Your Boss" Opinion Matters More Than You Think

We’re all familiar with the phrase “seeing is believing.” Witnessing an unusual or unexpected event increases your ability to regard it as valid. But is the opposite also true? Do we tend to see what we believe? Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking Fast and Slow, has noted that his overwhelming conclusion about people’s decision-making challenges is that they tend to seek only for information that confirms what they originally believed.

Over the last several months my colleague Jack Zenger and I have been working with a multinational company to assess and coach their top three levels of management. As we completed individual coaching sessions it was apparent that some managers had a positive bias and others had a negative bias in their ratings of employees.

To understand this better we looked at a larger dataset of 360 data. In a recent Harvard Business review article we shared a study where we identified 50 positive and 31 negative rating managers. These managers rated their direct reports significantly more or less positively than the rest of their colleagues. The graph below shows the 5-point rating scale for this 360 degree feedback instrument and the percentage of time each group of managers used each point on the scale.

These ratings represent the following scores:

1. Needs significant improvement—Poor performance


2. Needs some improvement—Inconsistent performance


3. Competent—Good performance


4. Strength—Top quartile


5. Outstanding strength—Top 10%

Note that only 18.4% of the positive managers’ ratings were “Competent” compared to 51.4% for the negative managers.

The Impact of a Positive or Negative Rating Manager

What is the impact when managers inherently rate more positively or negatively? Is the rating an objective and accurate analysis of a subordinate’s performance, or does the rating itself influence the subordinate’s performance?

Anyone who would have joined me in the discussions with the subordinates of the “high” and “low” rating managers would have instantly seen the impact. Those people who had higher, more positive ratings felt lifted up and supported. The vote of confidence from their managers gave them optimism about additional improvement.

But the subordinates who had a negative-rating manager were confused or discouraged, and often both. They felt it was impossible to succeed. They often heard the message as “you are not valued or trusted.” What effect did that have?

We measured employee engagement data for the direct reports of positive and negative rating managers. Direct reports who worked for negative rating managers had engagement scores at the 47^th percentile. Those reporting to positive rating managers had engagement scores at the 60^th percentile. This difference is statistically significant.

We acknowledge that that negative rating managers may select less engaged employees, but the far more likely explanation is that the engagement levels of these employees was roughly the same, but the diverse day to day interactions capped by very divergent performance reviews had a big impact on engagement levels.

Possible Motives of Positive or Negative Rating Managers

Negative raters would typically say something like, “I want my people to get the message that I have high expectations.” The positive rating manager’s motive and message was quite different. They too had high expectations, but the message they desired to send was that they had confidence in their people. They believed that they had selected the greatest people for those jobs and they expected them to succeed.

Impact of Manager Expectations

Did those expectations change the behavior of the subordinates of these high and low rating managers?

The following chart shows the overall leadership effectiveness results for those leaders who worked for the positive and negative rating managers. Negative-rating managers rated their direct report leaders at the 19^th percentile, while positive rating manager rated their subordinates at the 76^th percentile. The ratings of peers, the next level down direct reports and others also tended to be lower for negative rating managers and higher for positive rating managers.

Possible Conclusions

Both high and low rating managers had perceptions that differed widely from all other raters, which suggests that those who are at either extreme deliberately should look for information that is contrary to their bias. “Believing” leads you to see what you want and expect to see.

Believing their perceptions are correct and that everyone else’s are incorrect is akin to the person in the marching band who believes that everyone else is out of step except them.

Having a boss with a strong positive or negative bias appears to influence subordinates’ behavior to the extent that others ultimately can see it. The bosses’ emotions are contagious and infect those who work for them. It is unlikely that these two groups of subordinates started out their careers as higher or lower performers, but it is clear that they have become different.

There is apparently a positive motivational effect that comes from reporting to a boss who is positive. Conversely, there is a demotivating “downer” impact that comes from working for the low rating boss. Should people just accept that getting one or the other kind of boss is to be expected and simply the “luck of the draw,” or should people expect that it is their right to work for an excellent boss?

There is an interesting study that is related to the issue of believing is seeing called “Predicting non-marital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis.” This was a meta-analysis of 137 studies collected over 33 years with 37,761 participants. These studies were looking at factors that cause non-married couples to break up or stay together. The number one factor listed in the study that impacted couples staying together was something they called “positive illusion.” In other words, the person you are dating thinks you are “awesome.” It turns out if the person you are dating thinks you are awesome, your satisfaction with the relationship is significantly higher. Is it possible, then, that if a boss thinks you are awesome you then become more awesome? It is hard if not impossible for most of us who have had a boss who thought we were awesome not to believe and embody the description because of the tangible impact their belief had on us. Many people also know the impact of the negative expectation from a boss. Typically our performance went down.

Implications

Having spoken with hundreds of leaders whose bosses thought they were awesome, we know the impact is real. It is our hope these findings can have a positive impact on the ratings—and the messages—leaders are sending to their current and future employees. Your ability to build their engagement is much higher than you may have believed.

 

Your Boss" Opinion Matters More Than You Think

What are the Most Annoying Characteristics of a Horrible Boss? [INFOGRAPHIC]

Bosses can either be nice or nasty, a joy or horrible. They can make you hate your job, or love it.

In this infographic (courtesy of OfficeVibe) below we look at the 12 most annoying characteristics of a horrible boss – are there any you recognize?

Takeaways:

• The worst leaders take all the credit, but pass the blame for mistakes.


• These bad bosses are led by fear and think that it is an effective way of managing it.


• They are resistant to change and fail to understand that change is sometimes good.


• Horrible bosses need to take control over everything, and having a problem with giving that up.


• Good leaders need to be able to make decisions quickly – indecisiveness shows a weakness.

via What are the Most Annoying Characteristics of a Horrible Boss? [INFOGRAPHIC].

What are the Most Annoying Characteristics of a Horrible Boss? [INFOGRAPHIC]

Why You Lead Determines How Well You Lead

One of the most telling questions you can ask someone in any kind of leadership role is what motivates them to be a better leader. Some will say it’s to enhance their personal effectiveness, or that leading is an expected part of their professional development. Others may say that they lead because of a sense of leader identity, purpose, or personal obligation to serve their organization and the people with whom they work. Many will proffer a mix of instrumental, external motivations (like pay or career progression) and more intrinsic, internal rationales (like the obligation to serve).  The group with a combination of motives has the most reasons to lead, and so it seems intuitively reasonable to assume that they would be the most committed, high performing leaders. Right?

In a recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, colleagues and I examined this assumption. Our study, massive in scale, tracked more than 10,000 Army leaders from their entrance into West Point, through graduation, and well into their careers. For perspective, the sample represents approximately 20% of the living graduates of West Point. We examined the motivations driving their decision to attend the Academy and become Army leaders, and we looked at their performance and potential as leaders in the years following their graduation. A key leader performance measure was identification of early promotion potential. Army performance appraisals are designed to compare officers’ performance to the organization’s leadership framework. Each annual performance appraisal gauged the officer’s potential to lead at higher levels, as judged by immediate and higher-level supervisors serving in positions to observe officers’ demonstrated performance in leader roles.

As one might predict, we found that those with internal, intrinsic motives performed better than those with external, instrumental rationales for their service — a common finding in studies of motivation. We were surprised to find, however, that those with both internal and external rationales proved to be worse investments as leaders than those with fewer, but predominantly internal, motivations. Adding external motives didn’t make leaders perform better — additional motivations reduced the selection to top leadership by more than 20%.  Thus, external motivations, even atop strong internal motivations, were leadership poison.

Many believe that the best way to influence behavior is to incentivize it, and such external incentives certainly work with lab rats. In our study, however, adding external incentives clearly did not improve leader performance. In practice, consider leaders in the Veteran’s Health Administration, most of whom have strong, internal motivations to serve America’s veterans. Yet add hefty bonuses as motivation, and the VA finds itself with a significant leadership problem, where some administrators appear to have lost sight of the core purpose of the organization. One step in righting the ship will be a renewed focus on the internal motivation to help sick and injured veterans. Robert McDonald, awaiting confirmation as the new Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs, wrote about his own internal motive to lead while CEO of Procter & Gamble.  In a personally authored document titled “What I Believe In,” McDonald kicks off three pages of leadership principles by first describing his motivation to lead:

“Living a life driven by purpose is more meaningful and rewarding than meandering through life without direction. My life’s purpose is to improve lives. This operates on many levels. I work to improve the lives of the 6.5 billion people in the world with P&G brands, and I work every day to have a positive impact in the life of just one person.”

One of the longstanding dichotomies in the field of leader development is whether to teach leadership as skills that lead to higher performance (a competency-based model that is relatively easy to metric), or to teach leadership as a complex moral relationship between the leader and the led (a values-based model that is challenging to metric).  Our study demonstrates that those who lead primarily from values-based motivations, which are inherently internal, outperform those who lead with additional instrumental outcomes and rewards.

The implications of this study for leader development — and practice — are profound. In business, the cost of leader development programs is often measured, or at least estimated, as an instrumental consequence — an increase in performance of the organization resulting in a return on investment for the program. This is reasonable, given estimates that place the annual cost of leader development at more than $60B . It is important, though, that talent managers and executive decision makers do not allow external consequences of leader development to become external motivations among organizational leaders.  If those we seek to develop as leaders adopt external justifications for leading well — such as an increase in shareholder value, better pay or perquisites, or increased profits — they are likely to be less successful as leaders in comparison to those who seek to lead for more internal, intrinsic reasons alone.

If you aspire to lead in business or society, first ask yourself, “Why do I want to be a leader?” The answer to that question, as it turns out, will make a significant difference in how well you lead.

via Why You Lead Determines How Well You Lead – Tom Kolditz – Harvard Business Review.

Why You Lead Determines How Well You Lead

Most Managers Think of Themselves as Coaches

As a manager, do you think of yourself as a leader or as a coach? Do you, for instance, feel it’s important that your staff see you as an expert or do you prefer to create an egalitarian environment? Are you the person who solves problems or helps your staff come up with their own solutions? Are you more comfortable being directive or collaborative?

Results of a survey we’ve been conducting indicate a stronger desire to display coaching attributes than we were expecting.

Our assessment consists of 30 items we have tested and correlated to the most important attributes associated either with strong, top-down leadership or excellent coaches.  (If you have not yet, we encourage you to take the assessment now, so that you can compare your scores with the those we present below.)

More than 2,000 readers responded to the survey. The results represent a global audience with 60% of respondents from the U.S., 10% from Europe, 9% from Asia, 6% from Canada, 2% from Central/South America, 2% from Africa, and 11% who did not identify their location.  Respondents represent a fairly even mix of all levels in the organization: 20% executive management, 23% senior management, 27% middle management, and 30% supervisors or individual contributors.

You can compare your scores to others in the chart below here, which displays ranges of scores we’ve so far collected for the three different attributes. A negative score indicates a preference strong, direct leadership, managing through applying your expertise and through giving advice and clear direction. A positive score indicates a greater desire to act as a coach. Generally speaking, we have found through our research and our experience, excellent coaches would rather help others discover an answer for themselves than give advice. They prefer to act collaboratively rather than tell people what to do. And they prefer to act as an equal rather than as an expert.  And as we analyzed the data, we were surprised (and frankly, pleased) to see that three-quarters of scores were positive, indicating that the vast majority preferred to manage through coaching.

 

 

Years ago, Joe recalls sitting through an introduction by the CEO of a Fortune 50 company that had grown dramatically by acquisition. In his presentation, he said, “The reason we bought all these different companies was that we felt like they would be worth more together than they would running as separate entities. The only way we get that value is through your efforts to collaborate and work together.”  Most of the CEOs across the world have given that same speech. Apparently, people are hearing the message.

Well, perhaps. What we’ve tracked here are people’s desire to act in a particular way, not what they actually do. We imagine many readers are saying to themselves, “My boss does not seem that interested in letting me discover my own solutions.”  Or many could be musing, “It’s true that sometimes we desire an open, collaborative conversation only to find ourselves barking out directions and orders.” That can happen, but there’s a world of difference between organizations in which people fall short of a collaborative ideal and those that don’t subscribe to it at all.

As we looked further into the results, we found those in top management positions to have the strongest desire to be more collaborative and help others find their own solutions; supervisors ranked the lowest. That jibes with our own experience, in which we find supervisors often believe that they are expected to give advice, give orders, and assure that orders are executed. But, remarkably, even this group prefers coaching to directive leadership to some degree.

 

We find these results so heartening because, frankly, we’ve seen supervisors and managers who were really good at getting results by giving lots of direction and advice and staying on top of all the details.  A really effective autocratic leader can be efficient and quick about getting things done. But something suffers in the process.  People wait for orders.  They stop taking initiative.  Their level of engagement declines slowly—and often rapidly—as time progresses.  It can be easy in the effort to get the job done to lose sight of the long-term goal of helping people get better at getting the job done. The enormous value of coaching is what it does to develop people and create an ever more engaged and empowered team of employees.

via Most Managers Think of Themselves as Coaches – Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman – Harvard Business Review.

Most Managers Think of Themselves as Coaches

INFOGRAPHIC: It"s Not Easy To Be A CIO

The demand for chief information officers has risen in the past two decade. The amount of data on the Internet is increasing exponentially, and with the rise of cloud computing, the role of the CIO will continue to change. Wikibon put together an infographic showing what we can expect in the coming years:

via INFOGRAPHIC: It’s Not Easy To Be A CIO – Business Insider.

INFOGRAPHIC: It"s Not Easy To Be A CIO

How Your Boss"s Work-Life Balance Affects Yours

If you’re pulling long hours and lament your lack of a life outside work, it’s very likely that you’re modeling the behavior of your boss.

If you’re feeling overworked, your boss could be to blame, but not for giving you extra work or telling you to stay late. Results from an online survey of 19,000 employees around the world confirm that an employee’s ability to balance work and personal life is affected heavily by her boss’s bad habits.

In other words: Monkey see, monkey do.

The study and findings were created and collected by Christine Porath, associate professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, and Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of The Energy Project.

They first identified four metrics that make up an employee’s “core needs”:

1. physical renewal


2. emotional value


3. focus


4. purpose

When even one of these four needs is met, workplace satisfaction and performance improve.

If your workplace feels more like a corporate jungle than part of civilized society, remember the baboons, Schwartz and Porath say: They look to an alpha primate for guidance and reassurance once every 20 or 30 seconds. Humans aren’t so different.

From their findings, most bosses are setting a bad example:

Unfortunately, only 25% of our survey respondents told us that their leaders model sustainable work practices. Those leaders’ employees are 55% more engaged, 72% higher in health well being, 77% more satisfied at work, and 1.15 times more likely to stay at the company. They also reported more than twice the level of trust in their leaders.

If your boss works long hours, there is likely little you can do to change their behavior. Hopefully this awareness of their unconscious decisions might help you assert your right to leave at a more reasonable hour. It’s also so a good idea to talk to your boss about the expectations for your job, chances are they might not realize the stress they are causing.

On the other hand, if you’re the boss and this sounds familiar, you can improve your employees’ work-life balance by making yours better, too:

Be mindful of email after-hours

Sending emails late at night or on the weekends sets the bar high. You might feel more productive from home at 11 p.m., but that doesn’t mean your employees appreciate their inbox buzzing all night long.

Leaders told Schwartz and Porath that they don’t necessarily expect action on these after-hours emails, but it’s “a near guarantee that their direct reports will feel compelled to read and respond to them.”

Let them focus during the day

Only 21% of respondents said they were able to focus on one thing at a time during the day. Again, even if you don’t expect immediate action on requests or memos, employees feel obligated to act immediately–breaking their workflow concentration.

Be clear about what you need, when you need it, and how it fits into the big picture. Having leaders who communicate a clear, inspiring vision for others to follow resulted in an impressive 82% higher job satisfaction and had employees that were more likely to stick around. But only 22% of respondents reported having that kind of leadership.

Show your appreciation

Don’t be stingy with praise or constructive feedback; feeling valued by their bosses meant more productivity and loyalty. “Only 36% of our respondents said they felt a high level of meaning and significance at work,” the researchers reported. “Those who did were more than three times as likely to stay at their companies–the highest single correlation in our study.”

via How Your Boss’s Work-Life Balance Affects Yours | Fast Company | Business + Innovation.

How Your Boss"s Work-Life Balance Affects Yours

8 Culture-Building Secrets from Two Exceptional Places to Work

Unlimited vacation and volunteering time. Jobs built around strengths. Eager mentors. Policies that focus on treating people like humans. You would think I was describing Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory or some other working utopia. Actually, it’s a perfect description of two real-life company cultures that would knock your socks off.

Talent Plus and Next Jump are two midsize companies determined to be great places to work, by creating a version of a work-life that most people would think is fantasy. Talent Plus is the Leading Talent Assessment Partner in the talent industry and Next Jump powers other corporation’s rewards, loyalty platforms and engagement solutions.

I am constantly on the hunt for companies with this “employee focused” commitment, because I know that being happy at work is a powerful tool for not only individual performance but also company performance. I first came across these two companies, because of the many awards they have won, and I was curious to see if they really walk the talk. Based on my one-on-one interactions with them, I can say they do, by creating rewarding environments that help with recruiting and retention, which helps the companies thrive as a whole.

But we’re still living in a business world where this is far from the norm, and building a “great culture” is easier said than done, especially for busy entrepreneurs. With that in mind, I recently sat down with the leaders at Talent Plus and Next Jump, to identify some of their culture-building secrets.

1. Share everything. At Next Jump, there are no secrets. Business results and strategies are discussed in an open forum and transparency is practiced regularly. From the get-go, the primary goal was to build a company that would make your mother and father proud.

2. Engage in “daily formation.” Every morning the entire team at Talent Plus gathers in a circle in their large dining room. They vocalize one of the 35 core values and then people volunteer to share examples of those values in action. They then have a “Play of the Day,” in which associates are able to recognize anyone that has gone above and beyond in their contribution or performance. They then take a moment and celebrate any birthdays or life-stage events.

3. Give credit where credit is due. Next Jump has set up an environment that is meant to help people reach their full potential. Their motto? “Consistency Over Intensity.” The company has frequent recognition programs–weekly, monthly, annually–to recognize people regularly.

4. Consider the “One Coffee Pot Rule.” Talent Plus has more than 200 associates, but the company has just one coffee pot in the kitchen area. Seems simple, but this facilitates organic interaction and forces everyone to have a central location for spontaneous interactions.

5. Provide mentoring. Mentorship is a cornerstone of Next Jump’s culture. Each member of the team has a “talking partner,” and they consistently meet every day for breakfast and hold each other accountable for greatness. The goal is to understand each other’s world and then provide the support needed to succeed. For example the CEO and the Chief of Staff are “talking partners” who run the company together.

6. “Focus on You.” This is an activity at Talent Plus that is used as a tool to build strong relationships and to strengthen its culture. The company uses it when someone first starts, lands a new internal job, or when strengthens relationships with valued clients. Members of the team are even encouraged to take it home and use it with their families or other organizations they’re a part of. The Focus on You exercise is a series of questions that you answer about yourself and share with others, including: What is the name you liked to be called? What do I get paid to do? What are your hot buttons, the things that you really care about in life? What are your successes, one professional and one personal? What do you do best? What are your goals professionally and personally? These questions break barriers and open the door to understanding what makes each other click.

7. Declare and document. Next Jumpers are encouraged to declare their intentions and then document them. It has been a tipping point in the culture because it has allowed members of the team to get behind that culture. Previously, the company defined the culture with core values and it was hard to remember them in action and amid stress. Once they began declaring what they wanted to do and documenting it, they began to see culture-specific actions happen more organically.

8. Perks! Talent Plus allows its employees to manage their own time–unlimited vacation and otherwise–and goes as far as offering up the company’s beautiful space to use as needed, including baby showers, birthday celebrations and lots of family-focused celebrations.

via 8 Culture-Building Secrets from Two Exceptional Places to Work | Inc.com.

8 Culture-Building Secrets from Two Exceptional Places to Work

10 Ways to Use Analytics to Drive Innovation

Much of the focus on the potential for big data has centered around using analytics to boost sales and marketing.

While those areas are indeed ripe for innovation, companies can tap analytics for a slew of other novel improvements to outperform competitors, including identifying new profit models, designing new products and streamlining processes.

Tom Davenport, a professor at Babson College and an independent senior advisor to Deloitte Analytics, outlines the 10 ways companies can foster innovation with analytics in an article in Deloitte University Press.

The 10 ways companies can drive innovation with analytics are:

1. Profit model innovation: “There is certainly an analytics spin on this form of innovation, in that many companies in both online and offline businesses are attempting to make profits with new data and analytics-based products and services,” Davenport says. GE, Monsanto and several large banks are among the companies using analytics to identify new ways to monetize their offerings and assets.


2. Network innovation: Companies can use analytics to deliver new products, services or processes to their existing network of partners, such as suppliers. For example, a company could deliver analytics to suppliers and partners to help them make better decisions. “In another context, with the Internet of Things, companies almost always need to share sensor data with their ecosystems, and to define standards so that the information can be integrated and analyzed,” Davenport points out.


3. Structure innovation: Analytics can be used to organize company assets in new ways to create value. “Large banks, for example, have formed new business units to analyze customer data,” the article notes. “Similarly, other businesses create a centralized group of analysts, and then ‘embed’ many of them with key decision makers in business units and functions.”


4. Process innovation: While process improvement was one of the most common uses of analytics in the early days of the technology, companies are evolving from a narrow focus on supply chain and logistical processes to bolster processes in pricing, marketing, sales and manufacturing, Davenport points out.


5.  Product performance innovation: While product innovation has not traditionally involved analytics, that’s changing now that different devices come with the ability to track the physical movements of the wearer.


6. Product system innovation: A business and its network of partners can use analytics to sift through the vast amount of data created by sensors.


7. Service innovation: Analytics can drive or measure service innovation, the article notes. Companies that build complex products like vehicles, computer hardware or jet engines can use analytics to monitor how the machines are performing and predict when they may need maintenance.


8. Channel innovation: Analytics can measure the effectiveness of the different channels companies use to deliver products and services. “Today, the enormous challenge for many organizations is to understand customer relationships across all channels and touch points,” according to Davenport. “Even identifying the same customer across channels is often a problem, although analytics can make it much easier.”


9. Brand innovation: Analytics are key to knowing how a brand is performing.


10. Customer engagement innovation: Analytics are ideally suited for digging into customer behavior data to identify the most effective ways to profitably interact with them.

via 10 Ways to Use Analytics to Drive Innovation | TIBCO Spotfire’s Trends and Outliers.

10 Ways to Use Analytics to Drive Innovation

What the Companies That Predict the Future Do Differently

If knowledge is power, then predictive analytics promises the ultimate knowledge — that of the future. Such knowledge does not come easily, but the increasing density of digital information, deeper automated connections across companies, and increased storage and computing power create new options for enterprise leaders. For the first time in history, the predictive future — the increasing awareness and likelihood of potential future actions and outcomes — is within reach. No wonder, then, that executives have placed predictive analytics at the top of the executive agenda since 2012, according to a recent Accenture survey.

But to know more about potential future actions and outcomes and their probability — and to act on that knowledge — organizations are engaging in new kinds of relationships. We have found that the most forward-looking organizations do these three things:

(1) Look to the outside: The main focus of analytics has until recently been internal, directed toward high-frequency, standardized, repeatable processes that connect variance with intervention. Using analytics, organizations have deployed bigger data sets, cheaper cloud computing power, and more aggressive algorithms to successfully standardize previously non-standard processes such as sales and service, making them more repeatable, predictable, and amenable to analytics.

To apply analytics to the future, though, self-knowledge is insufficient. The information most likely to influence the future comes from looking out the window, not in the mirror. Sheer computing power isn’t the key differentiator either, because the predictive future relies less on additional statistical mastication than on a greater diversity of inputs. Consider the example of a manufacturer of production equipment that collects sensor-based telemetry about its machines’ operations, the status of their parts, their performance, their resource consumption, and other data. This monitoring turns up an anomaly at a key customer that indicates a failure is imminent. Such a failure would cause a significant cost and damage the customer’s brand. The manufacturer notifies the customer, which pulls the machine off line and repairs it, saving millions of dollars in lost production and damage to its brand. Business continues as usual and the equipment manufacturer has a very grateful customer.

In this example, information that was critical to the customer came from outside its walls. But while such information exchanges have become technically feasible, they are not yet financially beneficial to the information provider and difficult for the customer to value and incorporate into their management systems. Turning information exchange into value and revenue involves changing the nature of information relationships as well as management’s abilities to act on that information. The most forward-thinking companies are developing new business models to create value from these kinds of information exchanges.

(2) Develop open multiple multi-sided relationships: Altruism or openness alone will not give rise to ready access to the diversity of data required to understand the predictive future. The availability and veracity of the data involved in the predictive future requires creating multiple multi-sided relationships with customers, suppliers, trading partners, and just about anyone else with potentially beneficial information. It is no longer enough to share information one-to-one with partners. Increasing predictive power rests in positioning yourself at the center of multiple information flows.

Current information-based services, such as Bloomberg, involve an information provider selling a single set of information with segmented services to multiple customers. Such models play a part in the predictive future, but the industrial Internet and expanded communications capabilities change the nature of information products. From one product distributed to many customers, the move is underway toward products that feed information from many sources to a single party, which rearranges and redistributes the information to many customers. In short, from many to one to many.

There’s a demand for this type of information, and thus product and market opportunities, but in an information services marketplace where people want everything for nothing, it is not easy to monetize information products. We expect, though, that a viable market will emerge as commercial terms evolve to support the multiple multi-sided relationships that give subscribers unique access to information and therefore value. Whether the information source is commercial brokers or existing commercial relationships, diverse information sources fuel the predictive future.

(3) Update management and leadership practices: An extended analytics engine fueled by multiple information sources, however, can accomplish little without the ability to act on future predictions. The practice of management itself must evolve for this capability to emerge.

It is hard enough to act on solid information about the past. The level of difficulty rises when management is asked to deal with a set of predictive futures rather than projections based on past performance. Effective use of predictive analytics involves mastering a new set of management, operational, and financial techniques and disciplines.

Managerially, organizations need to revise management practices, including: increasing the use of experiments and pilots to enhance risk-taking based on external and incomplete data; incorporating test-and-learn experiences into decisions and action; enhancing awareness of the differences between causation, correlation, and coincidence; and placing tangible value on avoiding adverse effects and missed opportunities.

Operationally, organizations need to establish their own trust and execution mechanisms for multi-sided, information-based relationships. These mechanisms entail creating new analytics capabilities, securing access to third-party information and capabilities, continuously refreshing sources, and determining which data need to remain private to retain their value.

Financially, organizations require new models to account for information assets beyond treating them as intangibles. Financial arrangements have to evolve to handle pricing and payments for value based on possible futures. The ultimate goal is to treat information as a tangible flow rather than an intangible asset stuck on the balance sheet.

“The future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.” William Gibson’s dictum, though overused and abused, remains true. The predictive future is valuable precisely because it’s unevenly distributed and therefore in demand. Finding this future in the deluge of information available requires doing a better job of boiling the ocean. It requires investing in management, information-intensive relationships, and a broader view of analytics in the enterprise.

via What the Companies That Predict the Future Do Differently – Jeanne Harris, and Mark McDonald – Harvard Business Review.

What the Companies That Predict the Future Do Differently

The Bias Undermining Your People Analytics

People analytics – the fast-growing practice which companies use to analyze large amounts of data to quantify employee performance – has the potential to revolutionize the workplace and vastly improve how all of us are rewarded for our efforts. But used the wrong way, people analytics can be just as blind and biased as human beings have always been.

One of the most well-established findings in social psychology is the “fundamental attribution error” which essentially describes how observers over-attribute their explanations for the causes of behavior to “the person” and under-attribute the causes of behavior to “the situation.” In careers and the workplace, this means that credit or blame for performance is likely to be assigned to an individual more based on his or her perceived character, personality, intentions or efforts rather than on the situation, context, opportunities or constraints within which that individual is working. This cognitive bias explains why salespeople who are lucky enough to be selling the right products to the right market at the right time get credit and get viewed as talented “A players,” while those who have the misfortune of selling the wrong products to the wrong market at the wrong time instead receive blame and become branded as mediocre “B” or “C” players. This bias also explains why a CFO may be perceived as cheap by disposition or why a team might attribute its internal conflicts to incompatible personalities instead of resulting from organizational incentives to compete rather than collaborate with one another.

In this evolving age of data, the latest manifestation of the fundamental attribution error arises in the rapidly growing field of people analytics. Organizations can now conduct large-scale analyses with all kinds of variables in order to try to predict which employees are likely to succeed, and which are not. Companies use variables such as college or graduate school grades, SAT or GMAT scores, years of working experience, and the results of cognitive ability or personality tests, to predict turnover rates, promotions, sales volume, or other performance outcomes. With the explosion of data that companies collect and compile about their employees, it is tempting to both categorize and classify employees who currently work at the organization and to simultaneously build profiles of ideal candidates, who will be likely to perform well, remain at the organization, get promoted, and be satisfied with their jobs.

But just as people are susceptible to making the fundamental attribution error, organizations risk making what might be called the fundamental analytic error. That is to say, in many instances, critical information is missing from human capital or people analytics: situational or contextual variables. An argument can be made that for the purposes of predicting, explaining, and improving variance in performance, situational variables might actually prove better than individual variables. Using the example of salespeople, more of the variation in sales volume may be attributable to product or territory than by which sales person happens to be selling a given product in a given location. What remains indisputable, however, is that the combination of individual and situational variables together will explain much more of the variance in performance or employee engagement than individual variables or situational variables could ever explain alone.

The fundamental analytic error tempts organizations for several reasons. It’s often much more politically expedient to blame individuals when things aren’t going well than to search for the underlying organizational causes of their difficulties. If the talents or efforts of individuals get credited or blamed for performance, then performance that doesn’t meet expectations does not raise tough questions about whether culture, product, strategy, incentives, or technologies might be improperly configured or misaligned with one another. In other words, poor performance can readily get attributed to employees rather than to their leaders, who are directly or indirectly responsible for creating the conditions that should enable people to succeed. If products are not selling, it may be very appealing to initiate an analytics project to look at salespeople’s attributes instead of getting customer feedback about the company’s products. If turnover is high among entry level employees, it could much more politically palatable to analyze the personality, style, education, experience level, and referral source of the employees who leave the organization, rather than to analyze the capabilities or managerial skills of their supervisors. And no amount or kind of human capital analytics is going to save an organization in denial about disruptive changes occurring in its industry or markets.

There is a better way. The most valuable human capital or people analytic initiatives get deployed in a scientific manner. Hypotheses, nested in some kind of conceptual framework, get formulated and tested and theories and hypotheses are all subject to falsification. So, if some associates in a law firm are performing well, while others perform poorly, it is reasonable to hypothesize that their law school grades, LSAT scores, and whether or not they clerked for a judge might help predict, and partially explain, their performance as attorneys. If the associates who have high grades and scores and clerked for a judge are high performers, and associates with low grades and scores who did not clerk are poor performers, a researcher could hypothesize that this correlation indicates causation: that intelligence and motivation are reflected in the lawyers’ resumes, and that higher intelligence and motivation in turn cause higher performance.

But before conclusions can be drawn, other explanations need to be considered and alternative analyses need to be conducted. The hypothetical law firm, for example, might look beyond human capital analysis of its associates and consider the impact of practice area, geographic location, and types of cases on associate retention and performance. A courageous investigator, willing to risk stirring up organizational politics, might even suggest that the law firm conduct analyses to learn whether associates who work for some partners outperform associates who work for others. These additional analyses might determine that variance in associate performance is a function of whether the partners they happen to be working for provide coaching, mentoring and support, and not a result of the associates’ grades, scores or personalities.

Human psychology and organizational politics are both biased towards attributing too much causality to people and their individual attributes and not enough causality to situations and organizational context. Human capital and people analytics, despite their big data-fueled power, can easily get misused in ways that serve only to justify existing organizational systems and to unfairly scapegoat individuals who are not performing well in no small measure because of the weaknesses and constraints of those systems. Only by taking a broader, more open, less biased and less political approach to conducting analyses about the factors that predict and explain performance can organizations hope to improve it over the long term.

via The Bias Undermining Your People Analytics – Ben Dattner – Harvard Business Review.

The Bias Undermining Your People Analytics

Top 10 Great Workplaces for Millennials

A new study from Great Place To Work, Fortune’s partner for the 100 Best Companies to Work For list, reveals which companies offer the best perks and benefits for Millennials — the youngest generation of the U.S. workforce that boasts 77 million workers between the ages of 18 and 35. After sifting through thousands of survey results and employee comments, the researchers at Great Rated!, GPTW’s employer-review website, identified 10 companies whose workplace cultures are a perfect fit for enterprising entry-level workers. And what do Millennials value most? Fair pay, having a say in decisions and being overseen by competent management top the list. They’re also fans of socializing with coworkers, flexible scheduling, a dedication to philanthropy and community, gym memberships, and wellness programs. Here’s what they had to say.

 

Intuitive Research and Technology

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Revenue: $187 million
Headquarters: Huntsville, Alabama
Number of employees: 266
Millennial headcount: 32%
Best Companies rank: 2 (Best Medium Companies to Work For)

Millennials at the technology services firm have a life outside of work: 98% say the company encourages them to balance work with their personal lives, thanks to an onsite fitness center, fully-paid medical coverage and unlimited tuition reimbursement. And though Millennials are often viewed as being ultra-casual, the young employees at Intuitive say they value its “best dressed” code, since it demands professionalism. One employee commented, “I enjoy working with each member of my team, all the way up through management. There is a great sense of family, everyone truly cares, and I believe that each person at Intuitive is cheering for me to be successful.”

 

David Weekley Homes

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Revenue: $1.1 billion
Headquarters: Houston
Number of employees: 1,082 (U.S)
Millennial headcount: 27%
Best Companies rank: 13

Millennials at this homebuilder take the company’s motto “Building Dreams, Enhancing Lives” to heart: 97 percent say they feel they make a difference, and one employee said, “My work has special meaning. This is not ‘just a job."” Founder and Chairman David Weekley inspires his younger charges with a “servant leadership” ethos that stresses integrity and giving back. One employee commented, “Mr. Weekley puts such an emphasis on philanthropy that it is truly touching. I am in awe at the steps he has taken to better our communities near and far.”

 

Allied Wallet

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Headquarters: Los Angeles
Number of employees: 1,032
Millennial headcount: 97%

More than 90% of the workforce at the 12-year old e-payment processing firm are less than 35 years old. They enjoy great office views on Hollywood’s Sunset Strip, special events, fun parties and free Friday lunches where everybody sits and eats together. Top performers are given monthly gifts. Last year the employee of the year received a new Mercedes Benz convertible.

Says one Millennial employee: “The office happy hour is unreal. The people are all off-the-hook.”

 

Ultimate Software

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Revenue: $332 million
Headquarters: Weston, Florida
Number of employees: 1,734
Millennial headcount: 25%
Best Companies rank: 20

This HR and payroll software developer finds reasons to celebrate whenever possible and regularly sponsors cocktail hours and karaoke contests, as well as monthly birthday celebrations. CEO Scott Scherr has created a Silicon Valley culture in South Florida, in part through “48 Hours” events where employees can work on pet projects for a 48-hour period as long as it’s related to company goals.

Says one employee: “I feel at home when I come to work, where everyone is happy to see me, and ready to help. I have never had a bad day of work at Ultimate. My manager is so personable and fun, while also having a sense of authority and management. I feel comfortable around her knowing she treats me with respect, and also trusts me to get the job done.”

 

Google

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Revenue: $50.1 billion
Headquarters: Mountain View, California
Number of employees: 42,162
Best Companies rank: 1

Still among the coolest of companies for the younger set, with its famous perks, do-no-evil mantra and world-changing power, Google’s workforce, unsurprisingly, is largely Millennial and Gen X. And yes, the benefits are stellar (onsite cafes, wellness centers and services ranging from dry cleaning to bike repair to oil changes), but Millennials also groove to Google’s GOOG 0.02% smart leadership: 96 percent say the company has great leadership that welcomes innovative suggestions from employees.

Says one employee: “I am challenged to bring great ideas to the table, and those ideas are valued and encouraged. There is also a significant, dedicated initiative to ensuring employee well being. Access to gyms, relaxation classes, massages, and delicious organic food make Google incredible.”

 

DPR Construction

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Gregg Mastorakos

Revenue: $2.54 billion
Headquarters: Redwood City, California
Number of employees: 1,356
Millennial headcount: 28%
Best Companies rank: 10

This contracting and construction management firm based in the Bay Area hits the mark with Millennials in part by putting safety first: 99 percent of staff rate it a safe place to work. No wonder — the company offers safety awards and incentives and once gave an employee a new Ford F-150 truck when he achieved 30,000 consecutive work hours without an accident.

The company also ties construction jobs to bigger purposes. When workers reached a milestone on a project to expand a biotech manufacturing facility, it invited a cancer patient to speak to staff. One employee commented, “DPR continues to empower employees and remain true to the core values and mission that it ‘Exist to Build Great Things,’ and you really feel like you are making a difference alongside some amazing people.”

 

Boston Consulting Group

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Headquarters: Boston
Number of employees: 2,552
Best Companies rank: 3

Employees love the way this strategy consulting firm blends high-impact work, high-integrity leadership, and high levels of camaraderie. And despite a rigorous selection process for employees, Millennials love its friendly culture. BCG gives a hand to those starting out as homeowners; new consultant hires can borrow up to $100,000 from the company at low interest rates to make a down payment on the purchase of a home. Says one employee: “It doesn’t feel like a corporate setting. Everyone knows one another and is comfortable chatting as such. It feels like everyone is just a big family. I can be supporting the CEO and it would be just like chatting with a friend. Completely comfortable and inclusive.”

 

Acuity

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Revenue: $983 million
Headquarters: Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Number of employees: 912
Millennial headcount: 25%
Best Companies rank: 1 (Best Medium Companies to Work For)

This insurance firm is a blast: 97% say it’s a fun place to work, thanks to wacky events like a chocolate fair, a circus, lunch-time performances from stand-up comedians, game shows and a talent contest. One Millennial commented, “I have never worked for a company that has an upper management team that is so forthcoming and approachable. They are always praising us and you can tell we actually are making a difference in the organization. I love coming to work and doing my job. It’s just an added bonus that we often get special treats like food and gifts as well as parties to celebrate our success as a company.”

 

Quicken Loans

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Ray Rushing Quicken Loans

Headquarters: Detroit
Number of employees: 8,386
Millennial headcount: 64%
Best Companies rank: 5

The online mortgage lender wins over Millennials with a fun, egalitarian culture: 98% of younger employees say they are treated equally regardless of title. Each new team member is given the personal cell phone numbers of the CEO and other members of the leadership team. During Detroit’s bankruptcy woes last year, employees said they admired the company’s dedication to the city and its ongoing contributions to the community.

And according to one employee: “There is no ‘boss’ or ‘manager’ — we have leaders who are willing to help all of our team members. It’s 100% open door for any person in the company. You are provided with the atmosphere and materials to be successful here. I’m blessed to have been given this opportunity!”

 

World Wide Technology

• E-mail


• Tweet


• Facebook


• Google Plus


• Linkedin

Share icons

Photo: Tara Wujcik

Revenue: $5 billion
Headquarters: St. Louis
Number of employees: 2,060
Millennial headcount: 35%
Best Companies rank: 34

World Wide Technology co-founder Jim Kavanaugh is a former pro soccer player, and his background in sports has helped set a team mentality that permeates the business.

According to an employee, “I genuinely feel that many of the people care about me and what is going on in my life. They have also allowed me to progress rapidly and at such a young age, not questioning if I can handle it because I’m young. I came in as an intern and they allowed me to hire on full time and become a supervisor. Very few organizations would allow such a young person to progress so quickly through the ranks, recognizing that merit can be proven at any age.”

via 10 Great Workplaces for Millennials.

Top 10 Great Workplaces for Millennials

7 Ways You Can Impact Company Culture

It’s widely known that people quit bosses, not jobs. Usually when the boss sucks, the culture sucks too. Part of the problem is the idea that company culture is determined at the top and works its way down: 59 percent of employees think the CEO and other top leaders are responsible for changing culture. That leaves 41 percent that feel differently, and I wish we could get that number to 100 percent. Employees can impact culture

Company culture can be vague to pin down and define, but for the most part, it’s your company’s unique behavior, beliefs, attitude and nature. It’s also a vibe, a mojo, a mission, a passion and a way to communicate. It’s simply about the people, and people are complex. While it would be nice if companies put as much thought into establishing culture as they do designing business strategy and product planning, the truth is that it usually doesn’t happen that way.

So what if your boss is a nightmare, the culture is toxic and you’re about to start singing, “take this job and shove it”? Or maybe it’s not that bad but is getting there. Do you just give up and quit? Well, if you love what you do, the industry you’re in, the people you work with or if there’s any other reason to have hope, then it is likely worth an attempt to make things better.

Here are seven things you can try to make a meaningful impact and turn things around:

1. Own your own role. First, take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself, “Am I part of the problem?” Be honest because in most cases, there are at least a few things you can personally change. Make a list–maybe it’s longer than you thought! Your personal attitude, the effort you put into making positive contributions to the culture and how you communicate with others are a few things to consider.

2. Use your influence to make things better. The true leaders at a company aren’t always the boss. Natural leaders set an example that people want to follow, so if that’s you, be a good one! If you understand the vision, use your influence to help others better support the vision. It’s amazing what a group can accomplish with a shared mission. It’s contagious. Influence your sphere–and hopefully it will trickle out from you to your team, your department and ultimately throughout the company.

3. Be open, transparent and fair. I have little patience for petty, backbiting office politics and social positioning, but it is inevitable that there will be people at a company who behave as if they’re still in high school. Let’s help them change. Let’s be open, transparent and fair, and people will reciprocate even if it takes them a while. It’s incredibly refreshing when you’re free to say or do what’s best for the company–even if that means making some mistakes–rather than feel like you always have to CYA.

4. Educate and train your boss. Dogs sometimes find it easy to train their owners . . . maybe we can train our bosses. I’m not saying we’re dogs, but you know what I mean. You’ll find a million supporting articles online to change culture. Check out the slideshares from Hubspot and Netflix, or the Valve Employee Handbook. That should spark a few ideas. Share what you learn and what you’re reading. Maybe help the boss think it’s his idea.

5. Take measurements. I like measuring things, but measuring culture can be tough! This may just be a feeling you get when you walk into the office or when you know your coworkers are happy. Less whining or grumbling. Many times, teams will be much more focused and productive. And frankly, everyone will work harder. Yes, we are happiest when we’re focused and working hard. If the boss sees this impact–if he has any leadership capacity whatsoever–he should jump on the culture wagon ASAP.

6. Talk to HR. Give HR a shot. If anybody should know the mission and vision of the company, it’s HR. Go ask questions, find out what HR thinks about culture and how it’s communicated to employees. Sometimes HR forgets, and you might be a helpful reminder.

7. Be patient. Everyone loves an easy answer, but great culture requires great effort and time to get just right. And frankly it’s never perfect, but we should always be working on incremental improvement. There is a reason patience is a virtue.

The purposeful and deliberate action of working on culture is one of the best things you and your company can do. So don’t quit just yet. Figure out what you can do today, don’t bite off more than you can chew, then sit back and watch as things get better.

via 7 Ways You Can Impact Company Culture | Inc.com.

7 Ways You Can Impact Company Culture

Survey: What Your Employees Really Want

The success or failure of a company always depends upon the talents of the people who work there. If you want to recruit and retain the very best employees, you’ll need to provide them with what they want, not what you think they need.

As I explained in “Where to Find Top Sales Talent,” I was recently asked to co-host a free webinar that will present groundbreaking research based on LinkedIn’s huge database of personnel and recruitment activity.

LinkedIn surveyed 11,813 non-managerial employees to determine what they value the most in a job. The surveyed employees fell into two groups: technical (4,658 engineers) and non-technical (7,155 salespeople). Here are the results:

The two groups were in broad agreement about the importance of most aspects of the work environment. As I predicted in “10 Things Employees Want More Than a Raise,” both groups put a very high value on work-life balance.

Employers would do well to heed this and stop requiring unpaid overtime (which is unproductive anyway, as I have explained in “Stop Working More Than 40 Hours a Week”).

There are three areas in which the opinions of salespeople and engineers greatly differ:

Having a good relationship with your colleagues. Salespeople see the ability to work with other people inside as a crucial part of their ability to make sales. Engineers, by contrast, don’t care nearly as much, probably because their work tends to be more solitary.

Challenging work. Here’s where we find the greatest disparity. Engineers want interesting projects that push them as individuals. Salespeople, by contrast, aren’t all that motivated by job difficulty, probably because they see selling as enough of a challenge on its own.

Having a long-term strategic vision. Engineers aren’t much interested long-term strategy, probably because they know that in five years everything (from a technology standpoint) will be completely different. Salespeople, however, want to work for a company that knows where it’s headed, probably because it’s easier to sell a company’s products if they fit within an overarching strategic vision.

via Survey: What Your Employees Really Want | Inc.com.

Survey: What Your Employees Really Want

Here’s what it"s really like to work with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook

Not a lot of people get the chance to work directly under billionaire founders and CEOs.

That’s why most people take what they see in the press or movies and create their own – often false and distorted – images of what it’s like to work with them.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, for example was depicted as an arrogant nerd-punk in “The Social Network,” the 2010 film about the founding of Facebook. The film perhaps played a role in creating some of the negative images that follow Zuckerberg to this day.

But is Zuckerberg really a hard person to deal with in real life?

Former Facebook CTO Bret Taylor, who worked with Zuckerberg for 3 years, says he’s definitely “a different boss.”

“Even when we disagreed, he didn’t have this ego about him, like you could argue with him,” Taylor told Business Insider. “I mean, he would overrule you at that end if we couldn’t reach a conclusion, but I always felt like he was willing to argue it out and listen – which is sadly not that normal among many Silicon Valley CEOs.”

Taylor says he’s still good friends with Zuckerberg even after leaving Facebook, and hopes the rest of the world could see the good side of Zuckerberg as well.

“I also learned that because the movie (‘The Social Network’) came out, it was really easy to build a caricature of these people with very public profiles, but I got to know a version of Mark that was much more human that I wish other people could see.”

In fact, this is not the first time Taylor had good things to say about his former boss. In his resignation letter, Taylor said Zuckerberg’s his mentor and one of his closest friends.

Taylor left Facebook in 2012, shortly after its IPO, and is now the CEO of Quip, a mobile-friendly collaborative word processor. You can learn more about Taylor and his new company here.

via Here’s what it’s really like to work with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook | VentureBeat | Business | by Eugene Kim, Business Insider.

Here’s what it"s really like to work with Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook

Talent Analytics: A Crystal Ball For Your Workforce?

Guest Blog: Meghan Biro

We’ve been listening to the buzz around Big Data and Talent Analytics for a couple of years now. It was nearly a year to the day that I wrote about why Big Data is HR’s new BFF. It has a lot of potential, Cloud-sized trove of information that, with the right algorithms and filters – can be turned into actionable insight.

The existence of these new streams of verifiable information about potential hires adds a hefty dose of science to one facet of business that, surprisingly, has often felt like more like an art. Sure, the resume looks great and the interview was a standout. “Star player” one recruiter claims, “I can feel it in my gut.”

Think about it – sports have traditionally mixed stats with that sixth sense. Those winning World Cup teams? Hard numbers helped build those rosters: noone’s gotten to be a star midfielder or striker without awesome stats, one of the original forms of Talent Analytics, when you think about it. It’s time the World of Work catches catch up.

I’m not saying ditch the intangibles altogether. HR is all about humans — with so many different behaviors, skills, intelligence, and mindsets that you can’t simply quantify someone. But Talent Analytics can do a whole lot of the heavy lifting. You just have to know how to use it.

• Talent analytics uses data in management decisions, be it in talent acquisition, retention, placement, promotion, compensation, or workforce and succession planning.

• It has the capacity to be a powerful descriptive tool, looking at past performance and information to enable strategic change. Josh Bersin described the astonishing revelations a company had after performing a statistical analysis of sales productivity and turnover. The data showed that old indicators (such as GPA and education) were far less critical to performance and retention than factors like experience selling big-ticket items, for instance. When the data was implements into the recruiting process, the company grew by $4 M in the very next fiscal period.

• It’s an incredible predictive tool, a trustworthy future-caster, HR’s own crystal ball BLL +0.3%. By analyzing the skills and attributes of high performers in the present, it enables organizations to build a template for future hires. As my neighbor here in Cambridge MA Greta Roberts notes, predictive talent analytics is much more useful, because it asks questions in order to change the outcome, not reflect on it. What will our attrition rate be this year? Who may leave the company? What can we do to reduce that turnover?

• By its nature Talent Analytics is democratic: merit may well trump a fancy education, skills may supersede proximity, and remember those apparently intangible aspects, like social skills, flexibility, emotional intelligence, initiative, attitude,? They are now measurables. Just look at Google GOOGL -0.88%’s HR division devoted to people analytics, and massive, global sites like LinkedIn LNKD -0.51%, a gold mine for HR.

• Advanced software algorithms can identify talent and match it to an organization’s needs, pinpointing team players based on core traits and personality matching, making it an effective method for taking care of costly and time-consuming preliminary screening.

• It’s mobile. Everything’s mobile. Your talent acquisition strategies had better be, too. New mobile apps make talent searches a matter of anytime and anywhere, including red-flag identifiers, an efficient way to handle the increasingly global and social nature of hires.

• It’s growing. The market for corporate talent management software grew by 17% in 2013, and is now over $5 billion in size. Gartner predicts that the market for BigData and analytics will generate $3.7 Trillion in products and services and generate 4.4 million new jobs by 2015.

via Talent Analytics: A Crystal Ball For Your Workforce?.

Talent Analytics: A Crystal Ball For Your Workforce?