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!

Is it a business strategy or a talent strategy?

Last year when the annual 'Culture Eats Strategy' discussion flared up, (Reminder: You are supposed to repeat the phrase 'Culture eats Strategy' for variously breakfast/lunch/dinner/the 3:00AM run to Taco Bell over and over again, even if you don't actually know what it means and have no real way of proving it), I offered a slightly alternative take - that 'Talent', or better and less jargony, 'People' might trump both Cullture and Strategy.

After all, 'people', (remember them?), formulate the business strategy, and shape the culture with their behaviors, actions, interactions, etc. Last year I sort of felt that the silly debate about whether culture was more important that strategy mostly missed the point - without a really dialed-in people or talent pipeline (or factory), it really would not matter how great the culture was/is or how on-point the business strategy seemed on paper.Rue de Banlieue, Maurice Utrillo

But it's more fun, especially in blogs and in social media to keep on talking about culture, I get that. So rather than try and make the 'talent' argument again, I wanted to point out (another) recent example of how all things talent - recruiting, development, succession, even something as HR wonkish as the company dress code, are all coming into play as an entire industy, in this case Financial Services, attempts to reinvent itself in the modern age.

Check this excerpt from a recent piece from Business Insider (via Reuters), Banks are Hiring a Bunch of IT Experts, And It's Going to Reshape Wall Street on how the business strategy (moving to a lot more custom-developed IT products and services) is and has to be shaped by a series of HR/Talent programs:

The investment banking industry is heading into a digital revolution that could redraw not only its business model but also the traditional image of its staff.

Stuck with dwindling profits in an era of poor returns and heavy regulation, the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC are battling to hire the best software programmers, systems engineers and data analysts, to help them get ahead via new technology and cost-cutting.

With IT expertise now a must for the boardroom, banks' conservative workplaces are likely to undergo cultural change as they welcome ambitious, differently-minded people. "Traditionally, banks have been a lot more narrow in their (hiring) focus. Now collectively they have realized the need to be more creative," said Jeffrey Wallis, managing partner at SunGard Consulting Services, specializing in financial firms.

But the latest wave of technology hires has come about because banks are aiming more specifically to grow revenues by developing tailor-made products and mobile applications based on clients' trading patterns. To do that, they need to attract the top quantitative analysts and software developers - which may mean allowing some of them to work in shorts and tee-shirts from Palo Alto, California, rather than in suit and tie from a skyscraper in London's Canary Wharf.

There's more of the same in the piece, particularly on how some recent and high-profile external executive hires into the financial services industry have what are best described as 'traditional' IT backgrounds, rather than a twenty year career in banking or finance. Addtionally, the financial services firms need to 'seek out' this new kind of talent is highlighted - and how it is even driving decisions around company office locations - with Palo Alto, Tel Aviv, and Singapore just some of the tech centers where they are opening up shop to chase tech talent.

The point of all this, and dredging up the tiresome Culture v. Strategy meme?

It's that the culture argument continually neglects the role that talent plays in organizational success - in executing the business strategy and then in turn creating the type of culture that will attact and allow the right talent to achieve that success.  The story about how the financial services industry is attempting to move laterally to embrace new technology and the types of people that can create these technologies is only partially one about culture. 

It is mostly about identifying the talent needed to execute on the strategy, and developing HR/Talent strategies to deliver that talent.

The Culture Trap

Short post today - just a call out for you to take a few minutes today or over the weekend to check out a fascinating piece by Ryan on the anthropology blog Savage Minds titled 'When Culture Erases History'.

While on the surface an essay about anthropological field work in the Baja, California region, (interesting in its own right), the piece's essential question, or perhaps more accurately challenge to us is this: Are we too often  confusing 'culture', complex, long-developing, and ever-evolving, with much more practical and visible characteristics of a people or place, (and I'd argue a corporation), like politics, history, land ownership, and economic power?Jasper Johns, Spring, 1986

An excerpt from the article:

This use–or misuse–of the idea of culture is quite common, and I think it’s a clear case that calls for some more anthropological engagement.  Because culture is, after all, one of our bread and butter concepts–even if it has run a bit wild on us (all the more reason to get back into the game, no?).  In the end, I think one role for cultural anthropology–in this specific case and other related instances–is to point out when culture is a viable, meaningful explanatory factor, and, just as importantly, when it’s not.  Granted, sometimes culture can tell us a lot about human differences.  Sometimes culture is the answer.  But when culture is used to make an end run around history (and politics), well, maybe it’s time to take a closer look.

If you're interested at all the the interplay between culture and power and money and the ways that people do or do not get along in an ecosystem, then like I said check out the Savage Minds article for if not the answers to some of these problems, at least for a way to frame the questions and discussions in a useful way.

Sometimes culture is the answer, in anthropology certainly, and once in a great while, in business too,(although I'd submit in the corporate world it's far less a factor than what seems to be currently fashionable to suggest). 

But other times, and maybe most of the time, behaviors and characteristics we think might have some kind of deep-seated or inherent cultural influence turn out to be much more practical and even mundane.

If we don't get along, it could be because of some deep-seated, thousands of years to develop and almost inherent cultural difference between your people and my people. It could be that. Or it could be that you will not stop posting pictures of everything you eat on Instagram.  That probably is the reason, actually.

Hmm. Maybe too heavy for a Friday, especially after this week.

Have a great weekend!

A simple culture question - How hard is it to get a new pair of headphones?

What do you do if you are at the office and decide you need a new mouse or a keyboard or a new set of headphones because your cube mates won't stop taking conference calls on  their speaker phones? I'm thinking the kinds of items that are more costly than basic pens and paper office supplies things, but not as big a deal as a new laptop or the latest smartphone. You know the kind of stuff that might run $20 or $40 a pop? Is it hard for you or the average employee to get at that kind of stuff? Is there a formal process? Do you require managerial approval? Is there some functionary in IT that determines if you really need the headphones? Does it matter?

Apparently it's not hard at all if you work at Facebook - check this excerpt from a recent piece at Business Insider - Facebook's Electronics Vending Machines Say A Lot About Its Culture - 

The Facebook system is different. No person controls the supplies of the small items. For example, they have nice Sennheiser headphones inside this vending machine. Any Facebook employee can simply walk up, swipe his or her ID card, and grab a new pair. There's a nominal price listed, but employees don't see that number debited from their paychecks or anywhere, really, outside of the IT vending machine. For them, it's simply swipe and go. The system trusts them to use their own judgment about what they need.

Seems pretty cool right? Kind of like those Best Buy mobile vending machines you see at airports except in your office or over by the break room and with all the stuff being 'free'. It's not really free, I get that, and there's no doubt in my mind that someone in Facebook IT or procurement receives and monitors the usage rates and dispensation patterns for these kind of supplies.  But the essential idea or the starting assumption is trust - we trust you know what you need to get your job done, we trust that you won't abuse the system, and that placing unnecessary barriers in your way doesn't help anyone.

It is a simple, maybe dumb example and perhaps I'm reading more into it that is warranted. But I think it's a good question anyway.

I'll ask you - How hard is it to get a new pair of headphones where you work?

Oh and by the way - quit charging your employees for coffee and cokes. 

More on the Danger of Hiring for 'Fit'

Late last year I posted 'Work, Play, and Hiring for Cultural Fit', a post that referenced a recent study on hiring published in the American Sociological Review that suggested, essentially, that people tend to hire people that are like them, and they 'get along with', as well as some comments made by some front-line HR professionals at a conference I had attended. While the study, and the thoughts of the HR pros I spoke with last year were both enlightening, I think the ideas expressed in this piece, 'What Your Culture Really Says' on the Pretty Little State Machine blog frames the 'Hiring for Cultural Fit' discussion in the best way that I've seen yet.Pop art American Greyhound - Carol Lynn Nesbitt

It is written specifically to address the challenges and problems common to tech start-ups and other Silicon Valley-type firms, but still resonates more broadly I think. It also is a long-ish piece, and you should take some time to read it all, but I'll pull out the key part about the danger of focusing too heavily on the nebulous idea of 'fit' in the hiring process:

We make sure to hire people who are a cultural fit

What your culture might actually be saying is… We have implemented a loosely coordinated social policy to ensure homogeneity in our workforce. We are able to reject qualified, diverse candidates on the grounds that they “aren’t a culture fit” while not having to examine what that means - and it might mean that we’re all white, mostly male, mostly college-educated, mostly young/unmarried, mostly binge drinkers, mostly from a similar work background. We tend to hire within our employees’ friend and social groups. Because everyone we work with is a great culture fit, which is code for “able to fit in without friction,” we are all friends and have an unhealthy blur between social and work life. Because everyone is a “great culture fit,” we don’t have to acknowledge employee alienation and friction between individuals or groups. The desire to continue being a “culture fit” means it is harder for employees to raise meaningful critique and criticism of the culture itself.

There's lots more in the piece worth reading, and also taking a few minutes to think about your own experiences in your career, and how your organization evaluates cultural fit, relies on employee referrals to staff open jobs, or tends to recruit from the same few universities year after year.

When I first broke into the workplace more years ago that I care to admit, people talked a lot about 'culture' and 'fit' then too. It also had another name - the 'Good 'ol Boys Club'.

Happy Wednesday.