars, the real 'killer' application of the self-driving technology is going to be for commercial trucking.

If the big trucking companies are looking at labor shortfalls that estimates say will increase to over 300,000 in a couple of years, then something is going to have to break. And applying the self-driving technologies to a very real and growing economic problem will provide the necessary incentive to push the development of these technologies into higher gear (apologies for the very unfortunate pun).

It will probably be a pretty good time for the next few years to be an experienced commercial driver. But after that, probably not so much, as automation or self-driving or whatever it ends up being called will eventually put 'truck driver' on the list of careers that end up being displaced by technology.

Which of course will make it even more difficult for the trucking companies to find the human drivers they need today, who will begin to sense their days are numbered from the first moment they get behind the wheel.

Happy motoring.