Talentism

First Ask Why

You start a new project. The team sits down together and the narrative begins. The leader asks:

What, when, who, how and maybe why.

The leader is responsible for results. He wants action. The team wants approval. So everyone starts with what. What is tangible and deceptively easy to describe. No messy language, no feelings. Just rough descriptions punctuated with waving hands. The team is following the leader, the leader is fulfilled. The project starts.

The leader asks when?  When are you going to give me what?

The team agrees, and the deadline is set. The people who are results focused start fantasizing about implementation details and heroic rescues. But some intrepid souls venture further.

“Who are our customers?” someone asks. Or maybe “Who will use this?”

The leader acknowledges the question. The brave soul is rescued. A quick answer ensues.

The critical project questions have now been answered. The experts are ready to deliver on how. They hope that how is delayed to another meeting.

And finally, drinking lattes and looking smugly at their new Volvo’s, a few tweed wearing bearded philosophical masochists ponder “Why?” But silently and with great confidence.

What, when, who, how, why. It’s the way it works. Except for one thing: it doesn’t work that well. Things are changing too fast. The project fails.

The new project team sits down. The new narrative begins.

Why, how, who, when, what…

Why would anyone start on a project without knowing the problem to be solved, or the opportunity that needs to be created? Why would anyone want to begin work without naming and considering the system? Why is purpose. Without purpose there can be no alignment. Without alignment there can be no success.

Purpose leads to potential. How is potential. Not how to get what done. How are we going to work with each other? How can I make you successful? How will we know when we are done? How will we let the insurgents in so we create the future, instead of repeating the past?

From purpose to potential to people. People are who. Who has the problem we are trying to solve? Or... who will be helped if we create this opportunity? Who are they? Do we know their stories? Are their stories heroic, desperate, banal or romantic? Who will our work matter to?

Purpose, potential, people and then place. When is place. Is this the right time to do this? Are stars in the system aligned? Is the environment right? Can we afford to wait? When would be better?

Purpose, potential, people, place and then finally, product. Product means what. If we know why we are here, and we know how we will work with each other, and we know who our work will matter to, and we believe that when is now… then what are we creating together? Only now should we focus on what. What is last. Because while what is what who will touch, why and how are how what has meaning when everything changes.

When time moves slowly, and there are powerful people and weak people, and the powerful can predict the future… then submit to “what first?”.

But when the clock spins faster, and the weak make your market and only the enlightened can tell you what tomorrow brings… then first ask why.

What Not Where

Recently I was watching an episode of the TV show "Lie to Me" and I had an epiphany about the future of work: work will be defined by what, not where.

The lead character of "Like to Me" (Dr. Cal Lightman, played by Tim Roth) has a skill that is much in demand*: he can detect the truth by analyzing a person's face, body, voice and speech. The show centers on how Lightman and his team use that skill to solve different problems. Often the problems are crimes, but the fictional team also use the skill to solve hostage negotiation stand-offs, disaster rescue operation bottle-necks, mysterious romantic entanglements and business negotiations gone wrong. In the show Lightman has built an entire business around this one skill, and it looks like the business is thriving. It also looks like the limits of the opportunities afforded by application of the skill exists only in the writer's imagination. Apparently being able to tell when someone is lying is much in demand.

One evening I was turning the show over in my mind, thinking about how cool it would be to have that particular skill (my kids would beg to differ), and then it struck me: "Lie to Me" is a dramatic revelation of one of my central problems working in a big company. That problem is that a "job" is a concept focused on groupin a bunch of problems that really don't have much in common, but that somehow define what value you can provide to the organization. In other words, the modern concept of a job places a premium on "where" you work (i.e. finance), and devalues "what" you do (i.e. tell if someone is lying).

In most companies you are labeled by what group you work in, not by what you do. Your brand is about your domain, not your skill. HR is a great example. A good HR function has people who are good at quantitative reasoning (comp), effective social interaction (employee relations), and systems thinking (workforce planning). Anyone of these skills can be applied in almost any domain, including operations, finance, engineering and manufacturing. But if you work in HR you are "an HR person." Which means that it doesn't matter whether you are good at math, or great at systems analysis or a great negotiator. What matters is that what someone thinks about HR, and what they think about HR (or finance, or engineering, etc.) is what defines your opportunity to apply your skill to the greatest advantage for the company.

Let us take the fictional Dr. Lightman as an example. If he came to work for a big company he would likely go into sales, because he would make the most money sitting across from the table with prospective buyers, quickly determining whether the prospect was going to really sign the deal and what the optimum price point would be. But since Lightman would be sitting in sales, he probably wouldn't be asked by business development to help figure out whether a critical partner was secretly looking at a competitor's deal. And he certainly would never be asked to talk to an engineer who was leaving the company in order to best figure out how to retain that person.

Of course selling is very important. But it may not be as important as keeping a key partner in place, or saving the organization's top talent. The company would be far the poorer for it's inability to internally source a valued skill for a problem that would get the best return for the shareholder. But it wouldn't matter, because Lightman would be thought of as a "sales person", even though his skill of "truth teller" is so much bigger and more important. In other words, no matter how valuable his skill, he would be reduced to being identified with a domain. He would be a "where", not a "what."

The problem with the "where" orientation to determining a person's potential value to a company are many. But among them are:

Lack of Engagement - People usually enjoy application of particular skills more than the preservation of a particular domain. This is easy to prove. Go talk to anyone within your company and ask them "What do you really enjoy doing?" The answer will not be "engineering" or "human resources." It will be instead "solving complex problems" or "helping people find a better job." Engineering and HR are domains. Problem solving and job placement are skills.

Poor Performance - When work is oriented around domains it means that problem sets are artificially aggregated based on a belief in the commonality of the work. For instance, HR work is about people, finance work is about money, etc. But this means that a person who is in finance has to do a lot of work that has nothing to do with money, including negotiating what chart of accounts to accrue something to, how to apply certain financial regulations in certain circumstances and making presentations about financial data. None of those is a "money / math" skill, but because they are aggregated under the header of finance, a person in finance can be expected to do any one of those things.

Expensive - The "where" orientation causes companies to compensate individuals regardless of what value they provide. For instance, the head of finance usually gets paid a lot. But what do they really do as the head of finance? It may be that they are only good at financial forecasting and that they have progressed up the career ladder by finding themselves in situations where forecasting saved the day and brought rewards and recognition to this individual. But the reality is that financial forecasting as a skill is not really worth that much. Supply probably roughly meets demand. So you are paying the head of finance much more than you need to based on their title in their function, not based on the skill they posses. The hierarchy of the function artificially inflates the compensation range relative to the value of the applied skill.

But the trouble with "where" just starts there. Like many ironies of the present business system, big companies spend more on talent than small companies but get less out of it. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most significant factors is that as a company gets bigger it places less of a premium on what a person can do and more of a premium on their job type, title and location. By comparison, a start-up must make the best use of its investment dollar, and will constantly look for the best person to solve a problem or innovate their way to a solution, regardless of their title or specific domain. For example, in a start-up the head of engineering may get to do the big marketing presentations because it turns out they are better with certain audiences than the CMO. That would never happen inside a large company. The "what" (presentation skills) would be far less important than the "where" (engineering vs. marketing).

Think about it: don't you have a skill or competency that you really enjoy, that makes a difference, that can be applied across many different domains or specialties and that has value for a company? Most people do. You may not know how to think about it in that way, but trust me, it is far more likely that you have one of these skills than that you are expert in a domain. It is far more likely that you like what more than where.

If you are willing to take a moment and put on your "what" hat, I would love to hear comments about how you think your job would change.

28

Business does not exist in a vacuum. So while my purpose may be to build better businesses on a better business and economic model, there is no part of how businesses exist in a larger ecosystem that isn't worth examining. Take the education system for example. It's not just that the modern western education system is destroying something of incredible value to the businesses of the future (imginiation and curiosity), it is also that the system is creating massive structural inequalities that will eventually shrink potnetial markets for goods and services. Our education system is driving a massive wedge between the upper and lower classes in America, splitting the middle class between those willing to mortgage their futures to get into the right school district and those who either can’t afford, or think it is imprudent, to take that kind of risk. The fault line that is being created by a lack of corporate recruiting competence is leaving the poor completely behind. They can’t afford to move into the right school districts, to get access to an education and supportive peer group that will ensure that they will get into the right college so that they can get the right job. And since the poor are disproportionately people of color, the corporate system is blasting away at it’s foot in two ways: first, by ensuring that the possible pool of talent it can draw from is always scarce and reinforcing behaviors that are antithetical to sustaintable advantage in the creative age, and second, because diversity of background, opinion, perspective and thought are critical to the creative process. But since corporations are ensuring that every nervous parent in America is obsessed with homogenizing the unique perspectives, thoughts, opinions and backgrounds from their kids as they move in droves to exclusive gated communities, the talent pool needed to sustain competitive advantage is shrinking at a rate that is inversely proportional to the overall value of talent to the enterprise. That’s right: the corporate system of selection based on experience and education ensures that as the possible talent pool grows due to immigration and globalization, and as the potential value of that pool grows relative to the needs of the organization, that corporations will actually have an ever smaller pool from which to pick.

27

I have never met a two year old that lacked imagination and curiosity. I have met very few 40 years that still posses either.There is this little voice in a parent's head that tells them that seven million years of biology can't be all wrong, that perhaps the very reason we have schools and jobs is because human beings are just naturally curious and inventive. We have this sneaking suspicion that seeking to normalize thoughts and feelings, begging all the while for external validation and the warm embrace of group-think may not be the right way to go. It's not just all the counter examples to the conventional wisdom: the Curries, the Sanders, the Einsteins, the Kings, the holy writings and yes, even the Gateses. Its the feeling that we are all just going to Abilene, that someone, somewhere started all this with a rather silly (and perhaps even sinister) notion and that now we are all just feeding upon the group's validation of something that may be very wrong. And like the paradox shows, the group think effect has to start somewhere. People far smarter than I have developed almost as many theories around this as there are children struggling in school. But my purpose here is to link building a better business on a better economic model with the lack of talent to make that happen. And therefore, I propose that the problem starts with us. We are doing it. Recruiters and HR people. We can’t put together a job description or a reliable method for improving performance, but we sure as hell know that if someone went to Harvard they are going to be right for the job. Corporations can’t tell you exactly how they built a culture that fostered creativity and innovation, but they know for sure that if you finished a project at Cisco you must be a high-tech titan. It is our own incompetence, our own ability to decipher and describe reliable criteria for success, our own inability to look at an individual’s past and figure out whether they will be successful in our future that drives us to this incredibly destructive behavior. Am I saying that because we can't write a good job description we are strip mining our most precious natural resource for the most mundane and common ore? Yes... I am.

26

(With an apology to my international readers...)

As a parent you are caught between society's rock and the soul's hard place. Every SUV driving, Eddie Bauer clad super-parent guzzling their third latte by 8:00 a.m. will tell you confidently that if you didn't get your child into the right pre-natal school they are doomed to a hopeless future of dead-end sanitation engineering jobs.  The conventional wisdom about how to ensure that your child will be the next Gates allows for no mealy-mouthed weakness, nothing other than a dutiful sieg heil to the super-parent's delusion that they can accurately predict the future .  Dutifully we parents continue to demand that our children strip away their creativity and individuality, their ability to play and interact and problem solve in complex environments. We schedule them from waking to sleep, and we listen as pop culture tells us that we just haven't done enough today to make our child into the next Nobel laureate. And yet most parents are harboring this secret fear that all this will indeed make Johnny a dull boy. Their kids are turning into narcissistic automatons that  don't much resemble kids at all, just small investment bankers that have trouble keeping their rooms clean. And while these little drones are getting the right grades in the right schools, hanging with the right friends and doing the right activities, Will Wright becomes a demigod whose success tells them "Crap, this may all be wrong."

25

Whether thoughtful or not, conscious or not, the modern western education system acts as if its purpose is to systematize, normalize and homogenize the K-12 education experience. It focuses maniacally on least common denominator proofs of a young person's ability to work at home (homework being an increasing part of most students grades), take standardized tests, commit facts to memory independent of meaning or context, dissect problems into component parts that an outside expert has already validated and ensure that behaviors that are celebrated in most creative institutions are crushed and burned early. All of this is being coupled with an insane drive on the part of parents to have their children do more homework, take more standardized test and get homogenized even further. Desperate to find validation in a complex world that seems to change its theories regularly about what constitutes good parenting, parents are only too dutifully running to take all the guess work out of education. 10 = 10, and that’s good enough for them.

24

More stories coming in about the difference between getting good grades and doing a good job. A friend has been reading this numbered rant and pulled me aside earlier this week. “You don’t know how much you have hit the nail on the head with this one” she told me. “My husband is running the software division of a new computer company. They are trying to solve really difficult software problems for a new computing platform. My husband needs help, so he has been calling in the best and the brightest comp sci guys he can find to help him. He has had to fire every single one. These guys simply can’t conceive of a solution that is outside their standard linear way of thinking. My husband is now hiring theoretical physicists and teaching them to code. It’s the only way that he can get the work done.” I have said it before, and I’ll probably say it many times hence… the jobs of the future will require creativity as foundational skill. You can say what you like about our education system (and many have), but nobody is claiming that the education system of today is enhancing the creative capabilities of our kids. At a certain point all the kids that get good grades, go to the right schools, know the right formulas and can perform all the right routines are going to have be trained to become like they were before they went to school: curious and creative. It is inevitable. And the reason it is inevitable is because recruiting hasn’t screamed “Stop the madness!”

23

A couple of months ago I was sitting next to the VP of engineering of a large software company located on the east coast. I was telling this person my Disneyland story. He replied “Depends on what you want to do.” I asked the engineer to clarify. “Well, I hire a lot of software and test engineers. Some of the jobs are pretty much rote coding type of stuff. Others are critical problem solving and new product jobs. When I want to hire the crank-turners I go to the comp sci programs in the area and go through the regular recruiting routine. The kids I get are fine for what I need them for. But when I want to hire problem solvers and innovators I skip the recruiting process entirely and go this one school, or look for graduates of that school. Funny thing is, this school doesn't graduate any software engineers. I have to train everyone I hire from there to code. But I have almost a 100% success rate finding the right people from this school.” (I have purposefully left this vague so that this individual can maintain their hard-earned competitive advantage in talent.) I then proposed that this engineer’s company would simply start outsourcing the “crank turning” jobs to China, India and Eastern Europe. “Sure – it’s getting close to the point where it is just too expensive to do knowledge labor here in the U.S., so eventually we will outsource all that stuff. But I need to be working in the same room with the innovators and problem solvers, so until I am ready to move overseas, I will continue to be bringing people here for that kind of work,” they replied.

22

The night after my social experiment with the sure and senseless band teenagers my wife reminded me that I may have an especially jaundiced view of those fine little fellows, as the entitlement mentality of the average American is a sure way to send me over the edge. Perhaps I was just being too hard on them, all evidence to the contrary. But my thoughts were reinforced the next day as I was talking to one of the fellow chaperons who I had met on the trip. It turns out that he was a software engineering executive at a mid-sized corporation. He laughed and said “We are all in big trouble. The same thing happened to me. But it’s worse than that. I can find lots of kids to hire these days, kids that come from fancy universities and have great degrees, but they are almost completely incapable of solving problems outside of a narrow band of well defined issues. Against the advice of my recruiting department I have started looking at second-tier schools where I can find kids who didn’t always get the best grades but know how to achieve an objective and make something happen. These kids that come from privilege just can’t seem to add value.”

21

(Thanks to all those who have sent me emails, comments and articles. I will be replying to those as the numbered rant concludes.)

Our education system is producing an entire generation of children that can barely think for themselves. Interactive environments where negotiation and social skills were enriched and enabled are dashed away in the vain hope that a full calendar of activities will ensure that little Jane or Johnny will get into the right school and earns lots of money. I was reminded of this recently when I chaperoned a group of 12 year old boys on a trip to Disneyland. Each boy was assertive to the point of being obnoxious and taxing, completely assured of their own self-worth and the value of their opinions. Every move I made resulted in a direct confrontation that questioned my ability to chaperon such a vaunted set of prodigies. Finally, on the second day, I pulled the boys together and said “You all seem very sure that each of you can have more fun if you are in control of where we go next. Yesterday we got on 15 rides due to my scheduling and mapping the appropriate routes. But since you are all very sure that you can do it better, today I will simply ensure your safety and let you determine where we should go, when.” The kids all gave a smug smirk and said “Finally!” Two hours later we were still sitting in the same exact spot, not having gone a single ride. That day we ended up going on three rides, and all of those were in the last hour before the park closed as the kids madly dashed to whatever was closest. It seems that all the children were extraordinarily adept at having their own opinions and questioning what everyone else did, but when presented with the opportunity to work as a group to guide their own destiny, they completely broke down and failed by any meaningful measure, especially by the measure of their own fulfillment and happiness. This is the result of the combination of upper-middle class value systems and the modern education system: narcissistic braggarts who can’t solve a problem on their own no matter how much incentive exists. Most of the children were straight-A students and were destined for the Ivy League. And still, I wouldn’t hire one of them if my life depended on it.