BS vs. BA; who holds the key to innovation in the future?

The early 90s saw the emergence of mechanical engineers in building automobiles, followed by civil engineers in the 90s who built the vast infrastructure to support the growing economy, followed by electrical engineers who brought out the telephones and TVs, with computer science/electronics engineers who gave us the computers and then the communication networks in the late 90s. The last decade saw the slow down of innovation in engineering (semiconductor, computers, communications) but saw the emergence a new breed of design engineers who had the capability of using the underlying technologies to build products for the consumers.

Let us look into some of the companies who succeeded in the last decade with an emphasis on the value/differentiation they brought to the marketplace. Apple is the first company that comes to mind. They were not the first ones to bring out a MP3 player, they were not the first ones to bring out a smart phone and they were not the first ones to bring out a tablet. However, they were the first ones to design a complete system (hardware, software and services) that caught the attention of the consumers. iPOD's clean mechanical design (just enough buttons to play music)along with emphasis on ease of use made it the killer product of the last decade. The credit to the success of the products from Apple handily goes to the creative minds of designers who used the fundamental engineering infrastructure to build a product that connected with the masses.

How about most of the internet companies such as Facebook, Yahoo, Zynga, e-Bay and Amazon? There was no engineering marvel at any of those companies. These were a bunch of entrepreneurs who used the existing infrastructure (high speed computers and high speed communications) to connect people all over the world. Although, engineers built those products, the design engineers/user interface designers crafted the product with a look and feel that connected with the masses. There is no doubt in my mind that the designers made the last decade. Is this just the beginning of a ride for arts majors?

I definitely think so. I don't see any fundamental break through technology for the next decade. Anything that can be smaller will be made smaller. Anything that can go wireless will go wireless. Anything that can go faster will go faster. However, the geniuses who can figure out a method to connect the masses and relate with the masses will make companies succeed over the next decade. Education that will promote creativity (design, language) will be needed to build break through companies. Engineers with creative mindset or creative geniuses in any background will find tons of opportunities this next decade. It's definitely the time for arts and design in the high tech world.

What the expense reports say about the values of the employee

Most of you may already have heard about the troubles Mark Hurd, ex-CEO of the venerable Hewlett Packard got into recently. Hurd was fired by the board because he violated the company’s business standards in relation to his dealings with the contractor. He reportedly fudged expense reports for meals he had with the contractor. Hurd also allegedly helped the woman get paid for work she didn't do. Let us not speculate the entire set of events behind the line of fire. On face value, the company fired one of the best performing CEOs in the technology industry for 'fudging expense reports' as it had to with the values of the leader in question. "The facts that drove the decision for the company had to with integrity, had to do with credibility, had to do with honesty," said HP general counsel Michael Holston. Kudos to HP if they indeed value their values and culture so much.

For a CEO such as Mark Hurd, who made over $24 Million in 2009, what are the reasons to fudge expense reports for a total under $20,000 over 3 years? In this case, one can only speculate that he fudged to 'not expose' his relationship with the woman in play. However, I have known of a few CEOs over my 20 years in the industry, who used to manipulate expense reports just to save a few dollars for lunch when they earn over $300,000 per year. Why?

I remember a quotation from Russian historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn meant in his Nobel address, “One word of truth”: “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being and who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart.” One's position depends completely on the moral compass inside oneself. The moral compass is one that is typically set very early on in one's life by parents or other influencers. Like any other 80/20 rule, I am sure that there are 10% of us who are morally impeccable, another 10% who are completely off track and the rest 80% who are mostly right but tend to falter once in a while. The largest group tends to justify their deeds by waiving their moral codes for 'once'. However, being humans, it almost never stops with once especially when one is not caught. It is responsible for us to recognize our misdirection from our set of moral codes and correct them before it leads to a disaster for the smallest of the transgressions.

What can companies learn about the core values of the employees from fudging expense reports and what should companies do with such employees? Value systems and cultures of companies are mostly effected from the top. When the leaders of companies who manage employees respect and display the value system, it sets a good example for the rest of the organization to follow. When leaders transgress, the rest of the employees take it as an 'option' to justify their actions away from their moral codes. Therefore, it is important for the company to emphasize the value system and identify, educate and correct the transgressors immediately. The small transgressions eventually lead to bigger ones that could put the entire company in a dismal light. When leaders in the companies flaunt their lack of respect of company values consistently, it is mandatory for the organization to use the situation to teach the rest of the company on the purpose and importance of values of the company. I am very sure that the rest of Hewlett Packard got a lesson on the importance of values and ethics in the company. Thanks, Mark Hurd.

The short life of the marketing chief; guts, glory and blood shed

"Stroll through the C-suite at many companies, and it's an easy bet which executive is a dead man (or woman) walking: the chief marketing officer. CMOs have lasted 26 months on average these days, says recruiter Spencer Stuart, vs. 44 months for CEOs. CMOs at Chico's (CHS), Home Depot (HD), MySpace (NWS), and Rite Aid (RAD) all left their posts after short tenures" said Business Week a few years ago. WHY? Why is it that the chief marketing guy is at the cross hairs too often? Having been in leading marketing roles of high technology companies, I have seen my share of guts, glory and blood shed in the job.

Fundamentally, marketing a product or a company requires understanding the customers and a gut on the direction of the market. A marketing chief of any company is often required to present a detailed and convincing business case showing potential revenues and profits for 5 years from start of production or sometimes 5 years from start of program. Nonetheless, in a market and a customer base where end consumer needs & wants are altered every year or even every few months, it is absolutely impossible to defend a return on investment (ROI) for the next 5 years. With shifting sands underneath, no one, in all honesty, has a clue about the next year. Even worse, in a semiconductor company, where the design cycle of the product takes over 2 years and $20 Million, there is no way for a marketing guy to even alter the features and functions of a product once the product is deep in the design process and the success is determined a few more years later when the customer is in production. In such markets with a long design cycle, long customer engagement cycles and lack of options to test the waters on a regular basis during development process, there is a high likelihood of the product not meeting the exact needs/requirements of the future market.

Since most people in a company tend to have an opinion on the direction of the company or a product, the marketing chief whose job it is to define a strategy for the unknowns in the future has every person around him/her second guessing them and looking over their shoulders. Few have any opinions on their counterparts in finance, operations or engineering. In addition, with most marketing strategies including branding being a long term process, it is only a matter of time for the financial markets looking for quarterly and monthly improvements to lay the blame on the chief marketer.

In my short experience of 20 years in the high technology industry, it is definitely better to be the CEO, CFO, CIO or any other CXO except CMO unless the CEO has been in a chief marketing role to understand the complications involved or has the guts to shield CMO from short term complaints from everyone around them in the interest of the long term future of the company. Believe me, every marketing chief requires lots of guts to serve in a position with little glory and lots of blood shed. Now, tell me why anyone would seek a leading marketing job? Genuine interest to change the world? This ain't a job for the faint hearted for sure.

Sprinter vs. Marathoner; Who do you choose?

Samuel Kamau Wanjiru from Kenya broke the Olympic record during 2008 Summer Olympics with a 2hr 6 min run of the 26 miles while at the same time Usain Bolt from Jamaica broke both 100m and 200m sprints with 9.69s and 19.30s. Both Usain and Samuel are phenomenal athletes of their generation and are revered in their own runs. However, can Usain be half as good as Samuel in running a marathon race or will Samuel give Usain a run for his money in short distance runs? Everyone of you probably will guess it right. Usain CANNOT be the best marathon runner and Samuel CANNOT be the best sprinter. Why? Researchers have proven that some are built to be sprinters while others are built to be marathoners and then there are others in between. This is pretty much true in our professional environment as well. There are employees who perform their best in short bursts of projects while there are some who can slog consistently through long projects.

Every team requires both sprinters and long distance runners. We need employees that bring in tons of creative energy to work on either short term projects or get a long term project going. However, we absolutely need consistent long term performers to take on the project to the very end. Let me give specific examples of job functions that have shown clear tendencies towards sprinter or marathoner. Sales and marketing folks typically have sprinter like qualities. They need tons of energy to break into a customer or into a market and need that energy to energize the rest of the team behind them. Project managers on the other hand tend to have marathoner like qualities as they have to drive a project over the long term. In Industries such as semiconductors, most design projects take over 2 years to production and therefore require marathoners who can strive to the end.

It is the interest of the company and everyone of its managers to keep their eyes open to see the sprinter or marathoner among everyone its team members. This innate ability to perform with maximum efficiency in short bursts versus perform with consistency over the long term should not only be recognized but also utilized the improve the efficiency of management of team's resources in any company. If you are a sprinter or a marathoner, accept it and look for job functions that fit it with your innate characteristics to maximize your chances for success.

Serena Williams Episode; Talent vs. Values

It was US Open 2009 in Flushing Meadows a couple of weeks ago when I got to see Serena Williams yell and scream at the lines umpire for calling a foot fault. Serena threatened the lines umpire with profanity laced tirade waving her racquet and was eventually thrown out of the US Open for her behavior leaving Kim Clijsters to not only win the semis but also the finals against Wozniacki. What left me aghast was the attitude of a very talented world number one tennis player during a professional game. USTA fined Serena a meager $10,500 fine for her atrocious behavior on the court. What is even worse is that Serena did not even find a reason to apologize to the lines umpire. Where are the values in our role models? Is it acceptable for talented individuals to not conform to the values of the organization?

Let us take this scenario to our world of professional workplace. What would you do as a HR professional if you found your superstar screaming and yelling at another employee in a public forum after repeated admonitions? Would you take a few percentage points off during the up and coming performance reviews? Would you be afraid to take a serious action against the superstar for fear of him/her leaving the company? or would you take some tough decisions to make sure that such practices are not acceptable in a valued organization? Even worse, what would you do if the superstar in question happens to be the CEO?

Here's where I stand and what I have always stood for in my professional career and personal life. Values always wins over talent. If the values of any employee, including any superstar, does match with the values of the organization, there is no place for the superstar there. Any indication of compromising values of the company must be dealt with detailed one on one discussions followed by training and coaching to repair the situation IMMEDIATELY. It is not beneficial to the rest of the organization to feel that their values can be compromised by a juggernaut. The human resource organization must actively engage in policing the value system in the company to make sure that the values espoused by the leaders in the company is the culture that exists in the deep trenches of their organization. It is beneficial for the entire organization to have a set of team players who trust and respect other members for the value they bring to the table.

In the case of Serena Williams, I only hope that the USTA brings on tougher actions (not just a mere $10K fine for some one who earns over $10 Million a year) against her soon to clarify the position of values of talent. No organization should compromise on values over talent.

Talent acquisition Vs. Customer engagement

Having spent more of my career of 20 years identifying and winning customers, I see the process of recruiting talent into the company in a similar light. Let us analyze the process of winning the right customers for a product or services company. First, the marketing team BUILDS a BRAND for the target audience. Then, the sales team is tasked to identify all the potential customers interested in the product by FILLing a sales funnel. It is then the function of the management team to SELECT the customers who could provide the maximum return for the time and effort invested (ROI- Return On Investment) by the company. With a short list of targeted high ROI customers, the entire team rallies behind the sales team to CLOSE the deal. Let us analyze the similarities between winning customers and the process of a successful recruiting process in a company.

BUILD A BRAND: It is important for any company that plans to build a mid to large sized team to focus on building a brand of itself in the job marketplace. The objective is to conjure a very positive image of the company in the heads of job seekers. The effort must result in job seekers wanting to work in the company. Google, Goldman Sachs and Mckinsey are prime examples of companies that have built a solid brand in their respective markets. The focus for any branding campaign is to communicate effectively the culture of the company and the quality of work for wholesome development.

FILL THE FUNNEL: Once a brand is successfully established over time, the company should have no problems receiving a constant flow of resumes. However, when the company has not built a strategic brand, the HR team is forced to expend a ton of energy in filling the funnel. Using the current employee network is a good source of qualified resumes to the company. Remember, employees will never recommend someone who'll pull the company down.

SELECT A FEW: This is probably the toughest of all steps in the recruiting process. In countries such as India and China, where the ratio of incoming resumes to number of positions open could be in the thousands, it is critical for the company to identify sources of talent with the best ROI. Utilizing personal networks of current employees and alumni, employees of competitors, personnel from companies of similar knowledge base and top notch schools and their alumni are some of the channels that come to mind. Effective utilization of social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook can be also prove useful in the search for qualified candidates. Although, employee references have been used for a couple of decades, I continue to believe that the network is under utilized.

CLOSE THE DEAL: Once a few have been selected with a match to the culture of the organization and the skills needed to get the job done, it is of utmost importance to close the deal. Most of the deals I have closed had nothing to do with the $$$$$. Potential employees are excited about the prospects of working with employees who are having fun and are learning every day. I remember one of my managers telling me during an interview that the opportunity will help build on my resume. At the end of the day, if you make the connection and you see the value in the candidate, find a place in the company. Solid candidates whose values match with the culture of the company are hard to come. Pick them up. Train them. Keep them.

Being prepared for recruiting

A good recruiting/staffing organization typically does strive to reduce recruiting costs, reduce time to hire, increase acceptance rates and also to improve time to productivity. However, most organizations do not spend enough time to PREPARE for recruiting. I am not talking about the process of hiring a team. But, more the understanding of the needs of the micro-organization and at the macro level of the company. Typically, the recruiting process starts when hiring managers lob a standard requisition with the details of the job and the skills required to do the job. But, how many times has a staffing manager sat down proactively with the hiring manager to understand the NEEDS of the organization prior to a desperate need to hire a person?

Being prepared for recruiting one or more personnel into any company requires a complete understanding of the functional performance of the team. Functional performance of a team is determined not only by the hard skills required for the job function but also on the soft skills needed to accomplish the tasks as a valued team member of the organization. Soft skills and values are often not given enough attention during the hiring process but plays a very critical role in the success of the person and the company as a whole. Let us probe this avenue by a list of simple questions. Is the team's values (determined by the values of the leader and the independent values of each of the team member)aligned with the culture of the company? What values are lacking in the group? How are leadership skills within the organization? Is there a succession plan in the group and is there is a need to bring in someone with the skills to lead over the long term? Does the team contain a few innovators/out of the box thinkers? Are there personnel within the company whose skills and values match better in an organization other than the one that he/she is in? Proactive, regular discussions led with questions such as these with the managers in the company can lead to building a prepared and responsible staffing organization.

With over 20 years in the high technology industry in roles ranging from engineering to CEO, I have realized that a super star team with no values or even values that do not match with the culture of the company can be a disaster. More importantly, one bad apple in a team with values can sour the entire organization. Therefore, it is the job of a responsible HR team to PREPARE every manager in the organization understand the 'complete needs' of the team in the long term. At the macro-level, it is also important for the HR organization to know the skills and values available within the entire company to consider transfer of personnel within the company prior to engaging in a high cost hunt for talent outside. With a clear understanding of the skills and values of each of the team members, the staffing team can be better prepared to add value to the team. To the HR team: KNOW your team, PREPARE your managers, HIRE the best.