Revisited: Talent vs. Culture in Hiring Philosophy

Let me be very, vet clear about this: If you only have time for one podcast in your life that podcast should be the HR Happy Hour Show. We are closing in fast on 250 shows in the HR Happy Hour archive, and Trish McFarlane and I have lots more great stuff to come this year and beyond.

 But if you are like me (a little bit of a podcast nerd, admittedly), you like to mix up your podcast diet and sprinkle in some other choices. For me, one of the podcasts I almost always catch is the Bill Simmons podcast, which is probably 85% about sports, but mixes in enough other topics (pop culture, politics, tech and business), to make it a good listen even if you are not a massive sports fan.

Recently, Simmons did a show with Silicon Valley investor Chris Sacca, most well known for being an early investor and advisor to companies like Twitter and Uber. Prior to his pivot to investing in startups, Sacca was a relatively early employee of Google, (from about 2003 - 2007), helping the search giant build out its data center infrastructure. 

In the podcast Sacca talks about life at Google and what makes Google so different as a company and a place to work. The most interesting part of the discussion starts at about the 13:30 mark, where Sacce talks about the hiring philosophy at Google, and why that was imporant. Have a listen, then some quick comments from me.

In case you didn't catch the key comment, I will repeat it here.

Sacca: 'One of the things they (Google) did that is kind of like an NBA team, is that they hired just for sheer capability, not necessarily for culture fit. And so they were just like 'If we get the smartest, most driven, ambitious people in the world all to work here and we will see what happens. 

And so other teams were like 'Well, I don't know if this guy is going to work well with this other guy, you know a lot of raw talent but, if you look at Eric Schmidt and Larry and Sergey the owners and general managers, they said 'Let's just get the smartest people in the world here and then see what happens.'

In the podcast Sacca goes on a little more about what the focus on talent and raw capability above this idea of 'fit' meant for Google, but I think you can get the idea from the excerpt above.

Looking back through all the posts I have done on this topic over the years, I would say at least philosophically that I come down way towards the Google/Sacca point of view on this. I think raw talent, the ability to assemble enough of it at one time and in one place will have the most significant impact on organizational success, certainly when a company is smaller and growing.

Focusing solely on talent and ability may result in hiring a few bad apples, and Sacca admits as much in the podcast, but in the end whether its the NBA or a tech company, the team with the best talent almost always wins.

Have a great week, and make sure you check out the HR Happy Hour Show too!

HRE Column: Rethinking Talent and Technology

Here is my semi-frequent reminder and pointer for blog readers that I also write a monthly column at Human Resource Executive Online called Inside HR Tech and that archives of which can be found here.

As usual, the Inside HR Tech column is about, well, HR Tech, (sort of like I used to write about all the time on this blog), and it was inspired by a recent HR Happy Hour Show that we did with Cecile Alper-Leroux from Ultimate Software, and that focused (primarily) on three major trends and challenges that Ultimate Software is seeing their customers wrestling with in 2016. This was a great conversation on the HR Happy Hour Show, and I encourage you check it out.

On the show, the big trends that Cecile talked about were the concept of the 'Employee Experience', the evolution and transformation of performance management, and finally, the need for HR technology and technology providers to make predictive and prescriptive analytics more meaningful and actionable.

Since I thought the show was so interesting, and the product incredibly interesting, it was the topic of my latest column for HR Executive.

Here is an excerpt from the HRE column, Rethinking Talent and Technology:

I recently spent a few days at the Ultimate Software Connections customer conference in Las Vegas, an event that continues to grow in size along with the company itself. And while the Ultimate executives shared several interesting insights around specific product-development initiatives, their perspectives and points of view on the most important challenges facing their customers -- by extension, HR leaders -- were far more interesting. Since I like to have my own opinions validated -- who doesn't? -- I was pretty pleased to hear that many of the themes and ideas being presented sounded a lot like some of the ideas I was writing and speaking about earlier this year.

Based on what I heard and saw, there seem to be three main themes that are emerging as top-of-mind for HR leaders this year: a change in the conversations around employee engagement, moving toward a concept of "employee experience"; the evolution and transformation of performance management; and a kind of "moment of truth" about the use and efficacy of predictive and prescriptive analytics in HR and talent management.

I'd like to break down and expand on each of these themes, and suggest some ways HR technology can be leveraged in each area.

From Employee Engagement to "Employee Experience"

One of the enduring truisms about work and workplaces is that, no matter what organizations have tried to do to improve employee engagement, it has generally remained at consistently low levels since the concept was first discussed. Despite significant time and effort spent in the last decade-plus to raise these levels, most of the traditional efforts and interventions have not been effective. For this reason, many organizations are attempting to change and reframe the discussion from focusing on a measurement that is really an outcome and to thinking about how they can improve the overall experience that employees have in their interactions with the organization.

From an HR-technology perspective, HR leaders can impact the employee experience by challenging their technology providers to create solutions that deliver positive experiences from a usability and capability perspective. HR-technology solutions should be designed around the people and should serve to make their jobs easier, help them to be more productive and, crucially, help them to discover and unlock their potential. Not until the person is the focus of the technologies can positive experiences with the technologies abound, leaders at Ultimate stressed.

 Read the rest at HR Executive online...

Good stuff, right? Darn right it is. Ok, just humor me...  And be sure to check out the HR Happy Hour Show where Cecile Alper-Leroux from Ultimate Software talks technology, talent, and putting the 'human' back into HR.

If you liked the piece you can sign up over at HRE to get the Inside HR Tech Column emailed to you each month. There is no cost to subscribe, in fact, I may even come over and take your dog out for a walk or re-seed your lawn if you do sign up for the monthly email.

Have a great day and rest of the week!

Yelp and a missing piece of HR Tech

By now I am pretty sure you've heard the story of the call center rep at Yelp who was summarily fired after posting an 'open letter' to the CEO claiming (among other things), that the company's failure to pay a living wage was placing her and her colleagues under tremendous financial pressure. Here's a quick two paragraphs from coverage of the letter and the firing from the Washington Post:

The Yelp employee who said she was fired after she blogged about the financial pressures she felt while working for the multibillion-dollar business said Monday that her breaking point came one night when she went to sleep — and woke up "starving" two hours later.

Talia Ben-Ora posted an open letter Friday afternoon to Yelp chief executive Jeremy Stoppelman, saying she wasn't earning a living wage while working in customer support at Eat24, Yelp's San Francisco-based food delivery arm.

She was out of work hours later, she said.

Yesterday at the HR Capitalist, KD had some great takes on the entire Yelp employee hullaballo, but it was this one, KD's point #3 that I found the most interesting and wanted to expand upon a little bit here:

"The company has some responsibility here as well.  It's San Francisco, people. Maybe 20K annualized jobs don't belong in the Bay Area.  It's called workforce planning - put a call center in Detroit and do some civic good. "

KD is quite correct of course, it doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense to attempt to locate, staff, retain, and motivate the team for a call-center or similar kind of low-wage filled business operation in one the most expensive cost of living places in the world.

Heck, there have been reports that teachers, police officers, nurses and many other professionals can't afford to live in San Francisco or the nearby cities and towns that the tech boom in Silicon Valley have made incredibly expensive compared to most of the rest of the country. Super expensive places to live and work are always going to be extremely challenging for workers on the lower end of the wage scale, as made clear by the ex-Yelp employee's post.

So let's get back to KD's point - Yelp shouldn't realistically try to locate a call/service center, staffed by what the market would force to be low-paid workers, in a place like San Francisco. The reason this point resonated with me is that for a long time I have thought that one of the big gaps in the HR technology landscape was a solution or platform for helping organizations make these kinds of decisions - the 'Where should we locate the call center?' ones that the Yelp story reminds us are so important.

In fact last year when I was setting up the first-ever HR tech hackathon at the HR Technology Conference, I toyed for a time with making the 'challenge' for the hackers would have to tackle be that very thing - to build a tool that would help HR and organizational leaders answer the 'Where should we locate the call center?' question.

So what kinds of considerations and inputs would such an HR technology that could help answer that question have to encompass?

Here's a quick, incomplete list...

1. Inventory of the needed talent/skills to staff the call center, (I am going to keep using the call center example, but the technology would naturally have to be flexible enough for all kinds of workforce planning decisions).

2. Assessment and comparison of the available talent/skills to the needed set of talent/skills from Step 1. This would have to factor in the existing employee base, the candidate/prospect database and funnel, the alumni database, public networks like LinkedIn, 'on-demand' portals like Elance, and perhaps other external candidate repositories or resources like local staffing companies. Somehow you would need a decent idea of the addressable talent/skills that could be applied to the needs developed above.

3. Capability to cost and analyze a range of options with different talent mixes from the potential sources above. In other words what difference does it make if we staff using 80% temps/contractors and 20% FTEs? How much longer and more costly would it be to push the FTE level to 40%? What are the chances we could even find enough readily available talent in the local market to choose that mix?

4. Ability to incorporate site specific factors like land/building acquisition costs, infrastructure costs, tax implications, cost of compliance with any local regulations, and the 101 other things that go into building or leasing, (and then maintaining), company facilities. 

5. And finally, incorporate, or at least make folks aware of other factors that could influence the decision like an evaluation of how average commuting time/cost might be impacted by the choice of location of the new call center, the likelihood of delays in facility construction or with acquiring needed permits, or any location specific elements like local climate or even political landscape.

There are probably lots of other factors that any major business decision like 'Where should we locate the call center?' would need to be taken into account, but I think at least I touched on the obvious ones. And the fact that these kinds of decisions are so complex, involve data from so many disparate sources, and have to be incredibly flexible in order to adapt to meet the requirements of highly complex scenarios is probably the reason why a technology for this use case does not seem to exist.

So to circle this back to the Yelp story it is for sure an accurate observation that trying to run a call center operation in a high-cost place like San Francisco is likely a terrible, no good idea.

But where should the call center be located? 

That's a simple question that is hard to answer. I hope that we will see some movement in the HR tech space in the coming years that will help to make answering that question a little easier, and will help lessen the kinds of situations like the one about the starving Yelp employee.

WEBINAR: WALKING DEAD - Reviving your talent networks

It's possible that 'Peak Zombie' was reached a couple of years ago, say around 2009 or so. For awhile you couldn't swing a machete on premium cable without hitting one of the myriad zombie shows/movies/music videos that featured the hordes of the undead wandering more or less aimlessly through the countryside.

For what it's worth, my favorite of the genre was 'Shaun of the Dead' with Simon Pegg. Check that on Netflix if you haven't caught it yet. 

The 'Zombie' trend has died down a bit in the last few years, but there is still one place where a kind of zombie can be pretty reliably found - lurking around your company career site.

Candidates around your careers site are like Zombies too - they stumble around and look at your content, lurk at your jobs and then just stagger off into the distance when they don’t find anything to take a bite out of. Well, the fine folks at Fistful of Talent and Smashfly are here to help you turn those zombies into real-life candidates by reviving the talent networks you probably don’t even know you have.https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3528340882429541122

Who said zombies can’t turn back to real live viable candidates?! Not us, because the FOT crew knows how, and we’re going to show you, too.

On February 24th at 2:00PM ET, the FOT crew and Smashfly will present the latest installment of the FOT free webinar series, titled WALKING DEAD: Reviving Your Talent Networks, where the gang will:

--Show you the difference between a Talent Network and a Talent Community. We’ll give you ways to build your talent network into active pools of great candidates. By using and developing talent networks, you’re letting those zombies hanging out around your career site tell you “I’m next…” “Pick me…”, making it super easy to identify your next victim!

--Help you develop a Talent Network Strategy that lasts, with little effort from your team to keep it going. The biggest problem we all face is we just don’t have enough capacity to do more. Talent networks give you the more— without the work. We’ll show you how.

--Show you 5 ways the best companies are engaging their Talent Networks to make real placements.We won’t just tell you the ways, we’re going to hear about straight from a Talent Pro who is using these now to successfully hire and fill position within her company.  The good, the bad, the dead. You’re going to hear it all!

--Give you 3 things you can do with candidate contact information before they even apply to your company. Talent pools aren’t about the apply, they’re about getting you to apply. Some zombies are ready to eat, some are just milling around being zombies. What do you do when potential candidates aren’t ready to eat? We’ve got the answer.

--Provide insight to how you can measure the success of your talent networks. By now we know none of this matters if we can’t back it up with measurable data that proves it works. Talent networks, and the data you get from them, will give you a ton of insight to what is working in your Talent shop and what might need some tweaking.

Don’t let your time get “eaten” up by a bunch of zombie candidates who will never fill the needs your company has. Learn how to build great talent networks that will give you real live placements, with less effort than you ever thought imaginable. It’s time to fight back and win against your walking dead applicant pool!

You can register for the free webinar on February 24 at 2:00PM ET here, or using the form below:

And as always, the FOT webinar comes with a guarantee: 60% of the time it works 100% of the time.

We value hard work, but we reward natural talent

Of all the phrases used to describe a candidate or an employee, 'He/she is a hard worker' is probably one of the most valued by employers, colleagues, and the people in general. We like people that work hard. We value the effort, the grind, the grit of folks who show up, dig in, plow through - day in and day out. Some even think that 'working hard' is actually a skill akin to other technical or practical kinds of aptitudes that are often harder to find.

After all, 'hard work', even if it is a skill, is probably one that can be 'learned' by just about everyone. In many ways you just have to decide to work hard and there it is, you are a hard worker. Doesn't exactly work that way for other skills like coding, painting, or hitting 3-point baskets.

But as much as we value hard work,  a skill that is readily observable, some recent research suggests that we value (and reward) something more intangible much, much more - the ore opaque notion of 'natural talent.'

Researchers Chia-Jung Tsay and Mahzarin Banaji examined what has been called the 'naturalness bias', the tendency to choose and reward so-called 'naturally talented' people over the classic 'hard-worker' in a series of experiments that were recently described in FastCo Design. Here is an excerpt from the piece: 

"We are likely influenced by concepts such as the Protestant work ethic, and the American dream, and ideals such as a truer meritocracy, opportunity, and social mobility that can be achieved with enough hard work and motivation," says management scholar Chia-Jung Tsay of University College London, via email. "We may subscribe to these ideas, but our preference for and fascination with naturalness still seem to emerge through our actual choices."

Tsay’s research has documented this tendency—which Malcolm Gladwell coined as the "naturalness bias"—across creative fields. A few years back, Tsay and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji asked 103 professional musicians to rate two performers based on a written profile and clips of them playing Stravinsky's Trois Mouvements de Petrouchka. The two performers were actually the same person, with one profile tweaked to emphasize work ethic and the other made to highlight natural talent.

In questionnaires, study participants claimed to value effort and practice over innate ability. But when it came time to rate the "two" performers, they gave the natural higher marks on talent, likelihood of future success, and value as a musical company hire, Tsay and Banaji reported in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In a follow-up, the researchers found that seasoned experts favored naturals even more than novice musicians did—a finding with troubling workplace implications, given that veterans tend to make hiring decisions.

Did you catch that? Two performers, who were actually the same performer, and the one that was pitched as having some higher level of natural talent was rated more positively and favorably than the performer who was portrayed as someone whose achievements were a product of hard work. Additionally, the more experienced and 'senior' the evaluator, the more likely they were to reward the 'natural talent' over the hard worker.

Really interesting implications for this data, particularly in the world of talent evaluation and hiring. If the 'naturalness' bias does exist in organizations, then they could be overlooking or discounting individuals that are totally qualified and capable of performing at a high level, if their history of 'hard work' is somehow diminished in value in the eyes of the talent evaluators.

More interesting still is that while this research appears to suggest the existence of a bias towards 'natural talent', it seems like 'hard work' is much more reliable in the long run. 

Let's toss it back to my favorite metaphor for talent and workplace comparisons - basketball.

'Natural talent' may account for a high degree of accuracy shooting 3-point baskets. But this 'skill' also can come and go in the course of a game, season, and career - sometimes inexplicably. 

Playing tough, solid, and aggressive defense however, is usually chalked up at least primarily to 'hard work', which tends to be much more reliable, repeatable, and predictable. 

It can be kind of hard to 'see' natural talent in all kinds of fields. Hard work is a little easier to spot.