Career Lessons from an Aging Hair Band

This week I had the chance to attend Cornerstone OnDemand's annual user conference in San Diego, and as usual the folks from CSOD put on a great event. There were probably two highlights for me overall, the first being the excellent presentations and case studies presented by numerous Cornerstone customers at the event, (like Staples, University of Southern California, and my personal favorite New Belgium Brewery). In these and other sessions, customers themselves shared their HR and workforce challenges, how technology is helping them meet these challenges, and provided a glimpse into what is really going on in HR organizations and with HR technology in the HR trenches.

The other highlight of the event was the Cornerstone customer appreciation party that was held on the deck of the retired aircraft carrier USS Midway, and featured a performance from 80s era hair band Poison, (that is Poison front man Bret Michaels in the pic at the right, taken by me with my dodgy iPhone).

Beforehand, I definitely had my doubts about how interesting and entertaining a set from Poison would be in 2014.While I certainly knew of them, and would recognize several songs from their set list, (you would too, don't try to lie about that), going in my general suspicion would be we'd just get a rote, by-the-numbers re-hash of familiar songs that the band has probably played 23,945 times. Additionally, a band like Poison might have looked at this small, (maybe 500-700 people there), corporate gig as just a way to make a few bucks without too much effort before heading to the next gig.

But instead we were treated to a really well-done, high energy, and I have to admit, totally enjoyable performance that surprised me, someone who is not that much of a music guy and certainly someone that does not play Poison, (or any other music from that genre/era) on the reg. From watching Bret and company work for the hour or so that they were on stage, I think there are (at least) three simple performance/career lessons that anyone can take away from the 80s rockers that would be applicable to just about anyone.

1. Attitude is important, maybe more important than effort - You could tell from the very beginning of the set that the band was not simply going to mail in the performance and that they were really energetic and engaged. They definitely wanted to put on a great show, to give the crowd a good time, and (I would bet) to truly earn their fees for the night. But before giving the effort required to deliver that performance their mindset or their attitude towards the event had to be right. If you go into any project thinking 'I really am not that interested in this work', there is almost no way to sustain the work rate or effort needed to deliver good performance. 

2. Effort is still really important too - It was clear the band had their minds right at the start of the show, but for work or performances where success or failure can be greatly influenced by the level of effort put forth, a good attitude or 'wanting' to succeed is never going to be enough. Bret and the other guys sustained a really high energy and work level for the entire set, never really taking a break, always engaging with each other and with the audience for the duration of the show. There was never really a lull or a pause in their effort, and at no time did they seem disinterested in what they were doing. And that is hard to do I think, when you have played the same songs thousands of times, or maybe in your case, delivered the same monthly status reports for the last 8 years. But the audience can tell if you are really working or not.

3. It helps to be a nice person - From random encounters with fans in the hotel prior to the show, to the way that the band engaged with fans during and even after the show was over, it was really clear that the guys in Poison were really appreciative and thankful for the support from the audience, (or were just really good at faking it). So beyond caring enough about what they were doing to have a great attitude, and put forth the effort, they also took time to try and personally connect with people as well. You can get away with being a jerk for a while if you can deliver great work, but you probably either will wear out your welcome because you are a jerk, or you will eventually stop delivering great work. And then you will no longer be 'That jerk who knows what he is doing', you will just be 'That jerk.' And no one will put up with that for very long. You will last much longer if you at least try to be nice.

So yes, I am admitting that I had a good time at a Poison concert. And I am not ashamed. If you were there you would have had a good time too. And you just might have learned something about work and career longevity along the way.

Happy Thursday!

What's so great about top talent?

Pretty much every article or analysis of the drivers or pre-requisites for consistent high performance in an organization eventually mentions the concept of 'top talent.'

An organization needs the best or 'top' talent in order to continuously generate great new ideas, to execute their strategies, to improve productivity and efficiency, and so on. Some estimates of the comparative advantage provided by 'top talent' compared to average (and much easier to find) talent rate that advantage as high as a factor of 10. Whatever the actual factor is, and it probably varies pretty widely depending on the industry and type of work, there is pretty much universal agreement that while not always available (and affordable), acquiring 'top' talent should be most organizations goal.

But why, exactly?

What specifically do these 'top' talents bring to the organization? What do they actually do that is demonstrably superior to average talent and how would the answer to that question help organization's improve their recruiting and development strategies?

Well, a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study titled Why Stars Matter, has attempted to identify just what are these 'top talent' effects. It turns out that just being better at their jobs only accounts for a part of the advantage these high performers provide and that possibly the more important benefit is how the presence of top talent impacts the other folks around them, (and the ones you are trying to recruit).

Here is a summary of the findings of the 'top talent' effects from HBR:

The paper points to three different ways that superstars can improve an organization, and measures the magnitude of each in the context of academic evolutionary biology departments. The first, and most obvious, is the direct increase in output that a superstar can have. Hire someone who can get a lot of great work done quickly and your organization will by definition be producing more great work. But, perhaps surprisingly, this represents only a small fraction of the change that superstars have on output.

The researchers found that the superstar’s impact on recruiting was far and away the more significant driver of improved organizational productivity. Starting just one year after the superstar joins the department, the average quality of those who join the department at all levels increases significantly. As for the impact of a superstar on existing colleagues, the findings are more mixed. Incumbents who work on topics related to those the superstar focused on saw their output increase, but incumbents whose work was unrelated became slightly less productive.

So 'top talent' (mostly) gets to be called 'top talent' because they are simply better, more productive employees. But a significant benefit of these talented individuals is that they help you recruit more people like them, who in turn also are more productive than average, continuing to raise the overall performance level of the organization.

But this only works in the real world if indeed the top talent actually can help you (and actively help you) recruit more people like them.

The findings of the NBER study suggest that beyond their own performance, and the potential of them to elevate the performance of the rest of your team, the real benefit to organizations from 'top talent' is really tied up in whom they help you recruit next.

It might be something to consider adding to your interviewing and assessment process a question something along the lines of "If you were to come on board, who would you recommend we hire next?"

Have a great week!

Three quick performance lessons from the Oracle of Omaha

Legendary investor and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet dropped his annual shareholder letter last week, and as usual it is full of insights about investing and business and offers plenty for anyone interested in better performance - of investments, organizations, or individuals to think about and learn from.

1. On taking the long view

Buffett: "Games are won by players who focus on the playing field -- not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard. If you can enjoy Saturdays and Sundays without looking at stock prices, give it a try on weekdays."

HR/Talent lesson: Like many investments, the true payoff on many talent decisions/initiatives are only realized in the fullness of time. New hires can take as long as a year to be fully productive, that big HRMS project could have an 18-month timeline, and that new recruiting blog or Facebook page you've set up is simply not going to catch in the first month. We want, or are trained to expect, a faster payoff or return on everything we do, but as Buffett reminds us, often patience will be rewarded. Probably the most difficult, and most valuable, ability for any manager is the ability to know just how long to keep pursuing a strategy and when to change course.

2. On understanding your strengths and weaknesses

Buffett: "You don't need to be an expert in order to achieve satisfactory investment returns. But if you aren't, you must recognize your limitations and follow a course certain to work reasonably well. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences."

HR/Talent lesson: This is the classic workplace  trap of wanting to do everything yourself, followed closely by trying to staff your team with people that also think they can do everything. I am utterly convinced people are more happy, engaged, and productive simply doing the things they are good at more often than they have to attempt the things where they are not so capable. Let people build on their strengths, don't focus obsessivley on trying to push them into areas where they are not ready, or not as talented. Some folks will want to stretch and challenge themselves no doubt, but not everyone is that comfortable or that driven, and that is ok too.

3. On listening too intently to what others think

Buffett: "Forming macro opinions or listening to the macro or market predictions of others is a waste of time. Indeed, it is dangerous because it may blur your vision of the facts that are truly important. (When I hear TV commentators glibly opine on what the market will do next, I am reminded of Mickey Mantle's scathing comment: "You don't know how easy this game is until you get into that broadcasting booth.")

HR/Talent lesson: I am a pessimist or a cynic I suppose, but I remain convinced that about 75% of the people you know really don't care about your career success, 20% are actively conspiring against you to various degrees, and maybe 5% are truly in your corner. You should care about what these 5% have to say, listen to their advice, etc., and everyone else should be ignored. Completely. And if you are not sure if a particular person is really on your side or not, then you can just assume they are part of the 95% you should be ignoring and thus, ignore them as well.

Once again, really solid advice and perspective from a guy who's credentials mostly speak for themselves. Think about the medium term and long term, know what you are good at (and like to do), and don't get caught up in what the crowd thinks - most of them hate you and want you to fail anyway.

Have a great week!

The downside of measuring everything

KD had a great post on HR Capitalist about the (potential) link between pay and performance at Gawker media, as evidenced by the below chart that showed that one writer, Neetzan Zimmerman, (his traffic is in light green on the chart) on the staff of 15 or 16 was responsible for 99% of the site's overall traffic, (and revenue, or at least the opportunity to earn revenue).

KD, rightly, concluded that this situation likely presented Gawker a huge and obvious 'Pay for Performance' situation, where if Gawker were truly taking the capitalist/meritocratist approach to business and talent management, they would have dropped about a third of the staff, allocated all that salary budget to Zimmerman, and told the remaining nine or so staff to shut up, (while showing them the traffic chart), if they didn't like being paid about 20% of what Zimmerman was getting.

While we don't know what Gawker actually did, we do know that Zimmerman left to chase something else, so at least it seems on the surface a gigantic rise in salary or performance related comp was not on offer.

But rather than talk about what Gawker should have done, (or do in the future with their comp/performance strategy), I'd rather think a little about a world where having the access to data and the analytical tools to actually do more data-informed performance becomes more and more prevalent.

One of the most common reasons true pay for performance isn't done, or isn't done successfully, is that it just is really hard to accurately and fairly quantify and measure performance in the first place.  Unlike the staff of writers at Gawker, who can be reasonably and pretty fairly judged on their performance by web traffic to the site for their articles, which is both easy to measure and not subject to the whims of any manager's opinion or rating biases, most of the rest of us have jobs perhaps a little more complex, variable, and nuanced.

The kinds of jobs that don't allow easy and clean measurement, and consequently don't facilitate easy comparison of workers within and across work groups. So we invent things like competency models, and core job functions, and 360s, and talent reviews and calibration in order to come up with some kind of repeatable, reasonable, and defensible method to rate and review folks. And after all that the difference between the annual salary increases for the 'best' performers and the average performers might be a percent or two. 

But going forward driven by the amazing technological advances that are on the horizon we will live in a new world of increased connectivity, improved capability to capture data about the effectiveness of previously untraceable things from a new and improved set of wearable devices, company-issued apps or smartphones that will both broadcast and track our every move, and the nascent internet of things that will provide data on our interactions with machines, (and how fast and effectively we respond to their needs). 

Yep, in the (near enough) future almost all kinds of jobs and the relative performance of the people doing those jobs will be measurable. We will be able to measure everyone. Everything that they do. All the time.

Man that will be great.

<You had better get back to work now. Trust me.>

PODCAST - #HRHappyHour 170 - Driving Performance with Technology

HR Happy Hour 170 - Driving Performance with Technology

Recorded Thursday August 15, 2013

This week on the HR Happy Hour Show, Steve Boese sat down with Tom Porter, Director of Human Resources and Administration, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A, and David Ludlow, Global Vice President of Product Marketing, HCM Solutions for SAP and SuccessFactors for an interesting and informative conversation about how HR Technology can help transform organizational performance, and impact and change the actual culture of the organization as well.

At Kawasaki, Tom led an ambitious project to drive consistent performance management, goal setting and alignment, and more broadly - to get the organization much more focused on demonstrable and measurable performance measures.

Tom shares some of the project drivers, the organizational imperatives, and perhaps most importantly some of the lessons learned and critical success criteria that need to be in place for any HR Technology projects to truly deliver on their promises.

You can listen to the show on the show page here, on iTunes, (just search in the podcasts section for 'HR HappyHour'), and using the widget player below, (email and RSS subscribers will need to click through).

Popular Business Internet Radio with Steve Boese and Trish McFarlane on BlogTalkRadio

I won't spoil it for you, but rest assured that openness, transparency, and true partnerships between customer and supplier are key, and both Tom and David offer some excellent pieces of advice for any organization on the path towards technology implementation and transformation.

It is a really informative and 'front lines' kind of conversation that sheds some light on an organization that has done and continues to do what many others only aspire towards.

Thanks to both Tom and David for taking the time to share their insights!