Fiddling with the Lights

In the 1920’s a bunch of organizational theorists were trying to figure out how lighting conditions affected worker productivity. So they went to the Western Electric plant in Hawthorne and started messing around with the lights. They increased the light level in the plant and the productivity went up. Then they reduced the light… and productivity went up again. They ended up by putting two workers in a dark closet with the door cracked. You guessed it – productivity was great.

The story is true, and while the conventional wisdom that arose from the study may be apocryphal, the lesson is important: pay attention to the workers and they do better work.

This story is called to mind by a certain ATS vendor’s (oh, sorry, “Talent Management System Application Provider”) recent proclamation that companies using their software are worth more than companies that don’t. The correlation is clear: use their software and you’ll get a better stock price, probably because worker productivity goes up when their software is “deployed properly.” ™

The reasoning behind this claim is so specious that it makes you pause to think about just what customers will believe these days. But let us assume for a second that there is a direct correlation between the use of the software and Wall Street’s enthusiasm for the company’s stock. There are so many variables in that equation that attempting to solve for the “Talent Management Software” variable would be impossible. But we are all generous souls, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We reduce the complexity of the equation to the point where you can say “Companies using this software get better productivity from their workers and therefore get better stock prices.”

It would be so nice to stop there, but insufferable neurotics like me are compulsive about asking the next big question: “What specifically about the software increases productivity?” Perhaps we should consider for a second that whatever it is, it is the same thing as a bunch of seriously dorky guys in lab coats flipping lights on and off.

Let’s face it; the modern corporation is massively inefficient. There is nothing inherently stable about 150,000 people getting together every day to work on a set of tasks (150 yes, 150,000… no). It takes all kinds of incentive systems and rules and brass handcuffs to get everyone to sit there quietly, accepting their existence and not rising up and choking the living crap out of the feckless executives. So while they may be working on computers, wearing jeans and living in a cube, many companies are not so far from that Hawthorne plant in the 1920s.

In the corporate world of today things like lighting conditions are set by government fiat. So it’s not likely that you are going to be able to goof around with the environment a whole lot and come up with insights like “put ‘em in a closet and they still keep on going!” So what’s the modern equivalent of the Hawthorne experiment? Talent management. Your boss shows up and starts asking you things about your job and then puts job descriptions in front of you and asks you if that’s about right, and then you have regular meetings with somebody other than your boss about your performance, and damn if you don’t feel a little bit better about the mindless routine and the jellyfish leadership. You really don’t care that they have some whiz-bang system in the background where all the data goes in so all the reports can come out. Hell, you are getting attention and that’s gotta mean something good.

The great thing about most Talent Management Systems is that they cost so much that if the buyer doesn't at least try to use them they get fired. So they start thinking about all the ways that they can make the numbers look good with this new bazliion-dollar doo-dad, and bingo – “Let’s get the workers involved!” It feels good and there is something in all that Six Sigma baloney about finding out what they are really doing. “I can kill two birds with one stone. And any time you end up with two dead things when the brass can only expect one dead thing… well, that’s just good management!”

So even if we are willing to jump the Grand Canyon of logical chasms and assume that somehow there is a direct correlation between having the right Talent Management System and your stock price, we should consider that there are cheaper ways to fiddle with the lights.

Comments

[James]

I don't agree with you on the big is bad and small is good analogy.

[Jeff Hunter]

James -

Great to count you as a reader. I don't think I made that analogy. The fact that a large entity / orgamism is inefficient compared to a small one is pretty well established. That doesn't mean that "big" doesn't have it's own advantages, including greater access to capital, wider distribution of resources, better access to critical knowledge, etc. A large company couldn't launch Google search or the Macintosh (where IBM and Xerox clearly had the technology first), but a little start-up can't build and distribute a jumbo jet. The inherent inefficiency of a large organism doesn't mean that they can't survive and play a vital part in the economic food chain. My point was simply that the inefficiency of a large organization gives them a lot more upside with regards to most TMS initiatives because there is usually a lot more fat to cut.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

Jeff

[Curious George]

Taleo making that purile statement is like saying EA is 'playing' a role in solving world hunger - Bah!

[Jeff Hunter]

Curious indeed...

http://www.food-force.com/index.php/game/

or how about:

http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/000618video_games_can_solve_world_problems.php

(CMU is a partner of EA's and uses some of our technology for programs like this.)

[Manager Extraordinaire]

I have been a manager through the Management by Objectives; Participative Management; Mentoring; Continuous Improvement Process fads. Six Sigma is just a new coat of paint on an old porch.

Oh and one more thing not that it's important: Did I mention that I have an MBA?