Why The Valleys And Alleys Are Taking Your Talent.
Clearly, you’re doing something wrong.
I wish I could say “This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead or actual events is purely coincidental,” but unfortunately, this is based on actual experiences within the four walls of corporate America. Let’s start, shall we?
Here’s the outline, for those of you that have to know what’s coming next.
- Seriously, it’s not the 70's
- Dorothy — “There’s no place like home.”
- Your brand is my brand
- It only takes a spark
Seriously, it’s not the ‘70's.
I received an email outlining a challenge within a highly recognized U.S. headquartered conglomerate. The company is a behemoth dating back to the 1920’s. Let’s start there. Some companies reimagine and reinvent themselves on a perpetual cycle, while others become the victim of their own circumstances. With PE and VC backed companies gaining market share through exponential expenditure, legacy publicly traded and privately held companies are constrained by their funding sources. In part, this is a contributing factor to their cultural challenges. In this particular instance, I’m talking about a $13B+ engineering focused company with products that are among the most sophisticated in aviation, industrial and military applications.
The question I received was straight forward, yet complex. “How do we address the challenges with recruiting engineering talent from our top 5 preferred college programs?” This question was asked within a broader context. “We’re competing against Google, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Facebook, etc. and we’re losing talent that we should be able to recruit.” Before I write the next sentence, think about the issues behind this question for a moment. With 25+ years in digital strategy — yes, it’s been that long, I’ll start by saying that the issues of digital transformation are less about technology than they are about cultural change. You can’t take on a significant challenge such as the one posed above without understanding the complex intersection of vision, structure, hierarchy, environment, culture, solutions and outcomes. The reality is stark. Companies that desire to be something other than how they measure their outcomes rarely, if ever, succeed. Google has market flexibility as does Amazon, Uber, Snap, etc. The financial markets view them differently than a legacy conglomerate regardless of the product / service or impact of their business on society as a whole. If the measures remain consistent with how businesses were measured in the ‘70’s, then the resulting impact to the pace of innovation will be measured through the lens of the newest generations of talent acquired.
In the case of the question posed by leaders within this global conglomerate, the response provided was a series of questions:
- Why does ______ exist? The answer to this question is almost always telling. It provides significant context for what matters and what issues will create negative inertia while attempting to solve for the challenges.
- What makes _____ unique in its markets?
- Is there an epicenter of innovation?
- Is the culture driven by meritocracy or bureaucracy?
- Where within the organization is culture created and ultimately nurtured?
Simple, straight forward and yet remarkably complex questions that most leaders within organizations answer as though they’re taking the Myers Briggs or Enneagram. Truth is difficult to swallow, so they portray their culture through the lens of other organizations that they aspire to be, yet know at the fundamental core, they absolutely aren’t. It’s the equivalent of arguing with individuals over who will be in the room for a Design Thinking sprint.
The reality, albeit difficult to accept, is most organizations are built on what I refer to as the Principal of 3. Every aspect of an organization that operates on this principal is based on:
- 3 days per week is representative of the amount of effective effort put forth within a 5 day work week. This takes into consideration organization inefficiency — unproductive meeting culture, ineffective deadline adherence, poor communication, burdensome overhead (processes, tools, etc.).
- 3 weeks per month — As months come to a close, the final week in many organizations is focused on reporting on the success or failure of the prior 3 weeks with the objective of course correction or reinforcement of successful performance.
- 3 months — Quarterly performance. Everything rides on quarterly performance. A financial performance “miss” means change. This change can be as simple as reductions in line item expenditures to as significant as layoffs.
Organizations that operate under the Principal of 3 are challenged to recruit exceptional talent that desires to be challenged to innovate, differentiate and collaborate. Collective success is found within innovative cultures. Within the interconnected diverse skills that deliver remarkable solutions, measurement is based on product / service / solution engineering. R&D isn’t an afterthought or the first item to be eliminated as part of a cost reduction — rather, it’s built into the foundational culture. Within Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. the term R&D is rarely heard. It’s a foundational component of work effort. Each solution builds on the past with a vision for the future, pushing technology and experience design in what was once reserved for a select few working within a function called Research and Development.
For companies whose culture is built on the Principal of 3, seriously, it’s not the 70’s.
Dorothy — “There’s no place like home.”
The Wizard of Oz provides a terrific analogy for the question “How do we address the challenges with recruiting engineering talent from our top 5 preferred college programs?” Why The Wizard of Oz? It’s actually quite simple. Finding a home within a career is challenging at best. With an average turnover of 13+% for high-tech companies, the churn of talent is expensive and a significant drain on IP. Even within Google, Amazon, Uber, etc., the turnover is significant. The issue here isn’t once an individual becomes an employee; rather, the company and its peers I’m referencing are challenged to even recruit talent. So, back to the analogy. How do companies create a place that’s “like home?” First, culture. If I use the company that asked “How do we address the challenges with recruiting engineering talent from our top 5 preferred college programs?”, I would begin by assessing the culture of the organization. The difference between Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley companies vs. legacy engineering focused organizations is striking. These cultural differences can be categorized into maker vs. master. Maker cultures are built on a. collective values, b. co-creation, c. informal participation and d. transparency. Master cultures are built on a. hierarchical culture, b. institutional knowledge, c. authority and d. internal competition. For those graduating from higher-ed, culture matters more today than ever before. According to a Robert Half study, 35% of individuals would decline a “perfect fit” career role if the cultural fit wasn’t right.
In the case of the company that requested assistance with solving for their recruiting challenge, the primary issues included 1. Culture, 2. Perception and 3. Brand.
By assessing the culture, the key themes arose quickly. First, the culture was built on a “master” framework as described above with the individual above the collective, highly political with a focus on “because that’s how we do it here” philosophy. The second issue of perception was challenging. Asking a company to change their physical environment isn’t easily accepted. Having said that, cube farms, fluorescent lights, dirty carpet, non-ergonomic chairs, low quality technology and legacy systems with burdensome data security models made the experience reminiscent of the the ‘70’s. The third issue, brand, is a combination of the first two issues coupled with perception. Google is perceived as innovative. Their culture is also considered to be “on trend” with perks, social / causal concerns integrated into the work environment. This company I have been referencing makes products that include heads up displays, VR, AR and stealth technologies that would make an engineer, CX designer, DBA, etc. incredibly excited to address. This same company struggles with legacy “suit and tie” culture and a failure to understand the value of the physical environment coupled with the means of delivering the work product.
Your brand is my brand
Why are the Valleys and Alleys so appealing? First, early careers are defined by association. This is both a positive and a negative. The mere thought of hiring someone from the likes of Amazon, Lyft, Zillow or Adobe makes hiring managers lather, yet the qualifications, culture fit, etc. aren’t filtered at the same level for someone coming from General Motors or GE. On the negative side, if you don’t begin your career at a highly sought after brand, the rungs of the ladder are spaced far apart making ladder climbing difficult, if not impossible. The concept of “group think” is pervasive within the ranks of companies perceived to be innovative. Going from Google to Apple is a relatively straight forward expectation by career standards. Going from Apple to Cargill, Sysco or McKesson is a recipe for career stagnation. While the stagnation has nothing to do directly with these companies, the perception of innovation is limited at best and unfortunately creates challenges for re-entering the workforce in the Valleys or Alleys.
Understanding the fact that a company’s brand is, in essence, a career brand for employees is critical. With Fishbowl, Glassdoor, Twitter, etc., understanding the culture and the implications on the perception of the brand is straight forward. If a company wants to hire and retain exceptional talent, it has to build a culture that’s compelling. I’ll use my own background for a moment. I’ve served in the role of CEO, CSO, COO and other practice lead career positions throughout my 25+ year career. As the CEO of a top 5 digital agency, I was highly sought after. As a senior executive with WPP’s networked agencies as well as Omnicom’s, my email, LinkedIn and voice mail was filled daily with requests. When I stepped out to co-found a management advisory with incredible talent, working with Fortune 100 CMOs, my phone stopped ringing, and my email went silent. Only after the company was acquired by a global management consultancy, (ICF) did I become “important” and of course, the outreach began in earnest by people wanting to collaborate and work with me. Let’s be honest. As I’ve written previously, careers are a lot like a high school popularity contest. The reality is simple. Your brand is the brand you’re associated with, so the importance of the culture, the level of innovation, the end products and services and the opportunities afforded through a career are critical to recruiting and retaining exceptional talent. Companies in the Alleys and Valleys recognize the importance of their brand. It’s the combination of what they do, how they do it and who they are that creates aspiration to work for these organizations.
It only takes a spark
Let’s go back to the original question. “How do we address the challenges with recruiting engineering talent from our top 5 preferred college programs?” The answer isn’t simple, and it takes a commitment to solving for issues that intersect in a complex tangle of challenges. Having said this, it’s important to recognize how these highly sought after brands built their cultures. They’re nimble, collaborative, visionary and focused. They recognize that time is of the essence and that the resulting impacts of product innovation are fleeting, so there’s always a pipeline of what’s next. For most of these organizations, it’s iterative, not a “one and done” solution approach. To solve for the challenge, the issues that first have to be agreed upon include:
- Culture is difficult to change in a large organization
- Innovation is predicated on the product or service offering. If it’s a parity, low engagement, low-tech product, don’t expect talent to be knocking down your door.
- Investment is critical
- Goals must change as well as the goal posts
Once the issues are agreed upon, the opportunities to create a compelling career experience are only limited by the willingness of the organization to change, the commitment and the ownership and accountability to change. Each of these items is in and of itself a “spark” that can ignite the organization.
Share your thoughts and perspectives.
You can also reach me on Twitter — @digitalquotient