The Nerds May Triumph Again

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

In the mid-90s, Public Television aired a documentary titled, “The Triumph of the Nerds.” It was a humorous look at how entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, and others came to prominence around the birth and rapid growth of the personal computer industry. The documentary was based on the best-selling book, "Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can't Get a Date."

You’d think that these types of geeks would only find prominence in fields such as technology, math, physics, etc. Well, that may not be the case anymore…

Researchers (code word for geeks) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are beginning to use technology to do the “subjective” work typically reserved for managers, recruiters, and coaches.

“Using high-tech badges that transmit data on an individual's gestures, eye movements, voice levels, and even proximity to other people, MIT is parsing the physical traits of leadership. Along with highlighting effective managers, researchers hope the data will help train workers to be more effective at everything from networking to dealing with customers…. The technology goes beyond anything captured in a typical personality test… [By collecting this type of data], you can suddenly look at hundreds of people on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis.”

This may be taking measurement to an extreme. The Business Week article citing this research estimates that only 1% to 2% of companies are currently using analytics as a component of their human resources and management strategy. The example cited above would still be considered by most to be conceptual research.

However, the trend toward measuring human behavior is definitely growing. If you’re the type of person who does not care for numbers, math, measurement, data analysis, scientific research, and other such topics, you may find yourself at odds with where the “people business” is heading.

Tomorrow I’ll share some information about a project that has been going on at IBM for several years. It is not as scary as the MIT researchers wearing electronic badges that count how many times your eye lids blink during a conversation, but you will be surprised to learn what they are measuring.

Posting Comments: Have you ever posted a comment on a blog? If not, you should try it. It’s a fun way to get involved in the discussion and find out what others are thinking. If you’re a shy person or want to maintain a higher level of privacy, just use your first name or a screen name. Your email address will not be visible under any circumstances. We’ll all benefit from hearing your thoughts. To post a comment, click the comments tab below this posting.

Play Time

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

We've focused on a lot of heavy subject matter lately, and as you may recall from the movie The Shining, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy!"

To avoid following in the footsteps of Jack Nicholson's famous character, we need to guard our play
time. It's an essential way to keep our stress level under control.

Over the weekend, I was skiing in knee deep northwest powder with my 26 year old son. You can't find better stress relief than that! Perhaps a glimpse of Heaven?

We all need activities and hobbies that bring joy into our lives and lift our spirits. If you don't have a hobby or interest that helps reduce stress, know that it's never too late to find one. Follow this link to take a free test that might help you find a stress reliever matches your personality. http://stress.about.com/library/reliever_personality_test/bl_stress_reliever_personality_test.htm

Leave it to the CFOs to Drop the Hammer

Monday, March 16, 2009

If you’ve been reading WorkPuzzle for awhile, you’ve probably noticed that our organization likes numbers and metrics. We believe that anything worth doing is worth measuring. (Workpuzzle Blogs about Metrics: articles 1, 2, 3, and 4)

I may have found a kindred spirit this week — Dr. Richard Beatty at Rutgers University. Dr. Beatty spoke at a recent conference of more than 300 Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). You’d think a Human Resources (HR) Specialist like Dr. Beatty would hang out with the HR folks, but this guy seems to me more at home with CFOs.

Excerpts from his speech were recorded in CFO Magazine this month. In the speech, Dr. Beatty is quite critical of most HR organizations. He makes the point that people in these roles cannot be trusted because they don’t understand metrics.

"…the language of organizations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics. They don't think like business people. Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I'm all for, but I'm also for building winning organizations."

Of course, what’s prompting this type of rhetoric is financial pressure. One of the case studies he referenced shows how an unnamed financial firm was spending more than $30M per year in salaries and benefits to employees in the lowest quartile. There was a direct connection made showing how this poor performance cost the firm as much as $50 million worth of business.

There are several lessons that can be gleaned from this topic:

Regarding organizations, Dr. Beatty made the point that competent companies use recessions to upgrade their talent bases. They get rid of poor performers and replace them with more talented people in search of work. Of course, to do this effectively, you have to be able to measure performance. Specifically, you need to be measuring the performance of your existing employees, and measuring the performance of the new talent you’re evaluating.

As for individuals, find solace in knowing that there’s hope. If you’re a talented person who happens to be unemployed at the moment, then you should find encouragement in the knowledge that good companies still need people like you. As you look for a job, quantify your experience in a measurable way. Show on your resume that your past accomplishments actually produced measurable business results, and then be prepared to communicate with metrics in an interview. Who knows, you might be interviewing with a CFO…

Coaching for Change – Part 2

Friday, March 13, 2009

If you haven’t already, you may need to read yesterday's entry to catch up on this topic.

We all (myself included) need to remember that change, when approached with the right attitude can lead to tremendous personal growth. (Remember the blogs on Resilience? 1, 2, and 3)

Isn’t it interesting that most of us have a tendency to avoid the change, challenge and growth that we once sought out. Instead, we have trained our brains to look forward to some arbitrary and hollow goal, like retirement, when in fact what we really miss most are the days when we were carefree. Ironically, that carefree attitude came when we were young and taking risks.

So, it’s not just feeling carefree that we’re really after – Its carefree with a challenge. That’s the secret combination we’re really after– and where great learning takes place.

Personally, I know many people who have been hit hard by what’s going on in the world right now. Some of them, despite great anxiety and sadness, are taking steps daily to reevaluate their lives, take stock of their values, and be grateful for what they have.

If you help people do this, eventually new and exciting challenges will arise. Even this change, as uneasy as it makes us feel, can be good.

Tips for Coaching During Change

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Change is difficult. Most healthy, rational people avoid change, preferring instead the security and safety of what is known. But ironically, change can produce incredible growth, if we respond to it effectively.

With today's economic conditions, we are all experiencing some kind of change, without having made the conscious decision to do so. For most of us, it is in the form of fear that is paralyzing us with panic. Panic makes it difficult to reflect and benefit from change.

Answer this question: When have you experienced the most growth in your life? The answer is probably when you were undergoing tremendous change, accompanied by uncertainty…perhaps when you were much younger.

It's normal to risk more when we're younger, because we don't have that much to lose. If you analyze that statement, you will begin to see the problem: Security and hanging onto what we've acquired becomes paramount for most of us when we're older. We cling to it and cherish it, without ever reflecting on its inherent value to our well-being.

Of course it's irresponsible to take foolish risks. But, you can also make the argument that it is foolish to follow a course of action simply because it promises "early retirement". Are you living to retire? The financial industry has helped convince you that this should be your ultimate goal, no doubt because it's profitable to them to tell you this.

Almost everyone over the age of 30 (even younger if you consider the trickle down effect) is undergoing some kind of change due to the current turmoil the economy has placed on us. Empathizing with people is important, and a period of grief necessary, but if you find them fixated on what they've lost, ask them the following:

"Rate on a scale of 1 – 10 how important your loss is when compared to your basic values (family, friends, community, spirituality…) If it is low on the rating scale, how important or valid is your grief?"

Now ponder that for a day, and I'll follow up with more thoughts to consider tomorrow.

You Can’t Make Me Do That – Part 2

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

So, did you figure out why paying someone to give blood reduces the number of people of who are willing to give blood? If you missed yesterday, you may want to catch up. Here is another story that may help you understand why people do not respond to incentives in the way we think they should:

In Haifa, Israel there was a group of six daycare centers that were trying to find a proactive approach to dealing with a particular group of parents. These parents were perpetually late in picking up their children at the end of the school day. As the frustration mounted, the daycare centers searched for an incentive that would make parents operate within the rules.

The incentive they chose was a fine that would be assigned for each time a parent was late. After the fine system was instituted, guess what happened? The number of tardy parents doubled. Like the blood donors, the incentive not only did not produce the desired effect, it made the situation worse.

These are just two of dozens of experiments that show that rewarding self-interest with economic incentives can backfire. Why? Some incentives undermine what Adam Smith called “moral sentiments.”

Dr. Bowles makes the following observations:

Regarding the blood donors:

“People desire to be esteemed by others and to be seen as ethical and dignified. And they don’t want to be taken for suckers. Rewarding blood donations may backfire because it suggests that the donor is less interested in being altruistic than in making a buck.”

Regarding the tardy daycare parents:

“The fine seems to have reduced their ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as simply a commodity they could purchase… Fines or public rebukes that appeal to our moral sentiments by signaling social disapproval (think of littering) can be highly effective. But, incentives go wrong when they offend or diminish our ethical sensibilities.”

The art of coaxing performance from those we coach and manage is difficult because people are complex. When we treat people as machines or robots that can be poked and prodded into certain behaviors, then these types of issues usually surface to confound our efforts.

Treating people…well, like people, and respecting their complexity is the first prerequisite to earning the authority to step into their lives and make changes that positively affect them, as well as your organization.

Editor’s Note: Content for this article was collected from a recent Harvard Business Review article called: "When Economic Incentives Backfire" by Samuel Bowles. You can read this article in the March 2009 issue of HBR.