Application over Calculation

This week I had the pleasure of attending a leadership seminar presented by Dr. Bill Daggert of the International Center for Leadership in Education. The seminar itself surrounded a belief that our present education system is not asking the right questions and is afraid to make the real changes required to meet the demands of future (and present, really) business workforce needs. To summarize: we must focus what Dr. Daggert terms "rigor and relevance". During the wrap up of his presentation, Dr. Daggert mentioned the unique web search engine Wolfram Alpha. Actually, Wolfram Alpha is more a computational engine.  Conrad Wolfram, the man behind the Alpha, feels about math instruction much the same way that Dr. Daggert feels about education in general: application should trump calculation.  

I mention all of this because what both Dr. Daggert and Mr. Wolfram are so passionate about has implications in any field - certainly within the field of business and human resource management. In fact, business has been behind much of U.S. education policy. Why? Not preparing students for the skills they will need now and in the future will have a deeply negative impact on the future of U.S. businesses - and, because human resource managers are partners in making their organization successful - we must pay attention to this as well. 

Take a listen to the TED talk where Mr. Wolfram outlines why the educational system should embrace computers and stop forcing an industrialized society mentality on students. Listen to what he says and take away how you can apply these concepts to your profession (and maybe affect an impact on the future)...

Selective Selection and the Picky Parley

Matthew Swyers, founder of web-based law firm the Trademark Company, is a picky interviewer if his Time.com article is any sort of indicator. Resumes received with spelling errors overlooked by the dubious "spell check" and cover letters received without resumes attached are not easily forgiven. Swyers even goes as far as to speak with law firm employees prospective candidates had contact with just to gain a larger picture of the candidate's mettle. 

I am going to say, I have to agree with Swyers. While I have certainly made some spelling mistakes (having relied on Mr. Paperclip, the ubiquitous Microsoft Office "helper") in my history I have learned the value of proofreading old style - just read over the darned thing! The article "5 Things To Look for in a Great Job Interview", gives one (very) embarrassing example from a law school professor involving a very important missing letter in a PowerPoint presentation - no doubt a result of an assistant's reliance on spell check. It is also a display of good judgement, and just plain good practice, to be cordial to others you come into contact with. Don't discount those that you feel are not directly connected with the hiring process - these are your potential fellow employees, treat them respectfully. Case in point: I recently had a neighbor's friend ask if my organization "had any positions better than the ones posted since she has a degree" (referring to our entry-level/clerical positions). Well, I am certainly not inclined to assist anyone who belittles our employees (regardless of their position or training).

The article lists the five things as:

1. Attention to detail
2. Proofread
3. Preparedness
4. Phone and email correspondence
5. Honesty is overrated (trust me - it will make sense when you read the article)

Now excuse me, I must run the spell check on this post before it hits the blug.....

Step Into My Cubicle

Can I speak to you in private? Come right over here into my cubicle. What, you don't feel that is private because my walls don't reach to the ceiling  and anyone can hear our conversation (unless we whisper sweet nothings into each other's ear)? Okay, how about this conference room over here. It's empty for the moment and has walls that reach the ceiling. Yes, I know, the walls are made of glass but maybe the other employees won't start any rumors about why your speaking with human resources (uh huh..).

The scenario above may remind human resource managers, general managers, and anyone who has attempted to hold a private meeting in an "open" work space of an uncomfortable situation. There is no disputing the benefits of open floor plans and work spaces designed for collaboration, creativity, and unobstructed views. Let's face it though, wide open work spaces are not conducive to privacy in the human resource realm. David Lewis, president of human resource consulting company OperationsInc, recounts in the article "Indecent Exposure: The Downsides of Working in a Glass Office" a situation in which he had to hold a conversation in his car with a client after a first attempt in a stairwell. The client worked in a cubicle and no rooms were available that would protect the client's privacy. 

The article also points out that glass walled offices and conference rooms are not great at suppressing sound. "Even when soundproofed, glass walls allow 50% to 100% more noise to pass through, compared with soundproofed drywall" according to the article's author Sue Shellenbarger. In addition (and this is, admittedly, a little funny) there is what is termed "the bird factor - people slamming into walls". Companies address this by adhering decals on the glass at eye level.  

What is your perfect office design? You may want to consider the type of work being done and the relationship between various tasks and positions. You may not be able to perform a full remodel of your work area a la HGTV, but you may be able to mitigate issues by adding a tabletop water fountain (muffles low conversations)  or by finding creative ways to hold private meetings (Mind if I walk with you on the way to that meeting on the other side of the campus?).  

How Would You Do on a Google Interview?

The December 24, 2011 edition of the Wall Street Journal contained an article entitled "How to Ace a Google Interview". The article mentioned the fact that it is harder to secure a job at Google than it is to be accepted into Harvard. Past Google job candidates recount being given interview questions that are, to be succinct, just plain odd. The article highlights one such unorthodox interview question involving a blender and a reduction in mass and points to the reason why Google makes candidates squirm: "Google isn't looking for the smartest, or even the most technically capable, candidates. Google is looking for the candidates who will best fit Google". The idea, in any interview, is to make sure the candidate is the right person for the position and for the company culture. My favorite interview question cited in the article is the one asked of candidates at Zappos. What would your response be to "How weird are you"? Zappos preferred response is that you are somewhere in the middle. What would your answer be? I'll have to think about what animal I am or what color best expresses my personality. This is all interesting stuff to ponder but how beneficial are these types of questions in the interview process? 

I was reminded of the Wall Street Journal article when today's edition of the Journal contained a letter to the editor from Martin B. Robins of Barrington, Ill. that was given a title which concisely sums up how Mr. Robins feels about Google-type interview questions: "Smart-Aleck Drivel in Job Interviews". Questions like "What do you think of garden gnomes" purport to "find a connection between...drivel and job performance" according to Robins.

Does your organization utilize any unorthodox interview questions? Have you posed those questions to the top performers in your organization to benchmark desired replies? Check out glassdoor.com's list of "Top 25 Oddball Interview Questions of 2011" and answer a couple yourself...