A Star Trek User Experience

One of my favorite all time scenes in movies is in Star Trek 4 (They Voyage Home).  Scotty and McCoy are hunting a local professor to get some plexy glass, and strike a deal to get it for free.  The deal?  Give the professor the chemical formula for “transparent aluminum.”  In order to do this, McCoy suggests that Scotty use the computer to show what they have to offer.  Scotty walks up to the Macintosh and expectantly says, “Computer?” to no response.  McCoy helpfully hands him the mouse and suggests, “perhaps you should use this.”  Scotty picks up the mouse and speaks into it smiling, “Computer?”  The professor finally says, “why don’t you just use the keyboard?”  Scotty grimaces and says, “how quaint!”  ((Dialog not accurate, I’m basing the whole thing from memory.))

We are entering the era where we’ll have people in the workforce that have a completely different experience with technology.  My oldest nephews all spend their evenings gaming with friends half a world away in real time, through voice, game and social apps.  In 20 years, there will be people who may not have had the need to type because dictation is so advanced.  (I’m continuously impressed with how well Google can translate audio into text)  Forget the fact that I didn’t have a PC until college and I used a typewriter in high school.  My newest niece (now 6 months old) will grow up waving her hands at devices or even having them anticipate her next need before she has to act.

I’m and old Gen X curmudgeon, but even I have consumer technology I would not have dreamed of 10 years ago.  My scale sends my weight and body statistics to the cloud via wifi every time i step on it.  This data syncs to my calorie tracker that I enter my daily food intake into.  Both of these sync to my daily workout data.  If I work out, my food app dynamically increases the allowable food intake.  At the same time, my phone is constantly updating what all my friends are doing and if anyone wants to talk to me.

Star Trek was not supposed to happen until the 23rd century.  From the personal technology perspective, we’re already surpassing the Star Trek expectations.  Sure, we’re not atomizing ourselves and beaming our bodies across the globe, but the communicator devices in Star Trek we mo better than the cell phone bricks we had in 1997.  Phones today do so much more than just being a “communicator” but the idea that all this stuff is sitting in the cloud doing things on our behalf would have been ridiculous a few years ago.

Here’s the point.  New entrants into the workforce just don’t get that we are sitting around running reports that have bad data in them.  They don’t understand when their manager fills out a form online that appraises their performance over the last year instead of right now.  They don’t get why we’ve banned Facebook from the network.  They don’t have any idea what you’re talking about when their team isn’t connected in real time all the time and they have to use email for everything.

We’re used to operating in a certain way in business because that’s the way we’ve been doing it.  We’ve let technology creep into our personal consumer lives and not expected work to be any different.  This new generation grew up with personal consumer technology and getting into the workforce is like going back to the 80’s for them – and they weren’t yet born in the 1980.

Our HR portals as full of link farms.  Our call centers are, well, call centers.  Policies and legalese written things that don’t communicate anything but what not to do.  Information retrieval is like finding a needle in a haystack.  We’ve all known that we hate this stuff for decades, but didn’t do anything about it.  But alt least we know how to use it.  To a Millennial, a link far is like weird old mysticism gone bad.  We need to recraft our technologies to make them social, real time, mobile, interactive, and just plain usable.  And we can’t wait for them to get used to us, because honestly their way is better.

Time to take a look at good old HR Service Delivery and realize it’s not good, just old.  Let’s redo the entire thing in an entirely new way.

 

Big Data For HR & Recruiting: 2 Use Cases

Forget about Google.  One of the world’s favorite sites has got to be LMGTFY.com.  “Let me google that for you.”  With the wondrous world of the internet and ubiquitous information, ubiquitous access through our mobile devices, and ubiquitous connectivity, whenever someone asks a dumb question in email, you get to just send them back a link to LMGTFY.com (since most of the time you don’t actually know the answer anyway – I can’t count the times someone asked me something I didn’t know but I gave them the answer after googling it.)  It’s a bit sad though, that we have such incredible access to information in our personal lives, but our access to HR information seems to be severely limited.  We are just starting to do cool things in HR to answer interesting questions about our employees, but in a couple of segments of the industry, it’s about to get completely fascinating.

(NOTE TO READERS:  I stopped writing about specific vendors a long time ago, but today I’m going to highlight a couple that I think are doing really great work – but it’s more about the work that I’d like to highlight, so don’t take this as a vendor plug!!!)

Oh, we love buzz words.  I know I’ve been writing about big data and social HR a lot this year.  If the last decade was about the shift from HR administration to talent management, the next decade is going to be about creating insights about our people and making them own their own development.  When we talk about information, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft have been creating algorithms to search data for years.  HR just hasn’t had to tools to do it.  Things are about to change rapidly.

Use Case 1:  Using Big Data to Use Your Employees:
Use your employees?  Oh that sounds terrible.  The reality of this is that it’s really cool.  A small company called Careerify (careerify.net) started selling a product last year that allows you to easily grow the volume of high quality employee referrals you get.  What they do, is they allow employees to connect their Facebook, Linkedin, Google+, Twitter and whatever other networks they have, so that you can help them understand when they should refer someone to the organization.  Let’s say for example that you have an opening for an electrical engineer.  Careerify would help you push an internal campaign to your employees, perhaps sending them an email that automatically identifies people in their network who are electrical engineers.  It goes a step further though.  Because you might be linked to a number of the employee networks with a variety of data, you can target the location of people on top of jobs.  But it even gets better… let’s say you know you have a culture of people who are active, outdoorsy, and fit, and there is an electrical engineer who happens to be a bass fisherman and loves to skydive (based on photo tags in Facebook).  This EE would be scored higher than individuals without those interests.

The ability to mine employee networks (with their opt in) and present employees with easily selectable pictures they can click on to invite someone in their network to apply is almost too easy.  We all know that employee referrals are the fastest, highest quality, and lowest cost recruiting source we have, but we just never knew how to make it easy for the employee.  By using big data to reach into employee networks and analyze profile attributes and even tags and update activity, you could literally improve your core recruiting metrics (time to hire, cost of hire, quality of hire) in weeks.

Use Case 2:  Bringing More Information to Recruiters
To be totally honest, I’ve been trying to work out why recruiting is always ahead of the curve when it comes to HR technology.  I think at the end of the day it all has to do with the fact that it’s a function the business actually depends on.  If they (managers) don’t do performance reviews, their organization probably won’t suffer for months or years.  If they don’t fill the open seat though, their productivity is suffering the very next day.  A company called eQuest (been around much longer than Careerify) has been using big data to answer some of those questions around “why aren’t I hiring anyone right now?”  What is interesting and wonderful is the completely different approach organizations like Careerify and eQuest are taking.

eQuest looks at the market through job boards, and correlates your recruiting activity to activity in the market.  Basically, if that same electrical engineer position is still open in 60 days, eQuest can tell you what ever other company is doing differently.  For example, based on what is out on the job boards, you have 3 EE jobs open out of 50 in your local area.  It just might so happen that you are offering a lower compensation rate, so you are getting 60% fewer candidates than the average EE job opening (demand is up, but you have not adjusted to market yet).  Or, it could just be that in the last 6 months, there are fewer EE candidates even looking at and opening those job postings (supply is down).

Unlike Careerify who tries to solve the problem by making it easier for your employees to help you, eQuest tries to solve it by putting better data in your recruiter’s hands.  Both are completely valid mind you, just different approaches to big data.  With either technology, I actually think we are getting closer to LMGTFY.com for HR and recruiting.  When my internal recruiter asks me if “I know anyone,” I’d have to think about it.  But if Careerify asks me, and automatically sends me a clickable picture of 5 people who already match, I only have to think about whether I really want that person around or not.  On the other hand, if my recruiters are asking “Why the F isn’t anyone applying for this job?” eQuest can probably give you a pretty good answer as well.

An Unremitting Devotion to Strategy

“I know the price of success: dedication, hard work, and unremitting devotion to the things you want to see happen.” Frank Lloyd Wright

Every year, I have a plan.  At the beginning of every year, I realize I’ve gained between 5-7 pounds from my November and December feasting.  January and February are almost always diet months for me.  Then comes March and April when I realize I’m painfully out of shape for riding my bike.  I ride about 150 miles each weekend, so March and April are just about trying to stay on my bike for as long as possible.  Just as I’m able to increase my miles for the summer riding, I realize that everyone I ride with is about 2 months ahead of me, and they are all riding quite a bit faster.  May and june are about power for me as I just struggle to keep up.  If I’m lucky I finally hit my stride in August and have a couple decent months before I start eating again and the whole cycle repeats.  The point is, that there’s a process, and if I follow the process I know that I’ll get to my goal in August, no matter how derelict I was at over the Winter.

In my line of work, I help a lot of organizations figure out what they should be thinking about strategically, and putting together plans to get there.  All too often, consultants are overly willing to tell their clients that the plan will need to be revisited every year as the business context and the budgets change.  As I think about this, I’m not sure this is totally true.  Our 3 or 5 year roadmaps are always connected to higher level corporate strategies.  If the imperative is to ensure we have talent processes to backfill all of our succession plans, that’s pretty specific.  No amount of increases to health insurance premiums should offset our timing to get that done.  If our attrition rates are terrible and we can track them back to employee engagement, then the roadmap for solutioning that should not be redirected when the bottom drops out of the economy and retention increases due to a crappy job market.  Strategic outcomes are strategic outcomes and I’m not sure why we think it’s ok for a tactical or environmental condition impacts the “choice” who and when we pursue correcting these business elements.

When I go see my clients, 100% of the time I ask for a copy of this year’s strategic plan.  100% of the time, I’m presented with a document that has a plan with the current year on it. 80% of the time, the elements of that strategy are fundamentally different from last year’s.  The problem with strategy is that we are relenting in our devotion.  The tools and tactics that we use to get to our goals each year can change, but the fact that those long term objectives actually seem to be shifting is extremely problematic.  I’ve been back to see companies I saw 3 years ago with a plan to put in succession systems that don’t have them yet.  Wait, that was the strategic imperative 3 years ago to develop and grow senior bench strength and its’ still not done?

Here are a couple comments:

  • Tie it all together:  We in HR do a decent job tying the annual corporate strategic plan to our HR plans.  We should actually do this in conjunction with tying our strategic plan with the prior year’s as well.  If there is a fundamental shift, we should be able to articulate why that happened.
  • Maintain the roadmap:  If we revisit the strategic roadmap and something big falls off, did it just become less important? or did something get in the way that is blocking us.  Maybe we are not supposed to be eliminating things off the roadmap, but eliminating the blockers instead.
  • Align the leaders:  OK – I get that sometimes you have an new CHRO and they have different ideas.  The corporate world is no longer about leaders being dictators.  They have an equal responsibility to express why they are making huge shifts in the roadmap, and why one program is going to be valued more highly than the current – and they are responsible for articulating why that is going to serve the business strategy better than what we already came up with.

A plan is a plan, and things do get in the way.  I know I’ll be generally fit by August, and I’ll suck before that.  But when we have a plan that will foundationally improve our ability to advance the business and we can’t get there due to changes in direction (which will also get changed in a couple years and never get done themselves), we have got to realize we’re a bit messed up.  I love the Lloyd Wright quote.  Based on my experience with 80+ percent of organizations I see, some unremitting devotion is in order.

The Endless Immensity of the Sea

“If you want to build a ship, don’t gather people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather, teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.” Saint-Exupery

Ok – so I don’t get out on the water that often, and I’m a cyclist so I tend to write about that.  As a cyclist, there are a variety of things I’m always thinking about.  I’m thinking about my weight a bit too often, I think about how my bike is working, I think about my form on the bike, and of course, how fit I am.  These are all things that I work on constantly.  Each component makes me a better rider if I can have small improvements in any area.  There is a joy to riding well, but that’s not really why I ride.  Climbing up Mt Tam in the bay area north of San Francisco, there is a descent off the back side that goes towards Stinson beach (Panoramic if any of you are in the Bay Area).  You start the descent in the trees, and it’s one of those nice, curvy, fast descents.  There is a point however that only lasts for 2 seconds when you break through the trees, and a scene of 180 degree views of Pacific Ocean opens up in front of you.  You have Stinson Beach below, blue sky above, and one of the most breathtaking views in the world.  Without all the little components of fitness, great bikes, etc, you can’t really do this ride.  But the ride is not about the component parts – it’s about that 2 seconds of pure joy.  We build things in order to increase our achievement and experience.  If all I did was work on my bike to get fit, I’d have been out of cycling years ago.  I spend hundreds of hours on the bike just for those 2 seconds.

When we deploy anything in HR (or really anywhere in our businesses), we do a fantastic job of crafting communications and training programs.  We are amazing at making sure people know what is going on and what to do.  We last think we are great about behavioral change – getting people to not only know what is going on and what to do, but actually wanting do it repetitively over time.  This is where we are wrong.  I’m not sure we are at all any good at behavioral change.  Changing behaviors has nothing to do with pounding people over the head with information, and forcing them to do new activities because the old way of doing things has been completely removed.  Yeah, we can get people to do a task or process by edict, but 100% compliance to the change does not actually mean you had 100% adoption or engagement.

What we often forget is the importance of audience analysis.  “What’s in it for me” changes not only with every population type, but with every person.  I’m not advocating that you go through and figure out what every manager in your organization wants when you deploy a new manager self service application, but it’s probably worth the time to spend extra time here segmenting the population to gain greater understanding.  Let’s face it, we are always rolling out processes and technologies saying that there will be a dramatic improvement of efficiency or effectiveness for our business.  We know intuitively that these outcomes only happen if our audience adopts and engages.

4 things you can do differently to improve your audience analysis:

  • Don’t wait until you have a major process or technology implementation to figure out your people: Chances are that you will roll out processes and technologies to your populations repetitively over the year(s).  What drives a population really is not going to change that much over the short and mid term.  Why not do the work up front and use the basic drivers every project?  Then all you have to do is connect those drivers to the specific project you’re deploying.  The first part of budget to get cut is the strategic change management stuff, so why not do that up front so it’s not part of any specific project’s budget?
  • Increase the segmentation of your populations: I hope you don’t think that managers are managers the world over.  There may be significant differences in wants and needs based on countries, business units, age, and any other number of dimensions.  Figure out dimensions drive difference in your organization and focus on those areas for each population.
  • Don’t forget to tie into the business strategy: How often do we connect the projects to the benefits, but we then forget to connect those benefits to the department, unit or business strategy?  Assuming that your employees are engaged to the business goal, this is easy low hanging fruit to exploit.  “It will make the transaction faster for you to process” is all good, but if you don’t point out how/why the manager is driving business outcomes, you’ve failed to maximize the change impact.
  • Figure out who your evangelists are: We’re pretty good at putting together focus groups of managers who can help us spread the word.  We use these people as advisors and they help us test.  But we don’t really have that much success with having them evangelize for us.  We’re afraid they won’t have time to get on a training webinar to talk about their experience (they can record a video and only do it once, you know) or we simply don’t plan far enough in advance to lever them during the deployment.  The truth is, employees and managers don’t really care what we in HR have to say – the 5 minutes one of their peers takes to talk to them is 100 times more valuable.
  • Nope – I really don’t expect that any of our change management activities will convert any business process into 2 seconds of joy, but we’re not even close to that.  For many of us, our change management activities are the pre-ride check of putting air in the tires and making sure the gear shifters work.  We’re not actually even riding the bike yet.  There’s a lot of improvement to be made.

 

Jocks vs. Nerds

“There’s this idea of the jocks vs. nerds thing. That sort of ended when the nerds won decisively. We now live in this era where your big summer tentpole movies can be hobbits and minor Marvel Comics superheroes and boy wizards. If you had told me when I was in junior high there would be a $200 million movie about Hawkeye andBlack Widow, I’d be like, ‘Hawkeye — that guy’s lame!'” Jennings says. “Those nerds started running Hollywood studios, and our captains of industry became Asperger types with acne scars.”

I was reading about what Ken Jennings (of Jeopardy! fame) was up to these days, and there was the above quote that I found hilarious.  It’s totally try though, especially for a guy like me who lives in the Silicone Valley.  High school might have been a time when the jocks ruled the world, and college was a transition time, but once you get into the workforce, there are really grate charismatic guys running businesses, but the people who are really redefining the world and how we change our behaviors to adapt to the world on a daily basis are quite clearly the nerds.

(Credit to the HR Technology Conference and Bill Kutik bringing IBM’s Watson computer for making me think about Ken Jennings)

I’m continuously thinking about analytics these days and I start to think that HR has also started the transition from “people people” to something a bit nerdier.  Maybe we are in that college stage I mentioned above – we’re no longer just the people that you go to for benefits and worker’s comp – that was over a couple decades ago.  We’ve started down the path of Talent Management, and we’re probably still trying to figure that out.  We keep talking about really great analytics, but we really don’t do it well.  I think what we need to really get to a mature level of HR as a profession is we need to get nerdier.

Talent Management:
It’s entirely possible we’ve been wrong for the last decade.  We’ve built these incredible competency models, tracked how and when a goal should cascade, and automated all of our talent processes.  I don’t think the business is convinced that we’ve actually improved the core employee’s ability to get developed.  Think about what you yourself did 10 years ago.  Big deal that you can now enroll yourself in training on-line and you have a cooler performance tool that is not a piece of paper.  Have the majority of employees in any company really experienced a perceptible difference in talent and development outcomes?  I’m guessing not.

It’s entirely possible we need some nerds to take over.  I don’t care how much HR shepherds the process along – if the employee and manager don’t own their own talent, it’s game over.  The only way to do this (that I can currently think of) is to create easy to use, social, real time, talent engines.  I’m thinking of an engine that quickly allows a manager to give feedback or development instructions when and where they think of it, then have seamless execution (again in real time) by the employee.  All of this has to happen without the HR practitioner and then roll up at the end of the quarter or year so we get that macro view of progress.  Without real time integration with the employee and manager though, all we have is another failed HR process.

Where HR gets involved is not in shepherding the process, but instead in managing success.  If we can mine the data and understand who is doing what, what works, and where we are missing the mark, that is where the value is.  Somewhere and some point, process people are still important as we make the transition, and certainly we need great change people to get manager adoption, but what we really need are analytical nerds who get how to interpret data.

HR Analytics:
I really hope we don’t have illusions that we are any good at this – we’re not.  We have technical people and we have functional reporting people helping our organizations create reports.  We have vendors feeding us cool dashboards that we then flip and roll out to our managers and executives.  What seems to be missing to me… the statisticians.

Have you ever talked to the finance guys about what they are doing in their analytics functions?  The stuff they produce is absolutely amazing – and they are set up in a pretty different way than we are.  Financial models are very complicated, but shouldn’t our models of people resources be just as robust?  In fact, if anything we have more complex, more dynamic, and more diverse data sets.  If we were dealing with numbers, our lives would be easier – but we deal with more complexity with less sophistication.  No wonder we walk into the executive boardroom and don’t get credible respect.

It’s interesting – when I look at the type of people HR hires, we automatically know we’re not going to have the best friend relationships with Comp, Payroll, IT, etc…  Those guys are just different from us.  I mean, my God, they are analytical in a totally different way.  Embrace the difference – it’s what HR needs, and it’s not even enough.  I’d love to see us start to hire the nerds – math majors and people who can come up with complex statistical understandings of the HR world.  We are in our infancy for understanding HR, but it’s because we don’t structure our organizations in such a way to create deeper understanding.

Get used to the fact that the nerds have won.

HR Technology Conference – Calling All Slackers (like me!)

I’m a big fan of Jeopardy! and tend to watch when I get a chance to.  I was distraught a few years ago when Ken Jennings lost to Watson, the IBM supercomputer.  I personally felt like there was no chance for Ken to win against this highly quantitative, calculating machine unless they gave Watson a 0.1 second pause before buzzing in for an “answer.”  In many cases, Watson is technology that is filtering into many of our organizations, especially in marketing and operations, less so in HR – but it’s coming our way just as we all doubted social 8 years ago but it arrived in the enterprise anyway.

If you are a slacker (like me) and have not registered yet, there is more good reason to do so now.  Watson is coming to the HR Technology Conference.  I for one will have to decide if I’m going to cover the conference at all, or if I just geek out (actually a normal state for me) and cover Watson and analytics instead!

Just use the Promo Code SYSTEMATIC (all caps) when you register online www.HRTechConference.com to get $500 off the rack rate of $1,895. The discount does not expire until the conference ends on Oct. 9.

Be there!

It’s Time For the CedarCrestone HR Technology Survey

It’s that time of year again.  The IHRIM conference is going on this week (no I’m not there), and the CedarCrestone HR Technology Survey is in full swing.  I publicize this particular survey every year for a couple of reasons.

  1. I gain the most insight from CedarCrestone’s survey about HR Technology than any other.
  2. This survey is the largest in the industry, and more participants means better insights
  3. Lexy Martin, who runs the survey, is on the leading edge of surveying not only what people are doing now, but what they are thinking about for the future.  This is one survey you can look at to evaluate not only your current practices, but also to predict if you are going to be a laggard next year.

For a number of years running, systematicHR readers have contributed more usable survey responses than any other social media outlet.  I’d like to keep that up.

If you are a person of the many thousands who likes to hear about the survey results later this year (at the annual HR Technology Conference, this year in Las Vegas), then take some time and contribute so that everyone can have better access to the insights.  (Filling out the survey also gets you a $500 discount to the HR Technology conference)

http://www.cedarcrestone.com/survey/systematicHR.html

 

How To Give All The Wrong Answers

As per my last post,at the end of 2012, I was doing a family vacation in Taiwan.  Being with family for 2 weeks is quite an expose into mannerisms that each of us have.  I was particularly intrigued by my brother’s questioning of my mother.  My brother would constantly ask my mother things like “why are we going to [city_name]?” instead of “what are we planning to do when we get there?” and “how much time will I need to prepare the kids to sit in the car?”  Luckily, we had my mother there fueling the ridiculous line of questioning.  90% of the time, her answers had nothing to do with the questions he was asking.

  • “Why are we going to [city_name]?” “Oh, let me tell you, when I was growing up, I used to play with my cousins there.”
  • “Mom, why are we going to [city_name]?” “Oh, did you see that beautiful view over there?”
  • “Mom, can you please just tell me why were are going to [city_name]?” “Don’t worry, you will love it.  It’s beautiful there.”

There are two items I’d like to diagnose.  First, are we actually listening to the question?  Second, did we understand the question?

The first is fascinating to me because I’m not sure we actually are listening.  Many of our reporting organizations are pure intake, create, output engines.  We grab the data that is asked for, create the report and send it out hoping we got it right.  Basically, we are spec takers.  Second question follows right after the first.  Much of the time, we don’t know why report requesters want the data at all.  We could be asking ourselves why they want to know, and if the data we are providing helps them solve a problem.  If we are really cool, we could be asking if they are even trying to solve the right problem or not.

Here are a few questions you should explore when data requests come your way:

  • How are you going to use the data?
  • What is the core problem you are trying to solve for?
  • Are there other data elements or analysis that we have that can help further?
  • Are there other correlated problems that we should try to answer at the same time?

For all intents and purposes, this post is the exact corollary of the prior on how to ask the right questions.  The problem with being a non-strategic reporting organization is that if the wrong questions get asked, the output is doomed to be the wrong information as well.  But even works, sometimes the wrong question gets asked and we still give the requestor the wrong data back.  All this does is create turn – another report request, or bad data going to managers (who in turn trust HR a little less the next time around).

In the case of my brother, he asked the wrong question in the first place.  It would have been much more advantageous had he explained why it was important for him to prepare the children for the outing, have the right clothes, have enough food along, and maybe get them extra sleep.  I’ll never know if my mother would have given him the right information in return, “yes it usually rains on that side of the island, it’s 40 minutes away, and we will be in a friend’s house so they can’t get too wild.”  But the crafting if the right answer is a tight collaboration of both sides creating understanding of what the objectives are.

 

How To Ask All The Wrong Questions

At the end of 2012, I was doing a family vacation in Taiwan.  When I say family vacation, I mean not just my wife and me, but my brother’s family along with my parents, visiting all of the senior members of the family (an important thing in Asian cultures).  There is an incredible exposure of habits and an interesting (but sometimes undesirable) analysis of where my brother and I got those habits from.  I was particularly intrigued by my brother’s questioning of my mother.  Let’s just say that getting 2 grown sons, their spouses, and our parents together creates a certain amount of strife.

Let’s also just say that my brothers’ hauling around of two young children may have added to the stress – he really needed to understand the daily schedules and what was going to happen when.  Back to the questions: my brother would constantly ask my mother things like “why are we going to [city_name]?” instead of “what are we planning to do when we get there?” and “how much time will I need to prepare the kids to sit in the car?”  (more on my mom’s response in the next post)

The problem in the questions was not the question itself, but in the thought process.  All too often, we ask questions about what we think we are supposed to know.  We want to know about turnover, headcount, spending per employee.  This is information that is useful, but does not actually inform us about what our next actions are.  Being “strategic” to me means that we have a plan, and we are actively managing our programs towards that plan.  If we’re using data that just skims the surface of information, we have no ability to adjust direction and keep going in the right direction.

I’ve often heard storied about HR executives who go into the CEO office for a meeting to present data, and all they get are questions back that cannot be answered.  Some HR teams go into those meetings with huge binders (sometimes binders that I’ve sent with them), and those teams come out still not having answered the questions.  The problem is not with the data.  The problem is that the team has not figured out what the actionable metric is, and what the possible actions are.  No CEO cares about the data – they want action that ties back to what the strategic objective is.  In other words, why do they care?

Here are a couple things you can do to craft better questions:

  • Always think about the root of the question:  HR tends to analyze at the surface more than some other functions.  We have finance doing complex correlations and marketing doing audience analysis.  We’re reporting headcount and turnover to executives.  What kind of crap is that?
  • Be a child:  Ask why/what/how up to 3 times.  Why 1: “Why are we going to [city_name]?”  Why 2: “Why do I want to know what we are going to do there?” What 3: “What do the kids need to be prepared with?”
  • Take action:  If you ask a question that can be answered in such a way that you can’t take action, you asked the wrong question.
  • Create an intake form that customers can request through: make sure you ask the right questions here to ensure they think through the process and understand what they need.

Many of the organizations I consult with have some pretty robust analytics organizations.  When I dig under the covers, they are reacting to create ad hoc reports for managers and HR business partners.  Once a quarter they scramble to create a CEO report card to depict the state of HR programs.  This state is sad to me.  We should be doing deeper analysis and diagnosis on a daily basis.  If we asked the HRBP’s what/why that wanted data for, we’d probably find there is a huge amour of quality analysis being performed in silos that could be leveraged organizationally.

 

I Could Have Been A Ditch Digger

Note of warning:  Stereotypes follow in plenty. Last year I wrote a post titled “I could have been a rice farmer.”  It’s completely true that had my parents not moved from Taiwan to the United States before I was born, the possible alternatives to my life are infinite.  However, I probably would not actually have been a rice farmer even though the family residences are surrounded by them.  I come from a family where most of the members are teachers/professors, or (to my great surprise) artists of some fashion or another.  Even if I go back 4 generations, the number of teachers is astounding.  (My maternal grandmother and grandfather were “arranged” by their uncle – a good match because they were all teachers).  The point though is that with the competitive educational system in Taiwan, I probably would never have made it through.  You see, in Taiwan, you have to test well to get into better schools, and the best of the best students get into the top schools based on test scores.  It’s basically a stack ranking system that begins in the very earliest of school experiences.  I don’t think I’m a total slouch in the grey matter department, but I’m by far one of the worst Asian students that ever was.  Given my lack of capacity for learning in a structured schooling environment, I probably would have exited the educational system for a profession that did not require my brain.

Fortunately for me, we in the US live in a society where opportunities abound to give second and third and fourth chances.  While a horrible classroom learner and incredible un-studious slacker, I managed to get good enough SAT’s and GPA ((Asian Slacker SAT=1275-ish and GPA=4.2-ish)) to get into a number of small, liberal arts colleges including Pitzer, my alma mater.  Here, I had yet more choices, all of which I failed at from a learning perspective.  However, I excelled at the experience that was provided to me.  I was active in many ways including politics (one of my core college memories is single handedly inciting a protest march of almost 1000 students), team sports (this is when I learned how to ride and race a bike), and college programs (as a student, I was on the committee of 8 people who made professor tenure decisions).  Most importantly for my future, I was also skilled at the discussions that happen in liberal arts settings.  Ultimately, even coursework became less about how well I could cram for an exam, and more about sitting around a table with 5 other students and a professor and having a conversation about the book we read that week.  Structured learning out of a textbook was replaced by learning through thoughtful discussion, and this is really what a liberal arts education meant to me.  The replacement of having to be “book smart” for thoughtful and intelligent converted my capability to be in the workforce.

At the end if it all, what defined my ability to craft a future for myself, was the ability to have that discussion and analytically derive a point of view and opinion.  It was the ability to influence, convince, and sometimes concede that point of view.  Every Asian student I knew was supposed to be a doctor, engineer or accountant, but had I entered US college with that aim, I would at best be a middling in my trade.  If I was still in Taiwan, I would never have made it into college.  Any success I’ve had in my career initiates from that initial deviation from “textbook learning” to flexible social thinking.

Here’s what I’ve been pondering – there are many ways to get a person to a goal, but there are also a few fundamental problems.  First, we don’t always know what that goal is.  Second, the best path for each individual is also unknown.  Finally, we in Human Resources have continued to fail at providing performance and goal events that are meaningful at individual levels.

It’s no surprise to anyone that Talent Management has failed.  From HR to executive ranks, we complain about performance reviews with such a unified voice it’s sometimes the only thing we all agree on.  The problem is not that we fail to track goals and objectives, or that we can’t identify issues with how employees excel at their tasks.  The problem is that most managers do this once a year, and certainly not in real time.  Employee performance does not occur at a once a year interval.  it occurs every day as they are working on tasks that move our organizations towards strategic goals.  Their ability to move us slower or faster depends on the quality of direction we are able to provide them, and if we only do this once a year, we have completely failed.  Since we actually do only do this once a year, we indeed have failed – specifically, performance management programs have failed.

The solution is quite simple, real time feedback on work, goals and objectives.  Organizational strategy is not static, so why should the individual goals and objectives that employees have be static?  Indeed, if any level of objective should be as flexible as possible, it is at the employee level.  Our daily lives are not dictated by a year long striving for single-minded achievement.  Instead, we flex our activities to constantly changing micro-tasks that emerge along the way.  While the organizational strategy probably remains at least 90% constant through the course of the year, changing business conditions, sales, service needs, operational realities, and technology all drive adjustments on a daily basis.  Employees react and should be measured in their agility to manage these changes while still staying on the strategic path.  Setting goals in real time that reflect the realities of the day or week not only change how employees receive feedback, but it also changes the way we reward employees, and their ability to connect rewards with their own actions.

We’ve also failed at ensuring appropriate development occurs in meaningful ways through the talent process.  Basically, the path to the goals we just talked about are not clear.  Even if we are working on real time goals and objectives, the tasks and activities needed to get to effective achievement   Today’s conversation is all about “gamification,” but I’m not totally a fan of how HR has been applying gamification to learning.  We seem to have taken gamification too literally and have been trying to create games from learning activities.  This is not the holy grail.  What we should be doing instead is understanding the mechanics of game as they apply to the human psychology, and providing frameworks for employees to excel, achieve, and advance.  Basically, learning should merge with goal outcomes that provide paths to effective employee achievements.

Once again, the problem is that we treat learning as a macro activity.  You go to a class, and after a week of training, you exit that class with a supposedly learned skill.  But the basic framework is an assumption that you needed that skill to begin with, based on some large project plan, HR created career ladder, or some job description.  As with performance management, these courses often have nothing to do with a person’s daily activities.  What gamification should be (and is in the minds of guys like Bunchball) is a structured approach to funneling people through flexible tasks to reach an end goal.  If I want to teach someone how to create a report, a class is ok, but enforcing the necessary tasks and activities within the actual job is better.  Through gamification, an employee can advance through various levels from data queries to advanced analytics, all of which can and should be tied to those performance goals we just talked about as well as a real time rewards system.  Many organizations have separate social gamification and learning teams, but indeed these practices need to be fused together.  Gamification of tasks if not configured in the broader context of learning activities is asinine, as is continuing a single minded focus on 1 time, macro learning events.  As individuals, we learn not because we’re told we should acquire a skill, but when that skill is truly needed and used in our daily routines.  Once again, the theme of “real time” dominates effectiveness of results.

What is exciting is that in 2013, we might finally have the technology to fix our failures.  Real time performance management has arrived for the masses, and gamification is penetrating all the major social tools.  In 2012 we were still theorizing about this stuff from an HR context, but in 2013, the technology has arrived.  While I don’t know what the adoption rates will be this year, I do think that 2013 will mark a transitional point in our approach.  In the following years, I’m confident we’ll see a downward trend in traditional talent tools, and a markedly upward trend in social talent management (probably the 2 approaches combined together).

Back when I was 2 years old, the options I had for a successful career in my parent’s eyes was quite limited.  They would have wanted me to be an electrical engineer (seriously).  But clearly the path for me to get there was not quite as straightforward, and indeed, almost 40 years later we’ve all realized that not only did the overall outcome shift, but the path to get there for me personally was not what any of us would have predicted.  I could still have a good career, but I was not cut out to be an engineer, nor was I cut out to learn from textbooks in a traditional way, nor was captivated by the pursuit of straight A’s.  What did work for me was the ability to have an education that provided me with constant conversations and an approach to thoughtfully analyzing the world that took 4 years to teach.  If my parents could have set a path for me at birth, I would have gotten straight A’s, gone to MIT, gotten a PhD in engineering, and be some world renown dude with a hundred patents.  NOPE!  We have to flex, manage, and learn every step of the way.

Social Trust, Authority and Contributorship

There are three people who are pretty commonly in my car.  They will go unnamed.  One of them is pretty similar to me.  She always knows where she is, which way is north, and can get around pretty well.  The second has an idea, but has a tendency to say “left” when she really means “right.”  The last, has no idea where she is at any point in time, and when her opinion is offered, everyone else chuckles and goes in the exact opposite direction.  Basically, with passenger 1, you follow directions, passenger 2 you’d still be in the same state of doubt before and after the direction, and passenger 3 you know exactly where to go because that person is wrong 100% of the time.  (She really is that bad by the way.)

When we’re interacting with social enterprise tools at work, it’s quite impossible to decide who to trust.  In general, we’re dealing with hundreds or thousands of people that may be posting content to a particular group, and many of those are people we’ve never met.  There are a couple of things we have to count on.  The first is simply people we do know and have a degree of confidence in.  The second is what I’ll call “authority.”

In most social enterprise tools, we can follow, buddy or otherwise mark certain people.  The hope is that when these people interact with the social tool, we’ll automatically see the content they are creating.  However, if we counted on this alone, we’d miss an awful lot of content that might be genuinely helpful to us.  After all, if there are 300 people in a social group about Talent Management Process and you only know 25 people personally, then you’d be missing out on 90% of the content unless you go read everything daily.

So we get into authority.  Let’s say that everyone in that group of 300 people post on an equal basis (same number of posts and post frequency over time).  We’d have to have some way of measuring which contributors have the most useful things to say.  The way we measure this is by “likes” and comments back.  Basically if all 300 people each have 100 posts or comments, but only 10 people have 1000 “likes” or more, those 10 people should have a higher authority than the other 990.  Let’s also say that a different 10 people had over 1000 comments on their content.  Those 10 authors should also have more authority than the others.

If people’s content is “liked” then we assume some amount of value to that post.  Similarly, if someone’s content is highly commented, then we assume there was a value to the discussion it generated.  While the following rule is always true, we could think that likes infer that the person creates insight while comments infer a person who might be a data hub (or other similar hypothesis).  Either way, the combination of these and other factors gives us an overall authority rating.

At the end of the day, trust, authority and who is contributing to the knowledge of the business is all about employee talent management.  What we are actually identifying is who are the network hubs that allow people to find other people with information, and evaluating the information that is provided.  What we are also doing is incentivising the sharing of information so that nobody is a knowledge “hoarder.”  The reason social intelligence is so important to HR is it is one of the best ways of identifying the actual amounts of knowledge each person has.  Thus, the equation adds a quantification of knowledge to their skills capabilities.

Unlike in my car where I know everyone, this gives me an idea in social tools who I should trust and who not to.  At the end of the day, what it means is that the pure volume of content generated is not enough.  You really have to prove the value of your content through the interaction with your peers in the community.  Hopefully you don’t have people who chuckle at you and do the opposite.

Cedar Crestone HR Technology Survey: Create a Winning HR Function

All too often, I get an industry report to read and end up saying to my colleagues, “wow this is crap.”  Case in point, at the end of 2012, I got a widely read industry report that rated a halfway decent HCM provider’s payroll engine to be better than one of the major payroll outsourcers.  They stated that a vendor’s almost non-existent compensation functionality was a top pick.  Each year, I go through the CedarCrestone HR Technology Survey, and hope there is something wickedly out of sync with conventional wisdom.  Each year, Lexy proves why she is the queen bee of HR surveys and is meticulously above reproach.  I just can’t stand it.

What’s great about this particular survey is that it’s not just gathering data and spitting it back out at you.  I know we all care how many people are buying Workday versus Fusion versus Employee Central versus … this year.  I know we all are interested how many of us are still on premise with our core HCM.  That’s so not the point.  What Lexy does is far more interesting.  She takes all of this data and compares it to company profiles.  What’s the correlation of profitable companies to those people who are running Software X or Technology Y?  This makes up the part of the report I’d like to chat about.  Lexy published 7 habits, and I’m going to summarize so you’ll just have to ask CedarCrestone for the report to read the whole thing.

The attributes that defined successful companies were pretty much higher than usual revenues per employee, profits per employee, operating income and return on equity.  Pretty good measurements.  I’m not sure if CedarCrestone evaluates which is causal, but they do evaluate correlations, so in that sense, go after what you can control, which in our case is the HR side.

  • User Adoption – “If you build it, they will come.”  What a load of crap – wasn’t that some baseball movie Kevin Costner was in?  I don’t remember, but it certainly does not apply to HR technology.  Instead, we have to implement ridiculous change management strategies just to get our managers and employees engaged with us.  If not, we only hear from them when their payrolls are wrong, or to complain about the vacation policy.  The reality is that organizations who successfully implemented solutions, had good change management programs resulting in high user adoption also ended up being among the more successful companies.
  • Buying Habits and Governance – Governance always seems to play into things.  I’ve found that the few organizations that are great at governance tend to be awesome places to work, make good decisions, and have high employee engagement.  So I’m stretching Lexy’s observations here, but basically when I reflect on her finding that successful companies have more technology and spend less per employee, I almost immediately translate that into good governance.  How do you get to better utilization of what you have, and only buying what you need after all?
  • Technology Decisions – There was also a couple of themes that I translated into low maintenance overhead, but also the ability to use industry best practices.  It kills me when I walk into a client that is so highly customized they really don’t know what they are doing anymore other than accepting new requests and implementing full time.  Most of these organizations don’t even know why or what the business case is – they just do it.  Successful companies are correlated to low customization, which is also correlated to SaaS purchases.
  • Data – One would automatically think that successful companies are good with data.  It seems obvious.  The survey actually points out a couple of great tactical elements to get you there.  The first one was integrated talent management with your core HCM product.  Companies that were there tended to have a significant advantage than others.  The second was the utilization of mature business intelligence models, along with the deployment of that data into manager’s hands where agile business decisions can be made.

At the end of the day, HR just wants to be heard.  Interestingly enough, there are elements of shoring up our own house as well as focusing on outcomes here.  If we make bad decisions and have crappy governance, well that’s problem number 1.  But if we also have crappy user adoption and poor data, we’ve also lost the game.

Note – nowhere in this did we correlate functionality to success!

The Cloud

Seven years ago, we started talking about social media in HR.  I remember this at a conference and nobody got it.  In fact, pretty much all the HR people said that it was a bad idea, it was not for the workplace, and it would just get us into trouble.  The concerns may have been justified at the time, and it was worth taking a less risky stance.

Five years ago, at another conference, social media was the big thing.  People talked about what we could do, how we would implement, and how we could network the organization and bring everyone closer.  But we never did it.

Today, we might finally have networks in most of our organizations.  There is the easy ability to look someone up on the directory and chat or just connect with someone in another part of the organization, but we are not really using any of the functionality for HR.  After all this time, we’re less excited only because nobody ever came to the plate and presented us with a technology option that just worked.

Here’s the thing – I’m really excited about all this interconnectedness because I start thinking about all the ways we could and should be applying the technology.  I’m sick of only talking about Yammer and Rypple (now Work.com) for performance feedback.  Let’s do it real time, and let’s actually do it.  We thumbs up and down people (or their posts) all the time, but we as employees live in complete fear that negative feedback is going to screw one of our friendly relationships.  Let me tell you something, when someone is great, everyone knows it.  And when someone underperforms, that is also known.  But instead of the same conclusion the manager will reach during the traditional performace review, let’s pretend the employee had the opportunity to get positive and negative feedback throughout the year.  Let’s say that the employee had a chance to take corrective actions.

For the history of HR technology, we have not had the core capabilities to use social in HR.  Trying to plant social on top of SAP or Oracle was probably not going to lead us to success.  But everyone has new core foundations that can really enable this stuff, and I’m seeing that finally, HR technology has caught up with HR expectations.  Five years ago we were ready, but our foundational technologies just needed some time.  We were in contracts, or we just needed a few years to implement.  Now we’re there and the next generation of HR applications that are based on cloud and social can actually happen.

 

Social Taxonomies: Tagging versus Crowd Metrics

Every now and then, I’m parked at a mall, convention center, airport, and I ask myself, “now where did I park my car?  OK, so I don’t lose my car that often, but on occasion it happens.  OK, I’m not at the mall or convention center that often either.  At any rate, the appropriate action is to walk around the parking lot for a while constantly hitting the alarm button and waiting to hear that familiar chirp.  (Actually, I do that even when I know where the car is and I’m just walking over to it – no idea why…)  At some point, I’ll eventually locate the car.  The alternative, since I’d never really go to a mall or convention center or whatever alone, is the hope that someone I’m with actually remembers where the car is, or the general vicinity.  Depending on the person I’m with, there is either a high level of confidence or not, and sometimes none at all.

Here’s the problem with social enterprise.  Stuff can be really hard to find.  Let’s say that we remember that something was said on a particular subject, but we don’t remember who said it, if it was in a group message board or a blog, or even when it was.  How the heck do we find this stuff?  Even if we did remember it from a blog, the content might be 2 years old and still take a while to find.  Social tools all seem to use a variety of different search tools, but the tools that have emerged seem to deal with either tags or crowd metrics (or a combination of each).

Tagging is the job of either the content author, or content manager.  Sometimes tags can be community driven as well.  The point being that people can tag content with topics that they feel are associated with the content they are presenting.  You’ll notice that this post will return a tag of “social” and “social enterprise” among other things so that those get indexed by the blog and search engines.  It’s not an exact science like the good old dewey decimal system we all learned in elementary school, but if authors are tagging, then it’s likely to have a decent relationship.  If you give readers and the community the ability to tag, now you have even precision as the readers are also the searchers of the content and will have a pretty good idea if the original tags are off.  Every now and then on systematicHR posts I’ll actually adjust tags based on what searches are driving hits to the content.  Lastly, if you have a content manager involved that can further tag, now you have an element of standardization, so you know that similar posts will always be tagged in a similar way – in other words there are no concerns over someone tagging only “social” and a different author using “network.”  The content manager can leave the original tags intact, but would also communize the tags being used across the community.

Crowd metrics are also a wonderful thing.  For those of us who are Facebook users, we’re probably pretty familiar with the news feed that tends to launch more popular items to the top of the list.  The assumption is that if lots of people are looking and commenting on a particular piece of content, there is a higher probability that you’ll also be interested in the content.  The same goes for social enterprise in the workplace.  If many people are looking at content that you follow in some way (through a person, group, topic…) then chances are you want to see it also.  The assumption is that hits, reads, comments, thumb ups indicates some degree of quality of the content.

Things get better when you combine tagging and crowd metrics.  If you do a search for “talent management” in your social enterprise tool, hopefully it brings up the things that are not only tagged with the topic, but also finds the ones that were most popular first.  This blends not only the topical result, but also the assumption of quality as well.  The issue with this is that you can still miss content.  Some things can be mis-tagged, or some items just go unread by the crowds, and continue to appear lower in search results because of it.  Good search should also index words inside the content automatically, but that alone does not mean a high search result.

Obviously for me, the best result is if I just remember where my stupid car is.  But if I can’t hopefully some crowd intelligence in combination with my alarm clicker will work pretty quickly.  I don’t wander aimlessly in parking lots that often thankfully.

Using HR Analytics to WIN

So I have to admit it’s hard to come off the election and not write about this.  This election was defined by some pretty deep population analysis, incredible forecasting and pretty significant actions to try to address the most important populations.  All of this went right along with a prioritization model that was pretty strong.  If we look at Obama/Romney, they each had target demographics: Obama needed the youth vote, managed to capture more than his fair share of the female vote (because the GOP was being stupid, and a couple contributions by Romney as well), and he also predictably got the “minority” vote.  As the election neared, both candidates narrowed down their activities to a few key states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.)  They had incredible models about what percentage of each population’s vote they would get, and if they followed those models, all they had to do was figure out how to get those people to the polls.  It turns out that in the end, the Obama machine was far better, and the Romney machine actually broke down (the phone app they were going to use literally went down on election day, and thousands of faithful Romney campaign volunteers had no idea which houses to go to and make sure people actually voted).

At the end of the day, the story is the same as the one we have in HR.  It’s about winning.  The difference is that we all want to win at different things.  Some of us want to win at engaging our employees.  Others want to win by having the best IP.  More yet want to win by producing the best products in our category in the world.  What is great is that if we’re good at what we do, we’re not focused on running analysis about turnover and headcount (although we’ll do that anyway), but instead we’re focused on understanding exactly what 5 things increase engagement in our populations.  Taking that a step further, we’d know exactly what populations are the most impactful on the entire workforce and target those people.  A 1% increase in engagement in the 30-something sales guys might yield an advantageous network effect while it takes a 3% increase in another population for the same to happen.

Similarly, if I want the best IP, I need to understand the roots of this.  Chances are it’s not just the standard talent management equations we need to figure out.  I mean, performance and succession are only going to take us so far.  Instead, if we’re figuring out the profile of the employees that created the most patent applications, the people who have the highest levels of trust in their subject matter, and specifically what are the attributes that made them successful, then we can start recruiting for those people, aligning our performance reviews not to achievements, but to the competencies we know work, and doing talent reviews that direct us to the right employee profiles rather than who we think is ready from a job perspective.

My assumption is that if you have created your HR strategy in the right way, and you have aligned that strategy with the corporate strategy, then HR is designed to make the organization WIN.  Therefore every analytic you are running should be directing your organization to that win.  Don’t forget about the mundane operational reports, but understand that focusing on that isn’t really helping you.

At the end of the day, Romney actually did almost everything right, and he really thought he was going to win.  The problem that he had was that he made a few wrong assumptions.  The GOP really thought that all the pollsters were wrong – that they were over emphasizing the Democratic vote that would turn out on election day – that Democrats, the youth, and Hispanics were really not as excited about Obama as they were 4 years ago.  Obama on the other hand had callers identifying who were voters, if they were voting for Obama, and then instructing the voter where their polling place was, good times to go, and what the plan was to get them there.  At the end of the day, forget about the other guy.  Just go run your analytics, make sure you are focused on what matters, and go out there and WIN!

Note:  Please assume no political commentary, simply an example of who analytics can be put into action.

 

 

Feedback and Calling BS in Social

An interesting thing happened at the recent HR Technology Conference.  During Naomi Bloom’s “Master Panel,” when Mike Capone noted that ADP had the first SaaS application, before anyone else and before anyone called it SaaS, many of my compatriots on twitter decided to tweet this statement.  I have no issues with announcing to the world what a panel member said.  However, I know for what must be a fact that half of my compatriots on twitter thought to themselves, “Hmmm, really?”  In fact, I myself wrote a tweet, “ADP had SaaS first?  I think not!” and posted it just to immediately delete it.  Why after all, would I want to be the only dissenter?  Why would I want to be the only one to rock the boat?

I’ve continued to think about this statement about ADP, and have decided that I can’t really abide by it.  I have defined SaaS by two simple parameters: hosted and single code base.  All that means is that the customer does not maintain anything outside of their network infrastructure, and that all clients have the same application at the same time.

ADP has had Enterprise (before that HRizon) hosted since probably the mid 1990’s.  But they were always on multiple versions.  Similarly, you could say that AutoPay (the mainframe payroll engine) was SaaS since it does indeed cover both parameters of vendor hosted and always on the same version for all clients.  The problem here is that there are different versions of the input devices, and even different applications (Enterprise, Payforce, and now Vantage).  It really was not until ADP Payforce that I think ADP had a true SaaS platform that even they finally called “versionless.”  By the time this came out in about 2005, Salesforce.com had been out for 5 years.  It’s completely possible that somewhere in ADP’s portfolio there was a SaaS platform, but I just can’t think of what it was.  If mainframe service bureau was SaaS, then I think IBM had it first.  Did ADP have SaaS first?  Perhaps, but that’s not my version of history.

<begin ADP response>

The fundamental concept of delivering a hosted, multi-tenant solution is something ADP has been doing for decades.  The delivery of those applications via the Internet / Cloud is something we’ve done since ’97 when we launched a product called ADP Remote Control.  This technology eventually became our iProducts series which now has well north of 100k clients.

Another early huge success in the Cloud was the Fall 2000 launch of Pay eXpert, a cloud-based payroll solution.  Today, more than 60,000 clients are using Pay eXpert.

Overall, we have more than 300,000 clients and 18 million users leveraging our cloud solutions.  Included in that count are 30,000 clients leveraging our cloud-based, integrated HCM and Talent offerings such as ADP Workforce Now, ADP Vantage HCM and ADP GlobalView.

</end ADP response>

Back to the point, now that I’ve had the time to think through this.  There was a comment by Ben Brooks in the Social Media Unpanel at HR Technology about “bad behavior.”  Something like “if you have a jerk, let them rise to the top so you can fire them.”  This really could have been me.  With nobody else saying anything about ADP, maybe I was the jerk – the one guy who had to say something and call someone else out in front of (how many thousand people?).  Being the jerk and providing negative public feedback (as I’m doing now in fact) is a dangerous thing.  You can be wrong, be seen as the A-hole, antagonize someone you work with (either internal or god forbid a client).  These are indeed serious risks and impact the way you’ll be seen in the organization.  If your organization is really transparent, perhaps some small callouts or questions are very acceptable.  But in highly politicized organizations, you’d best be thoughtful before being too vocal.

In another session (I wish I could remember), someone noted that with social in their organization they were receiving significantly more positive feedback for their employees than previously possible.  Employees found that giving people “stars” or other types of recognition was not only good for themselves, but also rewarded those they gave the positive feedback to.  Overall, employee engagement probably increased, and the sharing of positive feedback is quite circular (you’re likely to try to return the favor when it’s warranted).  The negative or constructive feedback rarely makes it to social media that is implemented in the enterprise.  These comments are usually reserved for private discussion (which can be dome through some social tools), or for manager discussions.

Either way, the socialization of constructive or negative feedback seems to have been restricted from our social interactions based on the concept of a “polite society.”  It’s not that we don’t want to call each other out, it’s that there is sometimes risk associated with it, and that the benefits of handling certain interactions privately benefits all parties.

I have just looked up Wikipedia’s page on SaaS (the social source of all truth in the universe…) and they do indeed list IBM as one of the first.  But given that mainframe service bureaus are on the SaaS history page, I suppose that ADP might have had it first in HR.  Mea Culpa, I retract my earlier criticism of ADP.  I will now giddily await Ceridian’s rebuttal.

HR Technology Conference Reactions: Predictive Analytics

I’ve always thought I was pretty good at analytics.Not being a practitioner who is sitting in the middle of data all the time, I get more time to just think about the type of analytics that it takes to really run the business.  It’s been a really long time since I discounted the usefulness of things like time to hire preferring things like quality of hire (efficiencies versus effectiveness measures).  But I’ve always fought with predictive analytics.  In my opinion, they don’t really exist in HR yet.  We can trend our data and draw a trend line, but that does not predict our future – it simply tells us that directionally, something is going to happen if we don’t change course.  I’ll admit that I walked into this session with a great deal of skepticism, I walked out with some great insights.

The panel was made up of some great speakers.   Moderator: Jac Fitz-enz, Ph.D., (CEO, Human Capital Source), Laurie Bassi, Ph.D., (CEO, McBassi & Company), John R. Mattox II, Ph.D., (Director of Research, KnowledgeAdvisors), Eugene Burke, (Chief Science & Analytics Officer, SHL), Natalie Tarnopolsky, (SVP, Analytics and Insights, Wells Fargo Bank).

Theme #1:  Descriptive, Predictive, Prescriptive. Let’s start with some definitions as the panel did, but I’ll use a tennis example.  I don’t know if anyone has been watching the last few grand slams, but they have been using a good mix of all these types of analytics.  Descriptive is simple.  Roger Federer has one 16 tennis grand slams.  (I’m guessing as I’m on a plane typing this).  Predictive is next and basically tells us what our destiny is going to be.  Roger’s record against Nadal in grand slam finals has not been particularly good.  If Rafa is on his game, hitting his ground strokes with the huge topspin he has, Roger is going to have to figure something out or lose again.  Here is where the last few opens has been interesting.  The broadcasters will sit there with the stats and say things like, “If Roger can get 67% of his first servers in, he has a 73% chance of winning” or “Roger needs to win 55% of Rafa’s second serves to have a 59% chance of winning.”  Now we have prescriptive – the specifics of what to do in order to change our destiny.

Theme #2:  Engagement. We probably focus in on this a bit too much.  It’s not because it’s not important, but it’s not specific or defined enough.  I mean, we all have a definition in our heads, but for 99% of us, it’s fluff.  My definition of engagement is the intangible quality that makes an employee want to provide that extra hour of discretionary work when other non-work opportunities exist.  Total fluff, right?  We can provide some correlations around engagement.  If engagement increases by 1%, then turnover decreases X% and so on.  What it provides is a great predictive measure, high level as it may be.  We know we need to increase engagement, and it is indeed important.  But it’s not the key measurement we have all been lead to believe will solve all our problems.

Theme #3:  Predict winning. OK, so if engagement is not the key metric, then what is?  Well, I have no idea.  I’m not being snide, I’m just saying that it will change for every single organization.  If you are (mall) retail organization, then having really good salespeople might be what hits the bottom line.  You could run the numbers and find out that if you rehire sales that worked for you the summer/holiday season last year, those salespeople are 20% more productive, whereas engagement reduces turnover by 1.3%.  Which metric are you going to focus on?  Right, how do you get those experienced salespeople back?  Instead of spending $1 on engagement, you could get 5 times the ROI on that same dollar elsewhere.  What we want to do is not predict outcomes.  We want to predict winning and understand what our highest contributors to winning will be.

Let’s take another example, this one from the panel.   Let’s say 5% of your workforce are high performers, but you can only give 3% of them promotions this year.  You also know that the 2% of top performers who don’t get promotions will likely leave the organization.  Now you have a problem.  You can’t afford to promote these people, but the cost of replacing top performers is extraordinary.  Analysis like this quickly leads you to decisions which are actionable.  At the end of the day, we need to compare our top drivers against our weaknesses to really figure out our greatest opportunities to invest in.

Theme #4:  HR can’t do it. This part sucks.  Towards the end of the session, we walked through a statistical model.  Yeah, we can end this post right here, but I’ll continue.  The rather brilliant by HR terms model was presented by Wells Fargo.  Go figure an ex-finance person working at a bank would have this all put together.  The point being, this was an ex-finance person, and the bak part is ot wholly irrelevant.  All the stuff I said above really makes great sense.  But when it comes down to executing it, HR in most organizations does not have the skillset to execute on it.  We don’t have very many statisticians in our HR staffs, and even if we did, HR executives would have a hard time seeing the vision and have the willingness to implement these technologies and models.  All is not lost however.  Finance has been doing this stuff forever.  I mean, I’ll bet you anything that if the interest rates drop by 1 basis point, Wells Fargo knows within seconds what the impact on profits are for savings, mortgages, etc.  Can’t we have/borrow/hire just a few of these guys?