Category: management

Google and the workplace

Google’s evolution in hiring practices and HR policies describes the risks of relying on gut feelings and the importance of workplace accountability.

Over the years Google has attracted attention for its employment practices, particularly for its quirky interview questions which challenged many a genius.

It turns out those brainteasers have proved to be less than effective, as has the interminable interview process that saw job candidates endure dozens of meetings before being offered a role at the company.

A recent New York Times interview with Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, discusses some of the company’s employment experiences along with some of the ways the organisation manages staff.

What’s notable is Bock’s findings on Google’s gruelling interview process with its brain teaser questions;

We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship.

The New York Times interview is particularly interesting as it reveals much of Google’s legendary employment criteria – particularly that of hiring only graduates with high university marks – turned out to be effectively useless.

Most telling though is what Bock found about managers and leadership;

We’ve actually made it harder to be a bad manager. If you go back to somebody and say, “Look, you’re an eighth-percentile people manager at Google. This is what people say.” They might say, “Well, you know, I’m actually better than that.” And then I’ll say, “That’s how you feel. But these are the facts that people are reporting about how they experience you.”

You don’t actually have to do that much more. Because for most people, just knowing that information causes them to change their conduct.

Who would have thought that accountability would make people behave better and more effectively?

Despite Google’s learning on hiring and management, things still go wrong. Business Insider’s Nicholas Carson has a wonderful story on the difficulties at restaurant review site Zagats which was taken over by the search engine giant and absorbed into their maps and geolocation divison.

The problems at Zagats though owe more to a cultural mismatch, as Carson writes;

It’s about the collision between the wealthy dream world of the technology industry and the scratch-and-claw meager existence of freelance writers.

One of the notable things about the current dot com boom is the contempt technologists and entrepreneurs have for content creators.
In the Silicon Valley view of the world founders and coders deserve to be generously paid but artists, musicians and writers should be thankful for the exposure they get and the odd dime thrown their way.
Google’s struggles with Zagats also exposes another problem with the tech industry’s hiring practices – that of ‘permatemps’ who never get on the payroll and have few benefits and no security. For years this was a problem at Microsoft and it remains a common practice today.
The story of Google’s evolution in hiring practices and HR policies is something all managers should read as it describes the risks of relying on gut feelings and the importance of workplace accountability.

Similar posts:

The PC industry’s search for new directions

Microsoft and Dell struggle to reinvent themselves in the post PC era

All Things D reported over the weekend that Microsoft executives are fretting over a major restructure being planned by CEO Steve Ballmer. This is part of the fundamental changes challenging the entire PC industry.

Ballmer is dealing with massive changes in Microsoft’s core business as PC sales decline with customers moving to smartphones, tablet computers and cloud computing so finding new markets is a priority for the company’s board and senior management.

The same problems are facing all the major players in the PC industry and it’s the main reason why Dell is in the throes of a battle to take their business private, what’s fascinating is the different ways these companies are responding to these changes.

In Dell’s case the company’s looking at becoming “an Enterprise Solutions and Services (ESS) focused business” – essentially copying what IBM did a decade ago in moving from hardware and focusing on consulting and services to large corporations.

Microsoft on the other hand sees the future in devices and cloud computing with Ballmer telling shareholders last year that becoming a “devices and services company” is the future.

It’s important to recognize a fundamental shift underway in our business and the areas of technology that we believe will drive the greatest opportunity in the future.

In Ballmer’s view those opportunities lie in cloud computing services and devices like the Windows Surface tablet computer and the smartphones, products which Dell struggled with during the 2000s.

These are two very different directions and it illustrates just how the major players in the PC industry are searching for new business models as the old one collapses.

How many of them successfully make the transition will be for history to examine; it’s easy to see Microsoft surviving given its massive financial reserves and market power, although nothing can be taken for granted as we could have said the same about Kodak twenty years ago.

Dell on the other hand is far weaker being smaller with a narrower product base and currently has the management distraction of competing buyout offers. Dell’s survival is far from certain.

Others, like HP, seem to be slipping into obscurity as management flip-flops from one scheme to another. The takeover of EDS as part of HP’s move into enterprise consulting does not seem to have gone well and the company is wallowing.

What we’re seeing is the rapid disruption of an industry that itself was the disruptor not so long ago. It reminds us that even the corporated giants of today are as vulnerable as the stagecoach companies of yesteryear in the face of rapid change.

Similar posts:

Michael Dell’s struggle to transform his business

The Rationale for a Private Dell states some stark truths about the PC manufacturing industry and global management in general

Michael Dell continues to press on with his buy out bid for the computer manufacturing giant he created with a presentation to shareholders stating his case why Dell Computers would have a better future as a private company.

Dell’s assertion is the company has to move from being a PC manufacturer to a Enterprise Solutions and Services business (ESS) as computer manufacturing margins collapse in the face of a changing market and more nimble, low cost, competitors.

What’s telling in Dell’s presentation is just how fast these changes have happened, here’s some key bullet points from the slide deck.

  • Dell’s transformation from a PC-focused business to an Enterprise Solutions and Services (ESS) -focused business is critical to its future success, especially as the PC market is changing faster than anticipated.
  • The transition to the “New Dell” is highly dependent on challenged “Core Dell”performance.
  • The speed of transformation is critical, yet “Core Dell” operating income is declining faster than the growth of “New Dell” operating income.
  • Dell’s rate of transformation is being outpaced by the rapid market shift to cloud.

The market is shifting quickly against Dell’s core PC manufacturing and sales business and the company’s founder is under no illusions just how serious the problem is.

Should Michael Dell succeed, the challenge in transforming his business is going to be immense – Dell Computing was one of the 1990s businesses that reinvented both the PC industry and the vast, precise logistics chain that supports it.

It was PC companies like Dell and Gateway who showed the dot com industry how to deliver goods quickly and profitably to customers around the world. Businesses like Amazon built their models upon the sophisticated logistics systems and relationships the computer manufacturers created.

A lesson though for all of those companies that followed Dell and Gateway is that those supply chains may turn around and bite you in the future, as Michael says in his presentation;

Within the PC market, Dell faces increasingly aggressive competition from low cost competitors around the world and shifts in product demand to segments where Dell has historically been weaker.

Those low cost competitors were many of Dell’s suppliers as over time the company’s Chinese manufacturers, Filipino call centres and Malaysian assemblers have developed the management skills to compete with the US retailers rather than just be their contractors.

Something that’s being missed in the debate about globalisation at present is that its not just low value work that can be done offshore – increasingly sales, marketing and legal are moving offshore along with programmers and engineers. Now the same thing is happening with management.

The same thing is also happening with corporations as Asian giants like Samsung, Huawei, Wipro and others displace US and European incumbents.

Dell Computing has been a much a victim of that move as it has been of the decline in the PC market which means its more than one battle Michael Dell has to fight.

It may well be that Dell can survive, but we shouldn’t underestimate just how great the challenge is as the company faces major changes to its markets and the global economy.

Similar posts:

How tech savvy are our corporate CEOs?

How aware of technology are Australia’s Chief Executive Officers?

Yesterday I asked are executives out of touch with IT industry trends.

To figure out the answer to that question, I had a look at the backgrounds of the ASX20‘s CEOs. It’s difficult to draw a conclusion from the results.

ASX 20  CEO backgrounds
Company CEO Industry background Degree
AMP Craig Dunn Financial services BComm
ANZ Bank Michael Smith Financial services Economist
BHP Billiton Andrew MacKenzie Mining Phd in Chemistry
Brambles Tom Gorman Finance Economist
Commonwealth Bank Ian Narev Consulting Law Degree
CSL Brian McNamee Medicine surgeon
Macquarie Group Ltd Nicholas Moore Investment banking lawyer
National Australia Bank Ltd Cameron Clyne investment banking arts/economics
Newcrest Mining Ltd Greg Robinson finance BSci Geology
Origin Energy Grant A. King Energy industry Civil Engineer
QBE Insurance Group Ltd John Neal finance
Rio Tinto Ltd Sam Walsh mining BComm
Santos Ltd David Knox Oil and Gas BEng (mech)
Suncorp Group Ltd Patrick Snowball Finance industry Law, LLD
Telstra Corp Ltd David Thodey IT/Telecoms BA (anthropology)
Wesfarmers Ltd Richard Goyder Diversified industrial BComm
Westfield Group Peter & Stephen Lowy Investment banking BComm
Westpac Banking Corp Gail Kelly Financial services BA
Woodside Petroleum Ltd Peter J Coleman? Oil and Gas BEng
Woolworths Ltd Grant O’Brien Retail Accountant

What stands out from the list is the dominance of executives from a financial services and commerce background, although that’s hardly surprising given the weight of the banking sector in the Australian stock market.

An encouraging trend in the mining sector, the other sector highly represented in the index, is how the industry’s CEOs tend to be from a scientific or Engineering background.

Coming from a science background would tend to indicate the CEOs are probably more across technology trends than we’d think, although the compositions of the boards would probably tell us a little more about the net saviness of the corprorate sector.

That might be an exercise for the weekend.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Doing social media right

Whoever runs your social media feed is an official spokesman, it’s important to choose the right person and give them authority.

After last week’s Associated Press hack and the stock exchange fallout, regulators are struggling with implications of social media and informed markets.

In a speech delivered last week the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s Deputy Chair Belinda Gibson and Commissioner John Price gave some refreshing commonsense views on how businesses should handle public information.

The continuous disclosure advice given by Price and Gibson is aimed at meeting the requirements of Australian corporate law, but it’s actually good social media advice.

  • Having delegations in place for who has authority to speak on behalf of the company – whether in response to an ASX ‘price query’ or ‘aware’ letter, or when they become aware of information that needs to be released to the market, perhaps in response to speculation.
  • Ensuring that there is a designated contact person to liaise with the ASX, who has the requisite organisational knowledge and is contactable by ASX.
  • Have a clear rapid response plan and ensure all board members and senior executives are fully appraised of it. Give it a practice run every so often – a stress test of sorts.
  • Have a plan for when you will consider a trading halt appropriate.
  • Have a ‘Request for trading halt’ letter template ready for use.
  • Have guidelines for determining what is ‘material’ information for disclosure, tailored to your company.
  • Prepare a draft announcement where you are doing a deal that will
  • likely require an announcement at some time, and a stop-gap one in case of a leak

Having a nominated contact person with requisite organisational knowledge is possibly the most important point for any organisation.

Even if you think social media is just people posting what they had for lunch or sharing cute cat pictures, it isn’t going away and those Twitter feeds and Facebook pages are now considered official communications channels.

The intern running your social media is now your company’s official spokesperson. Are you comfortable with this?

A good example of where this can go wrong is the Australian Prime Minister’s Press Office where an immature staff member has been put in charge of posting messages. The results aren’t pretty.

prime-ministers-office-twitter-feed

The funny thing is the Prime Minister’s office would never dream of some dill getting up and saying this sort of thing on her behalf, yet allows an inexperienced, loose cannon put this sort of material in writing on the public internet.

Here’s Twenty Rules for Politicians using the Internet.

On a more mature level, the ASIC executives also have some good advice on writing for social media.

Don’t assume that the reader is sophisticated or leave readers to read between the lines. Companies need to highlight key information and tell it plainly.
While the ASIC speech is aimed at the specific problems of complying with company law and listing requirements, it’s a worthwhile guide for any organisation needing to manage its online presence.
Don’t be like the Prime Minister’s office, understand that an organisation’s social media presence is an official channel and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Similar posts:

Why Australia needs foreign ownership

Foreign investment is making up for the lack of Australian interest in local assets.

Such are the vagaries of radio that I’ve been asked to comment on ABC Radio South Australia about foreign ownership based on an article that was picked up by The Drum 14 months ago.

That article was written shortly after Dick Smith came out grumbling about the prospect of Woolworths selling the electronics store chain named after him to foreign interests.

My point at the time was that foreign owners would be preferable to some poorly managed, undercapitalised local buyer as the Australian retail industry – even in a declining market like consumer electronics – needs more innovation and original thinking.

As it turned out, Dick Smith Electronics was sold to Anchorage Capital, a private equity turn around fund with an interesting portfolio of businesses.

In the meantime, the argument about foreign ownership of property and businesses, particularly farms, has ratcheted up as opportunistic politicians and the shock jock peanut gallery that sets much of Australia’s media agenda have found a cheap, jingoistic issue to score points from.

So why is foreign ownership of businesses like farms, mines and factories important for Australia?

A fair price for hard work

The main reason for supporting foreign buyers for Aussie businesses is it gives entrepreneurs a chance to get a fair price for their hard work.

A farmer or factory owner who builds their business shouldn’t have to accept a lower price because Australians don’t want to pay for the asset.

It’s not a matter of being able to pay Australians as have plenty of money to invest – a trillion dollars in superannuation funds and three billion dollars claimed for negative losses in 2009-10 show there’s plenty of money around – it’s just that Aussies don’t want to invest in farming, mining or other productive sectors.

We’re already seeing this play out in the small business sector as baby boomer proprietors find they aren’t going to sell their ventures for what they need to fund their retirement.

Access to capital

Should the protectionists get their way then the businesses and farms will eventually be sold to undercapitalised Australian investors at knock down prices.

This is the worse possible thing that could happen as not only do the entrepreneurs miss out, but also the factories and farms decline as they are starved of capital investment.

Cubby Station

A good example of both the lack of capital affecting investment and finding a fair price for ventures is Queensland’s Cubby Station.

While I personally think Cubby Station is an example of the economic bastardry and environmental vandalism that are the hallmarks of the droolingly incompetent National Party and its corrupt cronies, the venture itself is a good example of why the agriculture sector needs foreign investment.

Having been converted from cattle to cotton in the 1970s, Cubbie grew as successive owners acquired water licenses from surrounding properties.

Eventually the company collapsed under the weight of its debts in 2009 and the property was allowed to run down by the administrators until it was bought by Chinese backed interests at the beginning of 2013.

At the time of the acquisition, the company’s former chairman told The Australian,  “on reflection, I would go into those things with an even stronger balance sheet — in other words, with less gearing.”

In other words, the company was under-capitalised.

Competition concerns

Another reason for encouraging foreign ownership is that Australia has become the Noah’s Ark of business with duopolies dominating most key sectors.

Bringing in foreign owners at least offers the prospect of having alternatives to the comfortable two horse races that dominate most industries.

The property market

An aspect that has excited the peanut shock jocks has been the prospect of Chinese buyers purchasing all the country’s property.

For those of us with memories longer than goldfish, today’s Chinese mania is almost identical to the Japanese buying frenzy of the late 1980s.

Much of what we read about the Chinese buying homes is self serving tosh from property developers and real estate agents and what mania there is will peter out in a similar way to how the Japanese slowly withdrew.

This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be concerns about foreign ownership – tax avoidance, loss of sovereignty and Australia’s small domestic market are all valid questions that should be raised about overseas buyers, but overall much of the hysteria about foreign ownership is misplaced.

What Australians should be asking is why the locals aren’t investing in productive industries or buying mining and farming assets.

The answer almost certainly is that we’d rather stick with the ‘safety’ of the ASX 200 or the residential property market.

We’ve made our choices and we shouldn’t complain when Johnny Foreigner sees opportunities that beyond negative geared investment units or an tax advantaged superannuation fund.

Similar posts:

Driving a horse and cart in a digital economy

A lack of understanding about how to use digital tools threatens businesses in the 21st Century

“There’s no point in building a highway if no-one can drive” Tasmanian business leader Jane Bennett said about the Australian National Broadband Network during an interview last week.

Jane was touching on an important point about the digital economy – that most businesses aren’t equipped to deal with it.

That half of businesses in the US, UK or Australia don’t have a website illustrates that in itself. What’s really worrying is setting up a website is the easy part and has been standard for a decade.

In many respects this isn’t new, a similar thing happened when mains electricity or the motor car arrived. Many businesses clung desperately to their oil filled lamps and horse drawn carts way past the time these were superseded.

Well into the 1970s there were hold outs who continued to ply their carts despite the costs of keeping horses on the road being far greater than buying a truck.

That failure to learn about and invest in new technologies saw all those businesses die, many of them with the owner who’d eked out a living as a milko or rag and bone man for decades.

On a bigger level, the struggles of the local milkman with his Clydesdale is a worrying reflection of business underinvestment. These folk are stuck with old equipment because they didn’t have the funds to spend on bringing their equipment up to Twentieth Century standards.

In the 1980s I saw this first hand in some of Australia’s factories. A foreman at a valve manufacturer in Western Sydney boasted to me how he had done his apprenticeship on a particular lathe fifty years earlier.

That machine still had the belt and pulley assembly from the days when the factory was powered by a steam engine at one end of the plant. It had an electric motor bolted onto it some time in the 1960s but was largely unaltered since.

It was understandable many Australian factory owners wouldn’t invest after World War II – many industries were protected and property speculation offered, and still does, better returns.

Another reason for not investing was the sheer cost of buying new equipment, major capital expenditures are risky and for most businesses it wasn’t work taking those risks.

Today there’s a big difference, hardware and software are far cheaper than they were in the 1960s or 70s with the big investment being in understanding and implementing the new technologies.

Few businesses don’t have computers or the internet but most of the things we do online are just variations on how our great grandparents worked with documents, filing cabinets and the penny post. We have to rethink how we use technology in business.

It would be a shame if we find ourselves stuck on the side of the highway wondering what the hell happened in the early years of the 21st Century.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

Similar posts: