June 10, 2009 at 7:29 am
Dave Schutz (6/10/2009)
The dark side of this is they figure out who is likely to leave and fire them before they have the chance to quit:-P!Instead of wasting time trying to manage by numbers maybe they should look at why people leave and work on improving the overall climate so everyone is happy. Focusing on a few people who may be looking to leave may create a system that ignores the rest.
You can't please everyone all the time. Impossible no matter the size of the group.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 10, 2009 at 7:40 am
I like the idea of a system that can point managers in the right direction. However, once they get that information - they need to decide on what to do with it. Some employees are worth keeping, some are essential, some are not worth the effort to try and keep, and others...well, it'd be welcome news to hear they are leaving.
Ultimately, it comes down to someone needing to make a decision. Isn't that why many BI systems are called Decision SUPPORT Systems?
June 10, 2009 at 7:56 am
GSquared (6/10/2009)...It doesn't help predict individual behavior, and is obviously no substitute for human contact. BUT, in a company with thousands of employees, can top management, or even upper middle management, actually get to personally know every employee? Not realistic in groups larger than a few dozen people.
...Most people can manage about a dozen or two dozen personal relationships at a time. A few can manage a hundred or more, but that's very, very rare. Think about how many people you know, which has probably been thousands over a lifetime. Now think about how many of those you can actually keep track of how they're doing at work, their morale, job performance, ethical standards, current pay vs market norms, etc.
These people have immediate managers. That's where the responsibility lies. And if your local managers cannot do that THERE is where your problems lie.
ven those factors, management needs some sort of ability to know who's at risk and who isn't. I think a system like this, used appropriately, makes sense for that.
It will not be used appropriately. It will be a cheap substitute for good management and it will be corrosive.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
June 10, 2009 at 8:50 am
Agree with Jay and Jeff, you need to have an immediate feedback loop in place that is well-used, not just an annual review or monthly touch-base. This has to be utilized by your management staff, and you have to hire the right people in management in order to make it work.
If you have large numbers of folks who want to leave or are unhappy, and you don't know why, then you're in more trouble than you realize, and I suspect your management tree is the root cause.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
June 10, 2009 at 9:13 am
There is definitely the possibility that this can be mis-used, but this is the type of thing we all do every day.
It isn't an exact, pinpoint system. I don't think I implied that, nor does the article. It identifies people that might be a risk to leave. We all do this all the time with friends, family, etc., and look at their behaviors to decide if something is likely. I notice my kids are quieter, or listless, and I then make a guess that they are upset or not sleeping well, and then I question them. That's what the description of this system is. You examine some data, you make a guess, and you return that guess to someone that will then go investigate.
It seems that so many people hot button this to assume a list comes out that lists people definitely going to do xx. And based on that list a company does y (fires someone, moves them to a new job, etc.)
It doesn't, or it shouldn't. It gives you a direction to move in for further work.
June 10, 2009 at 11:00 am
Steve,
The software in question DOES identify people, even when the article might not say so explicit.
From the wall street journal
The Internet search giant recently began crunching data from employee reviews and promotion and pay histories in a mathematical formula Google says can identify which of its 20,000 employees are most likely to quit.
Google officials are reluctant to share details of the formula, which is still being tested. The inputs include information from surveys and peer reviews, and Google says the algorithm already has identified employees who felt underused, a key complaint among those who contemplate leaving.
I will get a little dramatic rant here, so don't be offended, it serves its purpose and please keep reading!
For a typical human...if told something with the implication that it will make it's task/job easier (requires less thinking), it is going to agree to what it is being suggested. It will freely relinquish it's own mind and ethics and follow what is suggested. Yes, even in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary as long as it can put the blame elsewhere if things go south.
This should be a no brainer and certain social case studies have proven this, like the guard / prisoner scenario that later was turned into a movie where random people were hired for the experiment (some as guards, others as prisoners). Or the one in which a teacher was recreating the third Reich at school as an experiment to demonstrate how easy it is for people to follow directions and do very unethical things.
And personally I believe advertising also has its roots to a large degree in this property of humans. After all for a new product advertisement that reads "product X has been chosen as the best by woman" we can deduce that must be a complete fabrication. Yet they do work as they make it easier to make a choice once in the shopping mall, logic and proof go quickly overboard.
And how about the stereotype answer from a desk clerk "No Sir, the computer says....", meaning, you must be wrong and thus I can't help you. Humans simply lean to taking the easy way out even when they know it is utterly wrong. They still will do so as long as they can delegate responsibility of it to someone else....yes even to things like computer software they do not understand.
Could said software be in theory a useful tool in a perfect world? Maybe, but it is all molded statistics to me and you can twist that anyway you like. Add to this how humans deal with given solutions, the outcome can be quite predictable....not good! At the very best it will convert active managers to passive ones that only start to care when the software gives indications they might need to do so.
In these days IT is abused to gather all sorts of individual data in massive quantities, nearly everywhere. Decision makers love this as they can hide behind moldable numbers when available, and blame wrong decisions or plain inaction in their absent.
We allow it in the faith that at some point this data will be useful (most is obviously junk), and causes no harm to us. We turn a blind eye to the real dangers and the cases where damage to individuals was actually done in the process. It is an ethical and not a technology issue in my view. Take DNA fingerprinting/profiling of whole populations to make it easier to catch crime delinquent and terrorists for example. It will lower the quality of crime investigation, because once some DNA is found leading to a 90% match in the database all other options go to the background. Time constraints and the pressure to solve a case will do the rest....with tunnel vision as a result!
The Google software IMHO is no different in nature and will lead to similar results when applied widely. They better stop now before they promote the very thing they intend it to counter..namely people leaving!
June 10, 2009 at 11:15 am
reposting, but don't know if I think the tool itself is a problem, it's just a tool. If somebody hits me over the head with a hammer, then that's evil in action, but it doesn't make the hammer any less efficient at building homes for Habitat for Humanity.
I just think Google's development of such a tool sends a glaring message of "we don't know what's going on in our own house"
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
June 10, 2009 at 11:25 am
jcrawf02 (6/10/2009)
reposting, but don't know if I think the tool itself is a problem, it's just a tool. If somebody hits me over the head with a hammer, then that's evil in action, but it doesn't make the hammer any less efficient at building homes for Habitat for Humanity.I just think Google's development of such a tool sends a glaring message of "we don't know what's going on in our own house"
The tool analogy is a bit off to me as a hammer is not designed to be used on people, so clearly using it on people is a wrong use of the tool and not a problem with the tool itself.
The Google software ** is ** designed from the outset to be used on people by other people. Now that does not make it a normal tool, but a social instrument and that's a whole different ballgame then normal tools IMHO.
I agree with you Google is a bit bleeding here. The Wall street journal gave the same fact a positive spin as if Google is years ahead of other business with its proactive handling. They forgot to include in their logic that is it Google that is loosing personal to those other businesses. You got to love the media :)!
June 10, 2009 at 11:26 am
Although I was initially receptive to this idea, I've about decided that the benefit(s) may not outweigh the costs. Although it sounds like a great idea on the surface, I view this whole issue as a "people" problem. I realize that the idea is to be proactive in attempting to retain productive people by meeting more of their needs. However, maybe showing a personal interest in these same people, by taking the time to sit down and periodically talk with them about work related issues would serve the same purpose and at a fraction of the cost. The more I think about it, this is one situation where I feel that technology may be encroaching in an area that should be off limits. Although we have some really great technology tools at our disposal, I think at times we are a little too eager in using them to automate or expedite processes that may be better off left alone.
Although I could see using the data analysis as a supporting tool, I still feel very strongly that it is management's responsibility to maintain morale. In many cases, the morale problem may be a result of poor management. Do we really want to give management a crutch that they can use to further neglect their core responsibilities? I can just hear somone defending themselves by saying, "Well the numbers say..." When all they really had to do was take a few minutes and show a personal interest.
June 10, 2009 at 11:52 am
Peter, it does identify people, but it doesn't necessarily give a prescription of what to do, or that's not what I read.
If it said "Peter is likely to quit, terminate him" or "Peter is likely to quit, offer him a 10% raise", that's an issue. however I would guess it pings a manager that "Peter might be unhappy and think about quitting" and it is up to the manager to then take notice, talk to you, come up with something to do. If the manager can't do anything more on their own, then Google deserves what they get.
I've had CS people like you mention, but I've also had plenty that could see an issue exists and look further into their system, or cross check, or show some initiative. As more and more people become used to computers, and computer errors, it seems that I encounter more people that are willing to be more flexible.
There are all kinds of people, some will use this tool to help them, some will let it do their job for them, some will ignore it. That doesn't mean that the tool isn't a good one.
June 10, 2009 at 11:54 am
Mad Hacker (6/10/2009)
Although I was initially receptive to this idea, I've about decided that the benefit(s) may not outweigh the costs. Although it sounds like a great idea on the surface, I view this whole issue as a "people" problem. I realize that the idea is to be proactive in attempting to retain productive people by meeting more of their needs. However, maybe showing a personal interest in these same people, by taking the time to sit down and periodically talk with them about work related issues would serve the same purpose and at a fraction of the cost. The more I think about it, this is one situation where I feel that technology may be encroaching in an area that should be off limits. Although we have some really great technology tools at our disposal, I think at times we are a little too eager in using them to automate or expedite processes that may be better off left alone.Although I could see using the data analysis as a supporting tool, I still feel very strongly that it is management's responsibility to maintain morale. In many cases, the morale problem may be a result of poor management. Do we really want to give management a crutch that they can use to further neglect their core responsibilities? I can just hear somone defending themselves by saying, "Well the numbers say..." When all they really had to do was take a few minutes and show a personal interest.
You said that SO much nicer than I did. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 10, 2009 at 11:54 am
Mad Hacker (6/10/2009)
Although I could see using the data analysis as a supporting tool, I still feel very strongly that it is management's responsibility to maintain morale. In many cases, the morale problem may be a result of poor management.
Do we not give poor managers a tool to help them get better? This can show them that they aren't being attentive enough. Or it can alert an upper manager that lower managers aren't doing their jobs.
I'm not saying it's the best thing, it's just a tool. A hammer can be a weapon, it can be misused with screws, or it can be a tool for nails. You make of it what you will.
June 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm
jay holovacs (6/10/2009)
GSquared (6/10/2009)...It doesn't help predict individual behavior, and is obviously no substitute for human contact. BUT, in a company with thousands of employees, can top management, or even upper middle management, actually get to personally know every employee? Not realistic in groups larger than a few dozen people.
...Most people can manage about a dozen or two dozen personal relationships at a time. A few can manage a hundred or more, but that's very, very rare. Think about how many people you know, which has probably been thousands over a lifetime. Now think about how many of those you can actually keep track of how they're doing at work, their morale, job performance, ethical standards, current pay vs market norms, etc.
These people have immediate managers. That's where the responsibility lies. And if your local managers cannot do that THERE is where your problems lie.
ven those factors, management needs some sort of ability to know who's at risk and who isn't. I think a system like this, used appropriately, makes sense for that.
It will not be used appropriately. It will be a cheap substitute for good management and it will be corrosive.
So, in other words, no human anywhere should use any tool for anything, because it will cause the loss of responsibility and "the human touch".
Anyone who thinks such a tool is an indictment of bad management, who has ever used a calculator or computer to perform any mathematical function, is missing the point.
Socrates lamented the rise of literacy, because it gave young men a crutch that caused the erosion of their ability to memorize large bodies of data.
Your ancestors, ancient or more recent, were able to sew their own clothing, from cloth they had woven themselves, from wool they had sheered from sheep they had raised, or had comparable abilities depending on culture and geography. How many on this site would be able to spin wool into thread and then weave it into cloth, much less sew it into a shirt? Does the fact that spinning and weaving are mostly done by machines these days diminish you?
So, if you can buy a shirt at JC Penny's/Wal Mart/Target/whatever, and it's okay for you to depend on others and on tools/machines for something as critical as your clothing, why should executives and managers be denied those advantages in their jobs?
I'm an anti-Luddite. I don't lament mankind using tools to get jobs done more efficiently. I'm proud of the fact that my species, despite vast and ample weaknesses, can make better claws than tigers, better armor than turtles, can fly faster than birds and move through water faster than dolphins, and that our ability to make tools and machines that do work for us has allowed us to take baby steps into interplanetary space even.
As I already mentioned, I created a similar system for the sales and marketing people at a prior employer. It resulted in a tripling customer retention. Should I have said, "Nah, I won't build that. Salespeople should 'know their customers' and do all this in their heads." Would be the same decision, for the same reasons.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 10, 2009 at 1:48 pm
GSquared,
I don't think the people that object to software selecting people are against tools and progress. That out of the way, you bring your experience with a system you made to the table. By doing this you seem to think that your sales support software and its desired outcome are a good analogy of what Google does with its employees. Consequently you expect a similar outcome in Google's case.
There are however some important differences IMHO.
The relation "Customer - Salesperson/Company" is quite different from "Employee - Manager/Employer".
It is actually the reverse of what your experience is. The Company is in fact the customer of the employee that provides its services to the company! The sales person does not even fit the analogy, nor does the manager.
The cost/benefit/responsibility structure of the tool users in this case are very different. Where the sales person cannot go wrong by having to many customers (by paying a little too much attention), the manager has to deal with competing forces and do as much as possible with as few people as he can and on a strict budget. This puts pressure on him to use the tool in ways it is not intended to be used.
On top of it the relation sales person customer is much less personal as the relationship employee and employer (what a misnomer, that cloud so many minds).
In short your tool doesn't run into the same ethic problems as Google's. The effect of a sales tool that motivates more action on the part of the sales persons is always a positive for the company and its customers. It is not so in manager hands as the manager has many suppliers "under his command" and conflicting targets.
June 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I have to side with Gus on this one. Any tool has the possibility of being misused. What we are running into is the fact that there is a severe lack of ethics training in the world today. How many of us have had classes in either our Undergraduate or Graduate course work that really emphasized ethics and ethical decision making? By the way, I can say my BS program at least include 6 hours in this, which is 6 hours more than I have seen in most other programs.
Society has a whole has become relativistic in its ethics. If it doesn't hurt others (speeding, failing to signal a change of lanes or turn, etc), what is the harm? There is also the short-sightedness of many C-level executives and board of directors that only care about the bottom-line of the current month/quarter/year(at most) and don't really plan 5 to 10 years out.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply