Top Chef Potential

 This Tuesday marked the 12th anniversary of getting fooled by my husband.  Since we consider it a sort of anniversary, Paul surprised me with a gourmet dinner of Filet Mignon, Lobster, asparagus and home-made twice baked potatoes.  No fooling!  Hmm, yummy. 

Since I’ve been thinking a lot about potential lately, it got me remembering old chef Paul.  When we first met, I would never have picked him as a future chef.  Sure, he cooked a lot.  He made ramen noodles, he burnt chicken stir fry, he made these really weird tacos.  But 95% of it was terrible!  In fact, at one point I declared that we would only eat cereal for dinner. 

Then something interesting happened.  Paul’s aspirations joined together with opportunity (stay-at-home dad), tools (good pots and pans, gadgets, and cooking shows), and constructive feedback (me!) and he’s really fabulous!  Now those weird tacos have transformed into a unique delicacy that could be served at the finest mexican-asian fusion restaurant.  His signature dishes blend hearty favorites with innovative ingredients. 

I never thought I’d say it, but the kid’s got potential!  

Sharing Ideas = Value

How do you view Talent? How do you see it contribute value through ideas? 

A recent post described how the Clinton campaign claimed Obama copied her “second stimulus” package, calling for a $30 billion package after she did. Obvious political maneuvering aside, this strikes as having a very “fixed mindset” perspective on the value of ideas. Is the idea itself really the thing of value, and just how much does it reflect the ability of a staff that decides to propose it? What we can do is look at this and reflect on how we view (and treat) ideas inside our organization, and what impact that has on how well we create value through Talent. 

Do you see Talent as largely a “fixed and invariant” quality in people? Or do you see that while people can have different strengths (and weaknesses), Talent is not completely fixed or determined and can be influenced by factors such as motivation, experience, management, and leadership? Check out Chapter 4 of Pfeffer and Sutton’s “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense” if you aren’t sure. Viewing Talent as a fixed quality originates from, and perpetuates, a “fixed mindset” in the organization vs. a “growth mindset.” One result is that people in that kind of organization have no incentive to contribute in the open sharing and collaboration of ideas; the downside is simply too great. A fixed mindset organization sees only the ideas as the unit of value, which in turn originate but are separate from the minds that brought them forth, and that the goal is to extract as many of them as possible that can be successfully transformed into profitable pursuits. Most measurements in that environment are around how much knowledge a person has, how many ideas they’ve come with, etc. People quickly learn to not share knowledge or ideas with others (i.e. the competition that copies your ideas), but instead fight for as many resources as possible to turn their ideas and knowledge into value before someone else does. This kind of culture breeds fear; fear of failure because that means less likelihood of obtaining future resources. 

A growth mindset organization recognizes that through everyone’s contribution, not hoarding, of knowledge and ideas does the maximum value get created. This doesn’t mean all ideas are equal in value and it doesn’t mean all ideas get the resources to move forward. Instead, the incentives are such that all contribution is recognized and performance is measured more on how a person collaborates with others to find and promote the ideas that hold the most promise for creating value. The notion of “copying ideas” just doesn’t factor in. Instead, it’s about turning knowledge and ideas into action. True, there will still be disagreements and competition for resources, but the open exchange and development of ideas are rewarded. In many cases, ideas will start from anywhere, possibly change the way people look at things, and trigger input from a diverse and informed set of supportive coworkers. Then, through discussion, experimentation, and testing, they will get developed and transformed into a sustainable competitive advantage for the company. In addition, a growth mindset organization sees there is value even in failure because something is learned that results in increased understanding. Since the failure is not hidden, everyone benefits from the greater understanding. 

Are you recognizing your Talent, wherever it is, for sharing ideas, contributing to their development, and assisting in their successful transformation into action? 

Are you providing the collaborative tools (like wikis, blogs, forums, and networks) to let them share their ideas, comment on other ideas, synthesize ideas, and be recognized for it?

Ode to Fusion Middleware

If you have read any of my prior posts I think it is clear that my praise of Fusion Middleware is not exactly in line with what I might normally be writing about. 

 In fact, I personally define hardware as something I can physically jump on and/or throw at someone vs. software which is usually the reason for why I want to throw the hardware.  So, other then the clue from the name  (I’m guessing it’s in the middle), I’ve not been really clear what “Middleware” has to do with anything I care about.  In fact, when I used the word in conversation with some non-tech friends, they had that pre-school reaction that comes with learning new words that sound funny; namely they laughed and tried to fit the word ”Middleware” into every sentence for the next few hours.  Not far off the review from this WSJ article commenting on how no one outside of tech really understands what we are talking about. 

In the last few weeks I’ve been having a bit of epiphany as to why Fusion Middleware is really cool and why I care.   Of course, as the name implies, Fusion middleware is part of the core techstack we are using to build our Fusion Applications.   In recent weeks, we have been collaborating with the WebCenter team to bring forward their functionality to the best leverage for our customers and I was instantly reminded why I decided to join PSFT and then ORCL. 

1. First, I love working with smart people.  I find a lot of energy and enthusiasm working with other excited, committed, smart people.
2. Second, I love the B-school concept of an unfair competitive advantage.  The power of the extended development team here at ORCL is staggering. 

Working with the WebCenter teams has reinforced my belief that working with internal teams, that build products for sale in their own right, provides an environment that I find personally engaging and rewarding.   I wonder if that qualifies me as a Happy Cow? 

 If you are using Fusion Middleware products in your environments today, I strongly recommend you give the WebCenter products a look.  They really are the bomb.

Is “High Potential” a label or a mindset?

I just finished reading an excellent book, Mindset by Carol Dweck.  This is one of those crossover books that combines social science with stuff you actually care about.  Similar to The Tipping Point (Sociology) and Freakonomics (Economics), Mindset considers psychology in sports, business, raising kids and more. 

Mindset’s main premise is that some people have a fixed mindset and some have a growth mindset.  In a fixed mindset, people believe that their traits and capabilities are set in stone and cannot be substantially changed (I am smart, I am bad at math, I cannot draw, I am a naturally gifted tennis player).  Meanwhile, those with a growth mindset believe that, by applying effort, they are able to develop abilities over time.  

The consequences of these mindsets are far-reaching.  With the fixed mindset, “talented” individuals must prove themselves over and over and are deathly afraid of failure.  Thus, they tend to stick with things they are already good at and avoid challenges.  However, those with the growth mindset are able to take mistakes and learn from them, believing that they are becoming better, smarter, tougher as a result.   

What struck me most was how easily others (parents, teachers, coaches, business leaders) could instill one mindset or the other merely by the use of labels and the phrasing of praise (”you’re smart” rather than “your effort really paid off.”)

I couldn’t help but draw parallels with the dilemmas of measuring and taking action based on potential.  Let’s consider these common questions:

1.  How do you really measure potential?  Organizations struggle to separate potential from past performance.  It is, of course, impossible to completely separate the two.  But often organizations get stuck in the fixed mindset and performance and potential end up being nearly equivalent.  On the other hand, I have started to see organizations include factors like “change agility” and “capability to grow.”  They are essentially measuring whether the individual has a growth mindset.  Exxcellent.  But, what if, as the book suggests, the business leaders have the ability to teach a growth mindset to all high performing individuals?  Is it really necessary to measure potential at all or do we just need to focus on teaching the mindset?       

2. How transparent do you make potential?  Most organizations do not tell people their potential rating, though they admit that high potentials “sort of know.”  They are given unique opportunites, are assigned to a pool, are offered a mentor, etc.  As a result, many organizations are starting to address the label head on.  The key here is in the communication.  Extrapolating from the book, a label of “high potential” could suddenly thrust a talented individual into a fixed mindset.  This causes the opposite of the desired effect.  Suddenly, all of those chosen for success are fearful of failure and stop growing.  As a result, these organizations are communicating high potential as a temporary indicator of hard work and ongoing development. 

Here’s a message that might work: 

“We’re recognizing your effort to grow and learn.  We will reward that effort by providing you more resources to grow and learn.   If you keep growing and learning, we’ll keep rewarding you.”

Sweet on March Madness

 I grew up on basketball.  My mom went into labor at a University of Minnesota basketball game.  I not only attended every Canisius College home game as a kid, I wore blue and gold, I knew what a “Griffin” was and I got autographs from the (very embarrassed) team. 

March was always bittersweet.  I watched hopefully as Canisius lost in the conference championship or in the play-offs.  I watched as other teams in the conference, powerhouses such as Northeastern and Siena, went on to the “big show.”  When I was a teenager, I found myself “adopting” other teams - Syracuse, who I saw play Canisius once a year (they were so shiny in their orange brilliance!) and Duke, whose star player was from Buffalo.

By the time I went to Cornell, I had given up on the idea of my team participating in March Madness.  Well, the angels are singing!  Sure, I might need to adopt Tennessee (because my Grandma used to live there) in a few days … but for now, I’m all about Cornell!

How did Cornell do it?  Ivy leagues can’t hire talent (no scholarships) and it certainly didn’t have a legacy program.  Well, it appears that they’ve taken Mark’s messages to heart and focused on differentiating themselves on something they could impact - shooting, and particularly shooting 3-pointers.  How will this strategy fare against a couple of 7 footers and a legacy program?  We’ll be watching …

$30 Gift Certificate to Olive Garden

Some people like parties.  Others like stock options.  Still others are good with a plaque or trophy.  My mom?  She likes the Olive Garden.

My mom, like many of her cohorts, is retiring this Spring.  This is good for my mom and good for me (because my parents are moving closer upon retirement), but it isn’t good for the New York state public school system. 

My mom has been teaching chemistry and math for 20+ years, revising her lesson plans each year to optimize their effectiveness in getting through to kids.  And what is happening to all of this amazing knowledge come June?  It’s getting tossed.

My mom is ahead of her time when it comes to computer programs; she is also very organized.  (that’s right, we are nothing alike)  So, I asked her what it would take for her to create a knowledge database to transfer this information to younger teachers. 

“Oh, I’d never do that,” she said.  “What a waste of time!  I just want to retire.” 

“OK,” I said, “what if you received a $30 gift certificate to Olive Garden?”

“Hmm … yeah, I’d do it then.”

It’s just not that hard.  Retain the knowledge, incent by individual, ask questions. 

Quality Hire? Why not just Ask?

As we learned in 12: The Elements of Great Managing, if you ask the right questions, you can learn an awful lot about what’s really going on.

No one can deny the importance of “Quality of Hire.” However, when I meet with organizations, they struggle to really define and measure it. Performance measurement is the most obvious. But, how many roles have accurate performance and productivity measurements after 6 months? Others consider attrition. But there are many factors that go into a termination - some, but not all, correlate to hire quality. Then there’s leave reason. I’d argue that leave reason is on the right track, but is asking the wrong question.

To ask the right questions, you really should rely on a statistical analysis (similar to my homage to Frank Reich). Until I dust off my Stats 201 hat or Gallup takes me up on my offer, here are a couple questions you could ask your terminating employee :

- What are the top 5 qualities required to be successful in the role?

- What are your top 5 qualities?

These questions help you to refine your success profile as well as identify the top “mis-match” qualities. In addition, people are more likely to answer honestly

Manager opinion is another untapped resource. Instead of relying on formal, public performance evaluations, ask the following questions to managers in a survey:

- Does your new hire meet your ramp-up expectations (at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months)?

- How does your new hire compare to other individuals in the same role?

The combination of these two perspectives can be a gold mine, providing practical, understandable actions (focus on x quality in next req, re-set ramp-up expecations).

Maybe we’ll even get better at picking candidates …

Encourage Job Hopping

I am adding some thoughts to Mark and Meg’s posts on talent mobility.

Let’s suppose the following three statements are true:

1) people do better when they change jobs every 2-3 years

2) organizations benefit when people do better

3) managers get more money when organizations benefit

So, why do managers hoard talent? Why do employees feel stuck in their position and the only way out is to leave the company? Why do organizations have a policy of internal mobility, but not a culture of internal mobility?

All of the leading organizations I meet with have a policy in favor of internal mobility. The policy usually says something like “Employees that have been in their positions for one year and have satisfactory performance are eligible to apply for another position.” That’s nice. But, where’s the policy that encourages managers to transfer their employees after they have worked successfully in their current role for 2-3 years?

Few of the leading organizations I meet with have such a policy or even the encouragement of such an idea. That said, those few are doing some very cool things, mostly around emphasizing statement 3 above (more money!): calling out leaders that are “talent producing” and making this a key factor for promotion, tying incentives directly to giving away talent, ensuring that managers will get what they need (resources) to meet their objectives.

Love is in the Air

I first fell in love with “my job” when I joined Peoplesoft in the 90’s.  I didn’t realize why at the time, other than the fact that I got paid more and could fly home from my assignment on Thursdays instead of Fridays.  Years later, I find myself intoxicated by the research area of employee engagement and I know exactly why:  I was valued (and optimally leveraged), I was developing new skills, and I had a strong sense of community and pride.

Over the years, “my job” and I have had fights and I’ve even considered leaving on occasion.  But I’ve always been able to re-ignite that spark through new, exciting projects, rewarding relationships, and opportunities for growth. 

“My job” and I recently celebrated our 10th anniversary.  We’ve never been happier.

(Happy Valentine’s Day … err Week)

Hurry up and innovate

 I have to admit, I’ve always excelled more at the perspiration vs. inspiration side of the innovation equation.  And if Edison was correct, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. 

I personally do not tend to have many ideas but, I like to think I am quick to recognize them when others have them.  So you can imagine my dismay when I actually had an idea myself about a year back.  Turns out that it was a pretty obvious one though, since immediately after I started thinking/talking about it I found that others had not only been thinking the same but were already building it (doh!).  So maybe it was less an idea and more of a memory of something I had read but not really understood or something.  A bit like when you have seen photos in your youth and later are not sure if you actually have the memory or if you have just inserted yourself into someone elses memory from looking at the photo and hearing them tell the story.

Anyway, lately I’ve been thinking and reading a bit on the process of innovation.  I was even fortunate enough to attend an event specifically intending to foster innovation (and ideation, which was one of the key things I brought back from the event, a new word in my vocabulary, which, while dictionary.com assures me this is a word, I still feel that it sounds a bit fake). 

It turns out that I am not alone in my feeling that I am not innovative.  If you ask people to rate themselves as innovators the results are pretty low.  On the other hand, if you ask us if we are problem solvers we are more inclined to say that we are.  And really what is invention if not creative problem solving?  So maybe it is not really innovation we should be pushing for but problem identification.  Here is where it gets interesting (at least to me).  Maybe what we need to be spending more time on is identifying problems that we need to solve and then let loose our creative tendencies toward solving them.  Of course, there are some flaws with thinking it is that easy.  There are some basic human tendencies that stifle us from finding new solutions, even when presented with a problem.

1. Our education process has taught us to stifle innovation.  As we enter school we are trained that we need to find the “right answer” not the “right question”.  This gets in our way of looking at problems from different perspectives
2. We are very hierarchical about ideas.  Evidence shows that more senior managers are often unintentionally dismissive of solutions brought forward from those who are lower in the hierarchy
3. Innovation is often at odds with the rest of our job requirements and especially for managers, we are often dis-incented to support innovation

So how do we foster innovation that is so important for the strategic success of our companies?

1. Look at our incentive structures.  Are we leveraging goal alignment to help gain visibility and track progress toward innovation?  What we want to do, is make sure that innovation is focused and aligned with our corporate objectives
2. Identify the key problems that you want to solve.  Essentially putting some structure around where you want to innovate and leveraging the inherent problem solving skills in your staff.
3. Consider offering some “structured down time” for people to ideate.  Bringing people together, with focused problems to solve, helps to encourage the process 
4. Leverage social networks and the new web to break down the hierarchical biases so that the organization benefits from the wisdom of the crowds and ideas from all levels are heard
5. Build on success.  Sounds obvious, but often where we are innovative we do not do a good job in congratulating ourselves and building upon the success.  This lack of recognition and acknowledgement will stifle future innovators from coming forward.

A few weeks back I did have a WIBNI (wouldn’t it be nice if) idea I’m happy to give away for someone to consider bringing to the market.  I had an idea to leverage GPS and cellphone tracking technology to the ski slopes.  Today, you can rent devices to help you track how far you have skied in a day, a season, etc.  I was thinking it would be great if technology was available from my PDA to:

• Help you find your friends (and kids) on the mountain by giving you a map of the mountain and tracking them on it
• Help those of us who are “directionally challenged” to easily see the trail-map (and our location on that map) at any time
• Keep track of your ski stats over time

Anyway, on the off chance that someone out there is thinking of building this kind of plug in application for a mobile device please let me know as I would love to have one.