Talent Unconference

Drive-By ?

Just a short post to ask Scott to elaborate on the Vendor thing.  I'm a interested to know if I was the (or one of) the offenders- I'd be mortified not to be invited back next year (would remind me too much of social life here at home!)   If  I am not the person you had in mind- It would be interesting to know which axes were being ground....and also, I am still curious to understand what role you fill, if you are not a vendor yourself.....

   

Lefkow finally chimes in

I've been out on vacation for a week, so I haven't had a chance to chime in with thoughts on the Unconference.

To echo many others - thanks to Jeff and Cindy for hosting, facilitating and herding all of us cats. For a first event, while there were kinks here and there, overall it was run very smoothly.

On the plus side:

• The people who were there represented a good cross-section of the leading thinkers in the recruiting industry, staffing leaders, recruiters, workforce planning, vendors, etc. - this helped create a broad spectrum of opinions. Despite other comments about vendors being less welcome next time, I for one didn't see a push to influence, direct or steer the conversations in any directions other than what was generally interesting to the rest of the attendees. Granted, I didn't attend every session, but I just saw passionate people who were there to learn and teach. As future conferences grow, however, I could see the value in being selective about who comes from the vendor community. You don't want to release the hounds on the next one.
• There were some very interesting topics and track leaders, including Jeff's dad. It's very nice to have people from OUTSIDE of the recruiting industry on hand to broaden peoples' perspectives.
• The topics were big, very important issues led by really great minds. You didn't see Margie from the Cleveland Clinic giving a speech about how they just implemented their first ATS.
• The group size (8-12) was ideal to have a meaningful conversation. Any more, and it would be people talking to hear their own voices and not much getting done. Any less, and there wouldn't have been a good diversity of opinions represented.

Some things to evaluate for next time around (and there should definitely be a next time):

• Making each topic only one session that's a bit longer. I'm not sure the structure was very conducive to having a really cohesive dialogue, as we had one group in the morning and a totally separate group in the afternoon. I think people felt like we ended too early on both counts - there was still lots left to discuss.
• Reducing the number of sessions or spacing them out over two days. I might also suggest keeping the group size the same, so you might have more than one session on the same topic, first come first serve. There were a lot of other topics I would have liked to participated in.
• Self-criticism time - I probably would have jumped into the meat of our morning discussion faster than I did in my session. I was hoping for a get-to-know-you type of icebreaker that went too long in my opinion, which was valuable but left us wanting more discussion on the actual topic.

Overall, well done guys and thanks for inviting me to participate. I can't wait for next year's UnConference, UnLess I'm UnInvited.

Language Barriers and Value Models: No Rosetta Stone

After observing and attempting to dialogue at the TalUncon Galactic Assembly of Blogospherians, the barrier to a seat at The Table became more evident:  Their is not a shared common language for Talentism, or Human Resources for that matter. 

The absence of language, prevented the Galactic Assembly from achieving a shared understanding among the participants.  If we do not understand each other, how can we expect the other disciplines of business to understand us?

It is not for a lack of well defined lexicon of terms for practices, processes.  It is from the lack of a core education and discipline.  A Google search: “Bachelors Degree + Human Resources” turned up 3,7M hits a similar search on business degrees produced 33.9M hits.  The lack of a core educational foundation allows people to invent their own terms and definitions.  Or use existing terms in a counterproductive manner.  This leads to confusion and diffusion.

Case in point

In the afternoon session on Value, there was a discussion on variables to consider in a talent value equation.  A long list of items was written to the white board, then most were rejected and a small few remained. What was missing at the beginning was a simple classification system.  There are plenty of examples to draw upon from the human performance science of Industrial Organizational Psychology (IOP).  A common practice in this field is to use two measurement differentiators:

Subjective – that which is based upon observation, opinion, and rating

Objective – that which is counted, measured, or calculated

Inserting these two basic terms might have made the discussion on value variables more productive and focused.  I apologize for having that insight just as the session was ending.

We perpetuate lack of accountability by using terms such as soft skills and soft costs.  The word “soft” is an excuse for the lack of knowledge or discipline required to identify, isolate, and capture a discrete variable.  In the area of human performance this can be difficult.

Difficult does not mean impossible

Developing language, common terms, and definition requires a disciplined approach.  What may be helpful is a form of Rosetta Stone to translate and integrate several critical business languages

Finance – assets, present value (PV) future value (FV)

Industrial Psychology – job relevance of human traits, characteristics and behaviors

Human Resources – core process of talent acquisition and management

Actuary – calculation of resources required based upon values, costs, risks and other variables

The leading–lagging relationship models put forth in the various books on  scorecards (Balanced, HR, and Workforce)can then provide a framework for structuring the value equation in a form which considers the unique elements present in an individual as the drivers of behaviors that produce the business outcome.

Next Steps

What came first and HR Executive with a penchant for measurement and accountability or a CEO that expected accountability and measurement from the resources channeled through the business function known as HR?

Hiring HR talent from degree granting academic programs is one step.  We must stop hiring into HR based on the key criteria – “they are good with people.”  Get HR Talent from the Big Pipe.  But as in all institutional endeavors, performance varies.  Not all HR tracks are created equal.  Thus, buyer beware.  Place demands on the content and quality of the HR curriculum providers.

In terms of finding the value formula, I believe we are closer than we may realize.  The concept of the value of talent has been attracting great thinkers and cipherers for some time.   Great bringing together events such as the TalUncon will eventually provide the vehicle for this synergy.  With thought leaders like Jeff Hunter (mega Kudos to Jeff and his wholehearted support from EA) and the connected nature of Blogospherians, the multi-disciplinarian gathering needed is not only likely, it is highly probable.  Ask an actuary.

Joseph P. Murphy 

Thanks from the Coffee Lady

Okay, time to chime in… have enjoyed the dialogue below and feel compelled to add my flavor to the commentary. Firstly, as I believe everyone agrees, three cheers to Jeff and Cindy for fearlessly leading us into the unknown of the unconference. Chance to trade ideas for a day with thought leaders in the industry… I’m in. You were tremendous hosts and I thank you and the track leaders.

What I really appreciated:

·        Ability to meet many people in person in a “non-sales” environment that I have heard so much about or have only had “phone relationships” with in the past.

·        Feeling welcome to participate, voice an opinion, challenge thinking around talent.

·        Walking in without expectations and walking out with a flurry of thoughts and enthusiasm about moving talent forward

·        Extremely gracious team at EA, facilities, food, etc… very considerate

Couple Recommendations for next time:

·        Let’s rally around one or a couple of tracks. Like Cindy said, let’s tackle the “one thing” and make a difference as a powerful voice. I know in the session I attended on “The Big Pipe,” passion was oozing from the room and many of us anxious to start to identify achievable solutions. How do we start to make a difference? I’d love to be part of a movement and voice around this.

·        Is one day enough? I found myself scratching the surface, but not really satisfying the itch. Maybe extend to two days.

·        Stronger guidance on facilitation… if someone is taking over the session, throw the red flag. You may be asked to leave the game.

And, one little rant provoked by the “Are you kidding me?” award-winning statement from Colin “Vendors are the only people who care.”:

·        I would have like more of a balance on the attendance sheet. Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are vendors. But at times our discussions were heavily weighted with speculation and assumption of what is happening in businesses and the “C-Suite” (by the way, we don’t call it that) and we lacked a balance with the “practitioner.” I’ll do my part to help the balance at the next one (assuming I’m still invited!)

Thanks!  Linda

The Role of the Recruiter

Once again, from systematicHR.com this morning...

A couple weeks about I wrote about technology being a more powerful source of job loss as compared to outsourcing.  This was picked up by the Recruiting Animal with a question: “Will Automation Kill Recruiting?”  My thought is that automation won’t kick recruiting, but perhaps there’s some other form of change in the works.  I don’t remember what session this was in, but it was probably in “Creating Meaningful Connections” (which I actually didn’t attend).  Some of the discussion however was about recruiters, their contacts and networks, and who those contacts belong to.   ¹

Unfortunately, the role of the recruiter is in part to create a relationship with the job seeker.  Good recruiters have large networks of a specific type of talent pool, and that makes them attractive to you as an employer.  Hiring a recruiter can increase the talent pool you have available.  Losing the recruiter can cause the reverse effect.  So while the role of the recruiter may be to create a relationship with the job seeker, I’d suggest that this role of the recruiter is mis-directed.  Instead of creating a meaningful relationship between the recruiter and the job seeker, the goal should instead be to create a meaningful relationship between the employer’s value proposition and the job seeker.  In this case, the recruiter is only a conduit.

But the recruiter as conduit is problematic as well.  If only a conduit, then does the theory that recruiters with large networks of meaningful connections dissipates?  I’m not sure that these relationships I talked about, between the EVP or the recruiter, are mutually exclusive.  The recruiter must be able to form a relationship with the job seeker in order to be valuable.  On the other hand, if the recruiter is not tying job seekers to the current employer’s EVP, they simply are not effective at their job.

While I’ve written often about the EVP, or what I call the employer brand, it is basically what attracts an employee to the employer.  So I’d twist the question from “who is the relationship with, EVP or recruiter?” to “is the recruiter a tool of the EVP, or vice versa?” Clearly, I think that the recruiter’s network should be levered ² to bring job seekers to the employer’s EVP.  However, this also suggests that the EVP is the highest power, reinforcing the role of recruiter as conduit – although necessary conduit.

At any rate, I like controversy – bring it on…

Educating for Innovation

The following commentary posted on systematicHR.com this morning.

Once again, from the Talent UnConference (TalUnCon) hosted by Electronic Arts on January 25, 2006. ((From the Talent UnConference, January 25, 2007. Ideas expressed in this post may be directly attributed to the TalUnCon or might have been triggered by a discussion there.)) The Big Pipe session discussed the current state of education in the United States and some of the deficiencies there. I’ve been talking a lot about innovation and creativity on systematicHR lately, and I was intrigued by this discussion and how it might apply to innovation. Specifically, what types of education works best for innovation, and where is the U.S. positioned in comparison to other countries?

My thought is that to train for innovation, you must train students to think in a cross-functional and multi-threaded approach. This is exactly the type of education you will find in some of the great MBA programs, where people learn to apply strategy to IT, finance, marketing and other classes, and then learn to apply them all against each other. This can also be found in many undergraduate schools – particularly the small liberal arts colleges. Here, students are not asked to learn a vocation like accounting or marketing. Instead, they are asked to delve into a topic and dissect it in an analytical way. The future of work includes 2 things: designing a product and producing a product. The designers of the world will be the major problem solvers using creativity and innovation to advance the consumer experience. These designers will come out of curricula that take thinking and analysis from multiple directions, and instill the ability to be creative in their students.

So that’s college and maybe the MBA as well. What about high schools? I don’t honestly know much about high school education, but being at Electronic Arts, I thought deeply about the role of video games. Often criticized (rightly so, but it’s more about parental control than the industry), video games can be a source of transformation in the way young people think. The right video games keep the player thinking and watching about multiple treads of though at any given time. These games have been one of the major transformers in the “millennial” generation – a generation who have shown the ability to multi-task and problem solve at a level prior generations have not come close to.

Thinking about other countries, I’d guess that rising economic powers such as India are performing well at developing infrastructure aimed at the technology market. That is that they are turning out engineers and programmers in masses previously unseen in the world. China has similar potential, but not the infrastructure to execute on their potential as of yet. What the current industrialized nations do well, and especially the U.S., Canada, western Europe and Japan, is training for creative and innovative thinking that rising nations like India do not. I’m not saying that there are not incredible thinkers coming out of India, but that the focus of the educational system is currently a product that emphasizes systematic type thinking. India’s advantage (and China to some degree) is that they send students to the far reaches of the world and the talent often goes back home. This is a huge advantage over the U.S. as most students are educated here and stay here. The potential to develop new ways of creative thinking based on cultural differences is not as widespread.