Jack Welch Got This One Very Wrong

Jack Welch, former CEO of GE has written several popular management books wherein he shares his vast wisdom. Full disclosure: I have not read any of them. Where I work, our management team is keen on Welch wisdom, so I politely listen to some of the ideas they have picked up from the Guru.

Most sound reasonable to me, but one is total shit. The 20-70-10 approach to staff performance management. The idea is described succinctly here. The approach involves ranking your employees (nothing wrong with that), and then dividing them into the top 20%, middle 70%, and the bottom 10%. This is where things start going astray. Categorizing like this sets us up for the inevitable value judgements that are associated with class-dynamics. Then, according to the philosophy, the bottom 10% are managed out of the company. I am optimistic that before they are released, they are put on a performance plan whereby they are given an opportunity to improve, and thus, move into the 70%, (but I know of some companies that have elimination quota that must be filled). Finally, this is done every year, with the bottom of the organization being shown the door.

Many companies use this "Best Practice" to "maintain a high quality staff." There's a fundamental assumption behind this practice: that your staff quality fits something like a normal distribution. That is, about 70% of your employees are doing what you ask of them; 20% are exceeding expectations; and 10% are falling short. Furthermore, there is an assumption that even after eliminating from the bottom, there continues to be another 10% that, next year, you should deal with.

Year over year, where does this additional 10% of losers come from? They were hired! The second assumption is that you hire another batch of people you don't want. This is the stupidest thing, and the reason I wrote my book, "Agile Hiring." It's because companies do a shitty job of hiring and must fix it by cleaning house.

This is such a destructive practice. In my industry, people are often relocated. They uproot their their families, they buy homes, and put their kids in new schools. And some percentage of these people, after rewiring their whole lives, are going to be shown the door. This is a moral outrage!

Putting morals aside, since corporations aren't people (wat?!!!), and therefore, don't care about morals, does this make business sense? Hell no! Do you think that putting relocated families out on the street gives your company credibility? A good reputation? Does this draconian flush-cycle improve company moral? Does it promote collaboration, or does it promote competitiveness? Do you want your remaining employees jockeying for position, or do you want them working together toward a common goal, feeling safe in the knowledge that they won't have to worry about an annual slaughter?

So what's the alternative? That's easy. Stop hiring people you are going to fire. Learn how to, and dedicate your organization to, hiring the best. Hiring with excellence. Develop an excellent hiring staff, and set high standards for candidates. Put effort into your hiring. Put effort into hiring because you now realize that hiring is one of the most important things your company does. It builds your reputation, it leads to great retention, and it moves the focus onto the job rather than onto the ranking.

Most companies suck at hiring. They suck because they don't understand what it means to their bottom line. They suck because they don't make room for their best people to be intrinsically involved in the hiring process. They suck because it's easy to hire poorly, and seems hard to hire well. They suck because they don't even realize they suck.

The benefits of great hiring are many. Retention, employee satisfaction, productivity, moral, reputation, ability to attract top candidates. If you find yourself considering, or implementing house-cleaning procedures every year, then you don't have a staff problem, you have a hiring problem.

Pad Your Resume at Your Own Risk

I just read an interesting article, Résumé padding: inconsequential or inexcusable? by Emanuella Grinberg. The article opens with the high-profile case of Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson who was caught lying on his resume about the degrees he had attained.

The bottom line is that if you put it one your resume, expect it to be scrutinized. You must be able to honestly answer for everything you put on your resume. The big items, work history, criminal record, degrees, are all easily validated. From the article:

The 2010 survey found that 94% of respondents performed criminal checks, 70% performed identity and previous employment verification, and about half verified education and references.

In the technology world, truth-stretching and 'little lies' are commonplace. As the author points out, people will 'fudge' their accomplishments to make them grander than reality. They will take credit, or imply credit for something that was done by a team, or even by another person. They regularly inflate or fabricate numbers that show cost-savings, earnings, or the like. And it seems accepted that candidates will exaggerate the technologies they work with. Most resumes are stuffed with buzzwords - any technology the candidate heard of, read about, or attended a conference session about, finds itself listed in the Skills section of the resume.

Candidates seem to believe that the little lies aren't going to be detected. Often that's true, but often it is not. In my book, Agile Hiring, I write at some length about truth-stretching, lying, and how to detect it. It's extremely difficult to prove that a candidate is lying, but it's not so hard to cast doubt on claims. If a pattern of doubtful claims emerges (on the important things, mind you), then they don't get the job.

Doubt is the number one killer for candidates, and it occurs whenever a candidate cannot justify what she puts on her resume. Some common phrases that cast doubt after asking about an 'accomplishment' are, "Oh, that was the architect's decision," "That part was already implemented and I just used it," "Our lead engineer did that work," or "We didn't actually use it, I just read about it."

The savvy interviewer, when hearing these and other troubling answers, will do exactly what the candidate dreads, they will probe more deeply. You may think you can deflect an interviewer, and maybe you can, but the really good companies have quality interviewers who know how to get to the truth, and when they do, you're going to hate it. You know: that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach you get when you've really screwed up.

So tell no lies. Avoid exaggeration. Be prepared to honestly discuss everything you put on your resume. Review it, and if there's anything that makes you uncomfortable, if there's any time you think to yourself "They won't ask me about that," watch out! You are creating your own trap, a trap that could ruin your career. Just be honest.

What Does Bad Research Look Like and Is There Still Value?

I heard an astounding conclusion on NPR today. Researchers, Ernest O'Boyle Jr. and Herman Aguinis are claiming that the venerable bell curve, the normal distribution, is all wrong when applied to human performance. In their Personal Psychology article, The Best and the Rest: revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance, they make the astounding claim that the normal distribution is a poor tool for predicting human performance. Instead, they claim, the Paretian Distribution more accurately describes human performance as shown in the following figure borrowed from the article.

The black line is the familiar normal distribution; the grey area is the paretian distribution. It shows that the large majority of human performers are subpar, and that a small minority account for the bulk of accomplishment. Superstars are much more valuable than previously thought and account for the majority of success in a group.

The researchers conducted 5 studies, using 198 samples, that included over 633,000 participants in the areas of researchers, entertainers, politicians, and top amateur and professional athletes. The research showed for example, that a small number of researchers wrote far more papers than the rest; that a small number of athletes contributed to the most runs, and that the vast majority of entertainers only received one Emmy nomination while a small number received many nominations.

The data seems to support the conclusions, but there is a fundamental, and rather ironic problem. The authors put it best when they argue that previous research made fundamental mistakes:

When performance data do not conform to the normal distribution, then the conclusion is that the error “must” lie within the sample not the population. 

The irony is that the authors make this same mistake: Their sample is not random. They are examining the cream of the cream, the far, far tail of the normal distribution, and are totally ignoring the "rest of us."

Take a classroom, any classroom, any grade, look into your crystal ball, and divide up the children into 5 groups plus one. Five groups represent those children that would become researchers, politicians, entertainers, and high-performing athletes. The sixth group would be the leftovers. The first five groups are mostly empty, while that sixth group is nearly the entire class. Any child in one of the first five groups can be considered extraordinary.

The authors are focusing on groups drawn from that population that are, by definition, extraordinary. These are people that are living on the far, far right tail of the normal distribution.

Clearly the conclusion is flawed, but is there something we can learn? I think so. The authors state that the normal distribution was invented to help manage assembly lines. The goal of the assembly line is to maximize overall productivity of the system. How would a superstar fair in such a system? Since the optimal assembly line operates at the maximum capacity of the slowest station, this model would force a superstar to become average.

Most of our socio-educational systems are designed like an assembly line: they embrace the average at the expense of the extraordinary. The lesson seems to be that we should seek out social systems that continue to embrace the majority, but provide room for the extraordinary minority - on both ends of the bell curve.

What else can we learn? I've had the opportunity to work in a few organizations where the population was full of "Emmy nominees." They were extraordinary teams within an otherwise normal company.  When it came time to evaluate these folk, the 'normal' evaluation tools were poorly matched to the task. The performance review process assumed a normal distribution, but these groups weren't normal, they were definitely paretian. On a scale of 1 - 5, there were no 1s or 2s, a few 3s, a lot of 4s, and several 5s. Those 5s were amazing.

The lesson here is, when dealing with an extraordinary group of people, normal thinking, normal management, and normal evaluation, are inadequate. Most companies want extraordinary people, but often manage them as if they were ordinary. Those people will leave, and the company will continue to be 'normal.' A company that aspires to greatness needs to learn how to identify, attract, manage, and retain extraordinary people.

The final lesson comes to hiring. Extraordinary people are rare, and true superstars are even harder to find. When hiring, not only do you need to know how to identify, attract, manage, and retain extraordinary people, but you must also be very patient. You will not see many top performers, much less, superstars. When you find one, your 'normal' hiring processes may not be adequate for getting that individual on-board.

The research really helped me think about what is normal and what is extraordinary. It reinforced my conviction that the world of the extraordinary is different and requires a different way of thinking. The research I discussed seems fundamentally flawed to me, yet it is quite valuable if you want to understand life on the edges of 'normal.'

No one noticed

I went all day Monday with mismatched shoes. Yes they were both black, and similar styles, but they were significantly different.

Review: What Not to Put In Your Resume

I recently read a provocative article on Business Insider titled 11 Things You Should Never Put On Your Resume. There's some good advice but, as usual, the conventional wisdom falls short. Let's bust some heads!

Get rid of the objective: If you applied, it's already obvious you want the job

Yep. The only time an objective statement may be useful is for candidates fresh out of school that don't have enough work history to make it clear what they are interested in. I think a well-written summary is useful for candidates that have a job history of more than about 5 years. It can save the reviewer the pain of reading about all your jobs during the initial screening.

Cut out all the irrelevant work experiences

So far, so good. If you are applying for a software testing job, no one cares that you worked at a burger joint in high school. On the other hand, if you were promoted to shift manager, that job becomes relevant because you have leadership experience. Early in my career as a software developer, I included my job as a ski instructor because it highlighted that I could manage a group of people, communicate, teach, and be accountable for their safety. Now that I have a history in my profession, that job is not included.

Take a pass on the personal stuff: marital status, religious preference and social security numbers

Absolutely. It is illegal for employers to hire based on marital status, religion, sex, race, and many other things. That's why they don't (or shouldn't) ask about these things during an interview. But if you offer the information, it would be nearly impossible to determine whether it prejudiced their decision. And never put your social security number on any public document. Duh!

Don't let your resume exceed one page

Terrible advice for anyone with more than a few years experience. There is nothing wrong with a resume of three pages, or even 4 if the person has a long work history. It's also profession-dependent. If you are applying for a position as a research professor, your list of publications might take up two or three pages alone. The rule of thumb for anything you put on your resume is: if it improves your changes of getting the job, put it in.

A critical point for a multi-page resume is to be sure to put the most important things on the first page. This might by your summary and your most recent work. Check out my post, What are Recruiters Looking For?, to see why.

Don't list your hobbies

This is usually good advice. The article states: 

If it's not relevant, it's a waste of space and a waste of the company's time.

Conversely, if it is relevant, include it. Some hobbies are related to work, and some show an aptitude for creativity. Some companies, such as Google, are very interested in a candidate's hobbies. The same goes for other outside interests. For example, if you are on the board of directors of a charitable organization, that demonstrates leadership and says something positive about your character.

If you are unsure about including your hobbies or interests, leave them off the resume. You can mention them later if you think it will help.

Don't give them a chance to guess your age

Age is one of those things that can't be discriminated against, but it may be the thing that most often is. Age is personal information, so leave it off your resume. That said, it's darned near impossible to prevent an employer from getting a bead on your age. The article recommends removing your graduation date. What about the dates of your early jobs? Remove those too? Pretty soon the employer assumes you are hiding something and age really becomes an issue. You can probably get away with leaving off your graduation date, and leaving out your early employment all together if it isn't that relevant, or if it is overshadowed by more recent work.

Age discrimination is a big problem, but I don't recommend hiding important information. If a company is going to discriminate, they'll do it after they meet you. There are many companies that value the experience that age brings, those are the companies you want to work for.  

Don't write your resume in the third person

Correct. It makes for an awkward read and could come across as arrogant. Take ownership of your career and use "I."

Don't include references

Indeed. And, as the article recommends, don't even write, "References available upon request." If the company wants them, they will ask. If you include it, they will more likely ask. Although references can benefit you, the problem is that you have no control over what gets said on your behalf. The best intentions of a reference giver mean nothing if she accidentally puts her foot in her mouth.

Don't include a less than professional email account...

We're not in high school anymore. Welcome to adulthood.

There's no need to identify your phone number

This means, you don't write "Phone: 555-...", but just write "555-..." More generally, don't include anything obvious; it wastes space.

Don't include your current business contact info

Of course you don't want to be called while you are at work. Or, maybe you do!

That's it for the article. Mostly good advice, but with a few important exceptions. Here's one I'd like to add.

If you can't talk intelligently about it, leave it out

Too often I see resumes where the candidate includes every technology or skill they've ever come in contact with. Some they've never even used. If you put something on your resume, expect to be asked about it. You'd better be able to talk with a degree of authority.

I've been in so many interviews where I ask a candidate about something on his resume and he says, "Oh, I didn't use that, I just read about it," or "Someone else on the team did that." The two impressions I get are, 1) this person doesn't know much, and 2) this person isn't truthful. This situation casts doubt on any other claim you make on the resume. You just lost the job.

Bottom line: If it doesn't help you get the job, leave it out!

What are Recruiters Looking for?

What are Recruiters Looking for?

A study sponsored by TheLadders that used eye tracking technology, showed hot spots where recruiters focus their attention in the first six seconds. Here's a LinkedIn summary of that research.

Be careful what you take away from these results. The first six seconds are when the recruiter is deciding whether the candidate is even worth pursuing. It's an initial filtering process. One stack is ignored, the other is set aside for further consideration. 

To get through this filtering process, you must have a clean, easy to read, first page. That page must give the critical information that will get your resume further attention. For the next stage of the process, your resume should still have sufficient detail to convince a recruiter that you are a good candidate.

There a couple of things that strike me regarding the hot spots. The summary statement matters. It's your way to convey your career in a paragraph. The first two jobs (or first job if you've been there a while) are very important. Finally, one of the resumes has education listed and it's very hot. If education is visible, it draws attention. If it isn't, will that hurt you? The example resumes are for people with a lot of experience. In my book, experience trumps education, but clearly it is a factor in filtering. I'd say it is probably highly dependent on the job you are applying for. 

I would like to get my hands on the original work, but until then, what does the data say to you? 

At the bottom of the article is a link from Buisiness Insider, about 11 Things You Should Never Put On Your Resume. As is usually the case, I don't entirely agree with the conventional wisdom, so it should make for provocative reading!

Controlling the Job Interview

Controlling the Job Interview

I regularly interview candidates that dominate or attempt to control the job interview, whether it is a phone interview, or an on-site interview. The candidate talks way too long in response to a question. She may delve into minutiae, or wander away from the subject. She may not even answer the question.

Sometimes I chalk it up to nerves. Some people ramble when they are nervous. Some, fearing losing what is at stake, may spill everything they know on the topic, in hope of impressing the interviewer.

Nervousness often shows in other ways and tips me off. Sometimes though, there are candidates that seem too composed, or too crafty, to be suffering from verbal diarrhea. I would swear they intend to control the conversion. Like a politician, if they can control the discussion, they can control the outcome or, at least, spin the discussion to their benefit.

Is this a valid interview tactic? Should the candidate take the discussion as far as possible? Should he tell the stories he wants heard, focusing on his agenda, while preventing the interviewer from asking “dangerous” questions?

My short answer is to remember the purpose of the interview – from both perspectives. From your perspective, the purpose is to impress upon the interviewer that you are the right person for the job. From the interviewer’s perspective, the purpose is to determine whether you are the right person for the job. They are almost the same, but different in significant ways.

So what does The Google say? There were two kinds of advice: good advice where “control” is about controlling yourself, or your fate, within the interview context, and bad advice where “control” is about dominating the interview.  

Do these

Here are forms of "control" that you should exercise.

• Relax - If you are the sort that dominates as a defensive response, just relax! You are being interviewed because the company liked what they saw. Take heart. Most people are decent so don't be afraid. If your interviewers are jerks, so what? Any company that allows such an important role to be fulfilled by jerks is probably not a place you want to work anyway. So relax! You have everything to gain, and little to lose. Some of the following points will help you feel more confident and relaxed.
• Build rapport - Focus on creating good communication and common ground with your interviewer. Listen to the questions, and do your best to answer accurately and concisely. One article suggested building a peer relationship. Be careful. Your interviewer is not your peer. She is in a position of greater control, as she has the power to hire you or not. Even if you perceive the interviewer is at the same level as you, she is still in control. Rather than trying to develop a peer relationship, focus on common professional ground. If you are right for the job, this is often easy to do.
• Prepare - One of the best ways to relax, and impress, is to be prepared. As this article on HCareers says, learn everything you can about the hiring company. This knowledge gives you confidence and reduces the chance of getting caught off guard. Be prepared regarding yourself. As this article on Toolbox.com suggests, know your strengths. Think about the answers to some key questions that good interviewers ask. Do likewise for the bad questions that poor interviewers tend to ask (ask The Google about "worst interview questions"). Finally, consider your weaknesses.
• Practice - Having knowledge about the hiring company, yourself, and potential questions isn't enough. You want to be confident in your answers. So practice them. Role play is best, but you can practice alone too. Focus on active phrasing, confidence, accuracy, and conciseness. The HCareers article suggests developing short (true) stories that demonstrate your strengths. Practice how you will explain your weaknesses and failures, if asked. Be sure those stories include lessons you learned. This is about turning a negative into a positive - controlling the outcome.
• Ask questions - This is a special case of preparation. Focus on the things you really want to know about the company and the job. An astute interviewer will be impressed if you ask excellent questions. 
• Check for understanding - This is a communication technique used to ensure your meaning is being correctly conveyed. After you answer a question, if you have any doubt, ask, "Did I answer your question?"
• Guide - If you are prepared, you know what you want the interviewer to know about you. If you leave it entirely up to the interviewer, there's no guarantee he will give you the chance to convey all these things. Help him out. Look for opportunities to focus on your strengths loosely within the context of the questions he asks. Be careful not to wander too far from the topic. A good interviewer will save a little time for you to ask questions. This can also be an opportunity to bring up one or two of your strengths that seem to apply to the job. This is an advanced skill, so practice it.

Don’t do these

• Ramble - By all means, stay on point. Answer the questions accurately and concisely. Be patient with your information. You don't have to explain everything you know in the first few questions. You can start off with more direct answers and follow them with a check for understanding. If the interviewer wants more, she can then let you know. Pay attention. If you find the interviewer interrupting you, it may not be because she is rude. It may be because you are rambling. She has a limited time to discover your qualities so don't waste it. You probably noticed that this seems in conflict with the recommendation to guide the interview. You must find a balance and be patient.
• Interrupt or anticipate - Never interrupt an interviewer, and never second-guess what they are going to ask. Let her finish what she has to say before you start talking. It is sometimes a good idea to do a little guiding by elaborating an answer by answering the next obvious question. Again, be careful. 
• Ask too many questions - Remember who is in control. The interviewer needs his questions answered first. One article suggested the interviewer owed you an answer for every question you answer. Good luck with that. Ask questions where it makes sense. Ask smart questions. Questions whose answers are obvious demonstrate stupidity or inattentiveness. Questions that request clarification are usually smart questions to ask; as long as you don't do it too much.
• Disrespect - Show the utmost respect to your interviewers. They don't have to earn your respect, or prove to you they are worthy of your excellence. Any sign of arrogance is likely to lose you an offer.
• Dominate - It is not your place to take control of the interview. If you get into a power struggle, it will not turn out well for you. An interviewer may make a statement you strongly disagree with. That's alright. You don't have to battle. Consider whether it's even important to express your view. Will it improve your chances of getting the job? What if you have a novice interviewer who seems lost? Rather than take control, practice guidance. Take the initiative to express your relevant strengths. Tell one of your strength stories. Ask a good question. 

Keep your eyes on the prize! 

Keep in mind the purpose of the interview. Take control of yourself to improve your chances of a good outcome. Many of the suggestions require care and balance. It is critical you maintain the presence of mind to observe your interviewer. Watch the body language. Listen to the tone. Everything the interview does speaks to how you are doing. Factor it in and respond appropriately.

The bottom line is that the interviewer is in control of the interview. But you are in control of yourself and how you respond in the interview. Focus on that, and you will do just fine.