What Is Corporate Hoarding?

Information and knowledge still represent power and this is truer in today’s economy than ever before. Organizations are learning that employee interactions constantly yield new knowledge and information that can benefit their business in tangible ways. And although many companies state that knowledge sharing is important to their business and culture, in most cases, the opposite is occurring.

Corporate hoarding — where people do not want to share knowledge because they see knowledge as a source of power — is very common, and can happen for various reasons within any given business environment, including:

• People feel that an injustice has been done to them;
• People are distrustful of coworkers or management;
• People are retaliating against behavior toward them; and/or
• The organizational and operational climate encourages or reinforces secrecy, not sharing.

In her recent piece, The Fractured Foundation of Social Learning, Radian6′s Amber Naslund accurately defined the problem:

“We don’t teach people to work together – even when we encourage group work – because ultimately our reward systems are still based on individual achievement and skills. We don’t share a grade amongst our entire class. We’re held accountable for our individual contribution and effort. Working together and contributing to a group is not the same as sharing in a collective result.“

Good Ideas Come From Sharing

In his 2010 article, TechDirt’s Mike Masnick described the innovation born from random collisions and a culture of openness:

“Almost all good ideas come from people building on the works of others, with a minor tweak here or there, or a random decision based on a suggestion from someone new, after an idea percolates for months or years. The more open systems are to sharing ideas and spreading information and allowing those collisions to happen, the more likely that new good ideas and new innovations occur.“

Mike also cites the work of entrepreneur Steven Johnson, author of Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. Johnson’s TEDTalk encourages us to overcome IP-centric thinking, instead allowing your idea’s chocolate to easily combine with your colleague’s peanut butter:

“You have half of an idea and someone else has the other half, and if you’re in the right environment, they turn into something larger than the sum of their parts. So, in a sense, we often talk about the value of protecting intellectual property. You know, building barricades, having secretive R&D labs, patenting everything that we have, so that those ideas will ‘remain valuable’ and people will be incentivized to come up with more ideas. But I think there’s a case to be made that we should spend at least as much time, if not more, valuing the premise of connecting ideas and not just protecting them.“

This Takes More Than Technology

We have tendency lately to think that “there’s an app for that” when the roots that prevent collaboration lie much deeper. Businessweek’s Evan Rosen described this situation as follows:

“When tools fail to create value, it’s usually because decision-makers adopt tools before the company’s culture and processes are collaboration-ready. Organizations even adopt tools for the wrong reasons, primarily the belief that tools will create collaboration. Tools merely offer the potential for collaboration. Unlocking the value of tools happens only when an organization fits tools into collaborative culture and processes. If the culture is hierarchical and internally competitive, it will take more than tools to shift the culture.“

A Model For Assessing Likely Behavior

Perhaps the best and most realistic study that accurately addresses these challenges can be sourced from the INSEAD Working Paper series. The author defines four models that organizations can use to assess the likelihood of sharing versus hoarding:

• The High/High: Individuals perceiving their knowledge to be high in individual value and high in corporate value will engage in selective sharing, sharing that knowledge which might bring recognition and reward to them but concealing that knowledge which might be successfully used by others with no reward for them.
• The High/Low: Individuals perceiving their knowledge to be high in individual value and low in corporate value will engage in information hoarding, choosing to avoid sharing their knowledge but attempting to learn as much as possible from others.
• The Low/High: Individuals perceiving their knowledge to be low in individual value and high in corporate value will engage in information sharing, sharing freely with others for the benefit of the organization.
• The Low/Low: Individuals perceiving their knowledge to be low in individual value and low in corporate value will engage in random sharing, sharing freely when their knowledge is requested but not consciously sharing otherwise.

Although it may seem obvious the study also cites that, “Individuals in subunits characterized by an open communication culture will view knowledge less as an individual asset whereas individuals in subunits characterized by a closed communication climate will view knowledge more as an individual asset.” A good way to assess the challenge ahead is through this simple cultural lens.

A Closing Thought

Organizations and individuals need to have a keen sense of self awareness and avoid the tendency toward aspirational values that don’t ring true to the reality of either party. So before you declare that “corporate hoarding is dead” and expect it to magically dissipate, take a cold hard look at how you communicate, motivate, incentivize and model the same behaviors you’re attempting to eradicate. What you find may surprise you.

Even the seemingly benign HR industry isn’t immune from these concerns with the settlement between Halogen and SuccessFactors reading like a SP(HR)y novel – creation of a bogus company, the duping of unsuspecting sales reps, the disclosure of proprietary information, and so on.

And although shadowy characters will always attempt to invade the halls or http’s of their competitive foes, there are two relatively obvious and quite simple means of gathering G2 without breaking a single law:

Intel Option #1: Job Postings

Curious about the location of your competitor’s new operational center? Wondering what the underlying code is for their yet-to-be-unveiled SaaS offering? Sleepless thinking about your relative pace of growth when compared to those in your domain? This is so obvious I’m almost remiss in mentioning it – simply check out your arch enemy’s career site and job postings.

We have reached a level of requisitioning maturity whereby extremely detailed job codes and underlying descriptions are almost a prerequisite for securing both internal approval and a highly targeted and talented candidate pool. Because of this move toward clarity of purpose, you can gleam an incredible amount of highly valuable information in no time flat. With a simple export and sort you can assess trending information, deconstruct growth plans, find out what tools and technologies your foe is codependent on and ascertain exactly where they might go next. It’s really quite simple.

Intel Option #2: Public Sector

Although this may not be true of very small or emerging organizations, most companies of any significant size or scale eventually dabble in the public sector. And with the public sector come four words that are often music to your competitive ears – Freedom of Information Act. FOIA is a post-Watergate provision effectively allowing any citizen to request that information be released to the public by government entities. Although exceptions do exist covering confidential business information, you’d be amazed what is disclosed under the act (visit GWU’s National Security Archive for more details).

If you aren’t willing to wait months (or sometimes years) for FOIA fulfillment, you can always try searching GSA’s Advantage site to find existing government contracts, pricing lists, and the like. Think of GSA as the procurement department of the Federal government, and since many states also purchase off of GSA schedules, this is a great means to find either direct relationships or indirect distributors that carry your competitor’s wares. You can also perform complex searches on State, County or Local sites to gather publicly available information on a wide variety of topics and issues. This one is also painfully easy.

Seriously, That’s It?

Yep, that’s it. I could offer more complex means to an end but this is not spy school and I’m not a lawyer. And trust me – I would guess that 99% of organizations hadn’t thought of how this information could be gathered so cheaply and easily. How do I know that? Because I’m always surprised by the raised eyebrows and “huh”s (followed by frantic note taking) when I describe these two techniques.

What Should I Do Next?

You should ignore this advice completely. Instead you should focus less on your competitors and more on your customers. Any good offering will always stand up to competitive threats and those who spend more effort on understanding others should redouble their efforts on understanding their clients (and themselves). I’m not suggesting that you should be cavalier or myopic in your competitive marketplace. Instead I’ve found that – more often than not – we look elsewhere for answers when they are standing right in front of us.

A Closing Thought

As former CIA counterintelligence officer (and now convicted spy) Aldrich Ames once said:

“Espionage, for the most part, involves finding a person who knows something or has something that you can induce them secretly to give to you. That almost always involves a betrayal of trust.“

Most organizations I know can rationalize their way in and out of any morally ambiguous ground. Maybe by writing this post I’ve contributed to the problem, but what if you think of it instead as a test — now that you know how to do this, should you?

When the dust settles and time passes, it’s up to you to decide if you’re in the business of the betrayal of trust. Like all real life situations, the answer is never as simple as it seems.

Source: The Economist

When I think about winners in the ill-defined “war on talent”, a few attributes come to mind. First, you’re not apologetic about who you are and what makes your organization tick, so aspirational employee branding efforts are counter-culture and somewhat abhorrent. Second, you use research, data and analytics to study the real actions and resulting outcomes of your candidates and employees. Numbers aren’t scary but instead empower your thinking, decision making or overarching strategic plans. Finally, you are fully transparent about your goals and aspirations. You are running a business and can concisely convey your objectives and how each employee’s cog fits into your wheel of commerce.

A few weeks ago Bill Kutik and several other industry representatives (including yours truly) were invited out to Philadelphia to attend a fairly standard analyst briefing with Kenexa‘s leadership team. My expectations for these events are fairly straight forward – you meet with the executive staff, hear their predictions for the coming year and gather information on product releases, feature specifications, client successes, revenues, etc. It’s a fairly prescribed event and some leave more cynical, others more enlightened, and yet others indifferent to what they saw or heard.

And here’s my top takeaway from the day. Kenexa, if it executes successfully and stays focused, is about to crack the code in this area. This is not something I say lightly and is not guaranteed, so I’ll explain my reasoning below. Know that although my travel and expenses were paid (as they were for all attendees), I received no incentive (financial or otherwise) to write this post.

Back to Philly…

Mid-morning arrived and we were asked to split off into separate tracks depending on our areas of interest. I went with the much smaller recruitment process outsourcing group due to my personal and professional curiousity about this rapidly growing (yet highly confusing) market segment. If you’re interested in what happened in the other track, be sure to read Kutik’s column, Kenexa Puts Its Pieces Together by clicking here. He offered a terrific summation and I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusions.

About eight of us huddled in an extremely warm wood-paneled room in the Union League Club, a Civil War-era time capsule in downtown Philadelphia. Yes, they have a dress code and women’s restrooms appear to be a fairly recent addition. This is not your venue of choice for a diversity conference, believe me. I digress…

I won’t bore you with a lot of what we discussed. Yes, Kenexa is a player in RPO and talent management. Yes, they have a full service solution, global footprint, and so on. That you can find out by reading their literature or visiting their website and it’s all really table stakes for competing in today’s environment. The “Wow!” factor comes when you learn more about their research and how they are deconstructing data-driven market insights.

Kenexa’s Research Institute (KRI) is a bellwether of workforce analytics and an extremely small (but incredibly valuable) portion of Kenexa’s overall infrastructure. If you haven’t heard of them or studied their findings, you’re missing out on some terrific insights, including:

• WorkTrends Studies: KRI has been assessing U.S. employee opinions since the mid-1980s and global trends since 2007. For an example, see For the slim majority of women, work and personal lives are balanced, but not for all.
• The Employee Confidence Index: A forecastable construct for measuring and predicting organizational success. See their white paper here.
• High-Performance Engagement Models: Exploration of the relationship between engagement and financial performance. For an example, see Engagement Trends over Time.

Remember, I’m married to a researcher and understand the value these studies can bring to an organization. But for many, putting that content into the context of their specific organizational needs is a barrier to action and change. And this is where the secret sauce of Kenexa’s new strategy really comes into play.

For several strategic clients, Kenexa has applied its KRI team for the specific purpose of attacking the “quality of hire” question. The insights gathered in this initial consultative research fundamentally change the sourcing strategies and resulting screening and assessment process. The outcome is a “tunnel” versus “funnel” candidate experience with the explicit goal of supporting only quality hires. It is this piece specifically – including competitive market research, top performer research and company culture assessment – that could change the face of recruiting as you know it.

You’re thinking, “But Mark, this stuff isn’t new! I mean c’mon, seriously. They’ll ‘win the market’??” I think it is new, and let me give you an example.

Regeneron is a biopharmaceutical company focused on medicines for the treatment of serious medical conditions. They worked with Kenexa to develop what was at the time a very controversial campaign to attack their market needs. Here’s an extract on the partnership from a recently published piece in the Journal of Organizational Excellence:

“A strategic partnership required that this successful biotech company add, in just one year, nearly 50 percent more employees, including top-notch scientific talent, and then do it again just two years later. A key challenge was to preserve, in the midst of high organizational growth, the unique cultural DNA that has been part of the company’s code for success. The authors describe a major employment branding initiative, which included a cultural assessment based on Jungian archetypes, that enabled the company to position its culture as the key differentiator in its recruitment strategy. They discuss the surfacing and articulation of five key cultural attributes that exemplify the culture and how they are used to attract and select new employees for a strong cultural fit; engage existing employees around the defining values and behaviors needed for success; and define the company’s external brand. They also describe how HR practices have been implemented or modified to sustain these characteristics as part of the organizational fabric.“

Regeneron and Kenexa named this initiative The Five and you’ll see that it’s an extremely candid and transparent representation of who they are, who they are not and what it takes to be successful at their firm. This campaign served as a screen to let candidates know that unless you’re comfortable with these five truths, Regeneron is not the firm for you. Beyond the “five things to know”, this also included a controversial list of reasons why you would not fit into their organization complete with a big DON’T APPLY graphic followed by… “If science isn’t your obsession”; “If you’re content being the smartest person in the room”; “If you’re afraid to fail”; “If you think good enough is good enough”; and “If you need a routine to define you”. I love this approach and you won’t be surprised to learn that scientists responded in droves, some enraged by the idea that they may not be the right fit for Regeneron. It’s brilliant and it worked.

And Kenexa isn’t waiting for HR and recruiting to wake up to their newer strategies. Instead they are forming CEO and board-level relationships to ensure that the criticality of discussions on talent and employee engagement see the light of day.

It’s rare for me to declare a winner and I remain very bullish on Kenexa’s chances of fundamentally changing the talent conversation. However, there are three challenges that they must immediately overcome:

1. Kenexa’s marketing budget is fractional compared to the competition. CEO Rudy Karsan is aware of this issue and knows that, in his words, Kenexa needs to address “how quickly we can expand the microphone“;
2. The Research Institute is thriving under top-notch leaders such as Dr. Anne Herman, but it’s an underfunded group and needs to expand significantly if Kenexa is going to fully capitalize on the opportunity; and
3. Kenexa currently houses a twenty-person employer branding group. I think this is a distraction as this is not (and should not, in my opinion) be a core competency of the firm. I think all stakeholders would benefit from an alliance strategy in the branding space.

I know this was a long one so thank you for hanging in there. Now it’s the time in our program for you to share your thoughts. What do you think of these initiatives? Are they ground breaking or am I ill-informed? What will it take to win the so-called “war on talent”? You’re smarter than I am so share your thoughts below and let’s keep the conversation going.

Is Social Media all that it’s cracked up to be?

Although many operational functions are embracing social media, human resources is left wondering how and if they should participate. We are surveying the market to capture valuable information on these emerging tools. Beyond benchmarking social media use across industries and organizations, we will also answer the following questions:

• How is use of social media changing?
• How are other HR functions using social media?
• Which function owns social media policy and strategy?
• How “deep” are organizations in social media?
• Can you dabble in social media or do you have to be cutting edge?
• How are organizations measuring the benefits of social media?

The survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete and your responses will be kept strictly confidential. We are pleased to provide you with a copy of the findings report in exchange for your participation. The aggregated results will be presented to the market in a variety of formats, including webinars, seminars, white papers and the like.

Take the survey now and add your voice to this important conversation. And if you have questions or comments, either email our Chief Research Officer or feel free to post a message below. Together we will demystify new media and help to clarify the path forward.

I’ve come to realize that due to this phrenetic activity, workers are becoming increasingly frenzied and highly inefficient. And while we stay in constant motion for different reasons, most suffer from what I call  ”the shiny object problem”.

Are we becoming raccoons…

So how do raccoons fit into the shiny object problem? They’re focused, right? Yes, they are, but in that focus lies the core of a common problem. In only seeing one objective, one destination or one outcome, raccoons fall in love with their particular shiny object and will stop at nothing to obtain it, even to their own peril.

I’ve worked with (and for) raccoons many times in my career. They overcommit (whether to an idea, project, initiative, etc.) and will get things done come hell or high water and no one is going to tell them otherwise. Raccoons will show up in the damnedest of places and are tenacious in the pursuit of their goals. They are street smart and extremely creative. And in the end, they will not be satisfied until the object of their affection has been obtained.

However, raccoons can be trapped. Due to their frenzied lack of external ideation they can be brought to a standstill when baited. In business, this comes when the raccoon is asked to get off the treadmill and defend their thesis or business case to an impartial audience. Tenacity is rarely rewarded when one has an inability to represent or even appreciate alternative approaches. But remember to trap raccoons responsibly as they can be ferocious once cornered. No one needs a rabies shot.

[Fans can relive their younger years by reading Where The Red Fern Grows and exploring this popular technique for catching raccoons. You'll make Old Dan and Little Ann proud.]

… or do we actually suffer from ADHD?

Despite the immense amount of research and data supporting childhood ADHD, very little is known regarding the prevalence and pervasiveness of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. A 2006 study estimated adult ADHD at 4.4% with significant correlates for males, those previously married and the unemployed.

The real issue here seems to be a lack of comprehensive diagnostic tools for adults. There are some standard questionnaires available but assessing adults is much more difficult than children. Sure, you can ask a coworker and they’ll likely throw out an eye-rolling diagnosis on the spot — “Jane totally has ADD”. My suspicion is that this is a real problem that is only going to get worse over time, and unfortunately the American Psychiatric Association is about to make a trusted diagnosis more complicated.

A recent article in Psychology Today described a move by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to loosen criteria for adult ADD. Per author Dr. Allen Frances:

“Even now, without the proposed DSM5 changes, adult ADD is a diagnosis that is too easy to get. Perceived difficulties with attention and concentration are extremely common in the general population and the symptoms that define ADD are mostly subjective especially in adults who have usually outgrown the somewhat more objective defining items of hyperactivity and impulsivity. Thus, the first time diagnosis of ADD in adults is usually based on very fallible self perceptions of poor concentration and task accomplishment. Any lowering of requirements will capture many adults who feel the need to be sharper, but who really don’t have serious enough attentional deficits to qualify for a mental disorder. The diagnosis will be especially common in perfectionistic students, in people who have demanding jobs, and in those who have to struggle to stay awake.like long haul truck drivers.“

So what do you do about ADD/ADHD in the workplace? The National Resource Center on ADIHD has a great piece on Succeeding in the Workplace that I’d strongly recommend you read. They offer tips on how to deal with the most common challenges including distractibility, impulsivity, hyperactivity, poor memory, boredom, procrastination, time management, interpersonal issues and difficulty managing long-term projects. I could use help for all of these.

But my caution is this – do not freak out when you read these materials. We live and work in 2010 and chances are that you’ll find bits and pieces of yourself in the descriptions of symptoms for adult ADD. Again, the shiny object problem raises it’s pretty little head.

So where do we go from here?

It’s a good question. First and foremost I’d like your thoughts on whether this is something you or your colleagues are struggling with. Do you suffer from a shiny object problem? Are you a raccoon? Do you think you have adult ADD? If so, how do you deal with the inherent challenges? Or, do you think this is just the way things are in the modern workforce? Regardless of your point of view please share your thoughts below. And remember — let’s stay focused and keep the conversation going.

Conference calls? Killed. In-person meetings? No pulse on this one. Webinars? DOA. Even drinks with friends? Call the coroner.

So why, exactly, is this something to be proud of? And how does one wield this weapon to his or her advantage? Come closer to your screen. Yes, you. Let me explain…

Why You Need This Skill

Time is your number one enemy. You know when someone sighs and says, “I could sure use another 24 hours in the day!” and you politely chuckle? Sure, you hate that saying, but it is a kernel of truth that resonates with most of us.

American Public Media drove this point home in a recent segment on “Marketplace”. It cited a Labor Department report that productivity is at it’s highest level in six years. So those of you who are employed are busier than ever.

This means you don’t have time to listen to that annoying coworker. You need the meeting to either get to the point quickly or cut you loose. You have stuff to do, you need to get to it and you no do not have the luxury of sitting through a painful and endless diatribe on a topic that is either beat to death or meaningless to your life.

And it’s not just in the workplace. It’s also at home and plaguing our children. Team sports, school work and online activities are all contributing factors. In fact, Experian Simmons just released a report stating that, “Today’s American Children Are Busier Than Ever“.

Add to these issues the fact that we sometimes tend to over-intellectualize a topic. You know, beat it to a pulp. And all the while you’re just wishing you could move on with your life! Time to bring our the verbal machete and cut to the quick.

3 Ways To Kill A Conversation

Ok, these may not work for everyone, but I believe they have broad application. The only way to know is to try them out. But like a new cleaning product, you may want to test these in an area of your life that isn’t highly visible before applying it to the mainstream:

1. “Well, there you have it!“:

This one is very effective. After a long and drawn out discussion on a topic, you simply insert yourself into the mix and state in a clear and final voice, “Well, there you have it!“.

The key to this one is to hold out through the shocked pause that will follow. Don’t crack. When in person, have a very upbeat look on your face and even nod gently as if to say, “Think we’ve got this one covered everybody”. If you loose confidence, you can follow it with a quick segue into a topic you want to discuss.

2. “You’ve been so generous with your time.“

The is the gentle let down. You don’t want to hurt their feelings, but you really must move on. This one is funny because if you’ve ever been on the receiving end, it does make you pause and think about how long you’ve been speaking. Reactions will vary, but inevitably there is recognition that time has passed and it’s time to move on. Be prepared for the, “No problem, I have plenty of time” response. If that happens, follow with a quick glance at your watch (if in person) and, “Actually, I need to run“.

It’s clean, it wraps up nicely and no one gets hurt.

3. The Final Proclamation

This one takes some serious cojones. You are about to state the final truth on this topic and need to have confidence. If you’re in a meeting, this is the time to grab your notepad and pen and stand up. If out to dinner or at a bar, this is used right as you excuse yourself for the restroom. Remember, you are powerful and about to say something that is really somewhat trite and meaningless. Want an example? Sure.

Two weeks ago I was speaking with a financial analyst about our market. We were running in circles. He kept stating the same facts and spoke for fifteen minutes without a breath. Having had enough, I took the phone off mute and declared, “This market is fascinating, complex and frustrating.” He paused. Thirty seconds… then nearly a minute. He finally agreed. Conversation over.

Well, there you have it. You’ve been so generous with your time.

Be sure to let me know if these (or other tips and tricks) work for you by sharing in the comments section below. I have brilliant and sly readers and I know your techniques are top notch. Good luck killer and let’s (not) keep the conversation going.

And given today’s environment, it’s unclear whether demand is increasing or decreasing. Just last week the Wall Street Journal ran a story about the economic downturn causing a slump in H-1B applications, while this week BusinessWeek countered with a piece stating that the H-1B lull in visa applications is only temporary. Confused yet? I know I am.

Like many traditional HR processes, this one may be ready for something new. So over the past few months we have been exploring the immigration processing world in intimate detail.

I know you’re jealous.

Perhaps not surprisingly, we’ve found that the majority of services in this area are provided by law firms. And although there are many such firms offering services, there seems to be little variation in what’s provided.

So this is where you come in. If you’re an HR professional who deals with visas and Green Cards for your organization, we’d love to get your thoughts and opinions on the process. As an added bonus, we’ll donate $5 to a selection of charities for each survey completed.

Click here to take the survey

It should only take you ten minutes to complete (I promise!). This is your chance to be heard and mature the market while helping those in need. If this isn’t your cup of tea, please feel free to forward this link to your (lucky) colleagues  - http://bit.ly/imsurvey.

Stay tuned as we’ll be posting an update on our initial findings in the next few weeks!

While we’ve been working on that, a fantastic group of thought leaders have been putting together an event which embodies pushing the status quo - HRevolution. It begins today and I’m honored to be a participant and facilitator on “The Future of HR”. So don’t forget to follow HRevolution on Twitter over the next few days. It’s going to be a great event.

Thanks again for taking the time to participate in our survey. Let’s keep the conversation going.

Given the state of the economy, HR executives are being forced to make increasingly difficult decisions regarding their current and future expenditures. And with open enrollment season right around the corner, many are wrestling with the correct mixture of benefit offerings that are right for their population. This brings us to our guest post by Carol White of Sawtooth Technologies.  In the spirit of transparency, it’s important to know that the only relationship between Inflexion and Sawtooth is a mutual desire to further our industry. Please take the time to read her thoughts and – as always – share your comments and experiences. Take it away Carol!

In HR, do we think of employees as our customers?  Should we?  When it comes to spending our company’s money, it’s our job to maximize employee satisfaction for each dollar we use.

But, how do we know what employees want?  We know about the people who complain to us, and maybe about the people who share compliments when we change a benefit, but how can we be more systematic and intentional about maximizing satisfaction per dollar?

Many companies conduct routine surveys about employee satisfaction, perhaps even having employees rate benefits they are considering offering (or reducing) in hopes of finding out what matters most.  But, often, the results produce ties… people want it all.  As we face decisions about what to offer, we must make trade-offs:  Should we offer better health coverage or a richer 401(k)?  Should our health plan include a lower co-pay or a lower out-of-pocket ceiling?  If costs are the same, which would contribute more to employee satisfaction and retention?

We can do a better job at making these difficult and costly decisions by having our customers (i.e., our employees) make the trade-offs.  Research techniques that are most often employed in product and service development for end-users can also be used with employees.  So, instead of having to guess at the trade-offs, we can measure them.

Two techniques – conjoint analysis and maximum difference scaling (“MaxDiff”) – are used to measure such trade-offs.  Although we cannot give the tutorial on these techniques here, we can provide a short introduction and offer some links.

Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint analysis is often used in service design.  It asks customers (or employees) to select a favorite offering from a set.  Then, it changes the elements of the offers over and over, continuing to ask for favorites.  For instance, employees might need to choose between three hypothetical health plans:

1. $50 co-pay for routine visits; $20,000 maximum out-of-pocket; and no extra services
2. $25 co-pay for routine visits; $50,000 maximum out-of-pocket; and vision and dental
3. $75 co-pay for routine visits; $10,000 maximum out-of-pocket; and dental

As you can see, the employee has to make a trade-off and cannot have the best co-pay, out-of-pocket, and extras.  Through a series of similar questions that would include many other health plan features and trade-offs, we can analyze each person’s responses and quantify his/her value system – how much each level of each benefit is worth.  Then, we can predict the person’s preference for any combination – any health plan configuration.  And, finally, we can combine all responses from all respondents and use a predictive simulator to identify winning combinations that maximize satisfaction/preference at set cost thresholds.  (Click here for more details.)

MaxDiff

In MaxDiff, the employee also makes trade-offs, but they are across individual benefits rather than the combinations of benefits seen in conjoint analysis. A MaxDiff study starts with the list of items we want to prioritize, such as potential employee benefits.  From that list of items, we just show the employee a smaller subset of items at a time and have them choose the most and least important in that subset.  For instance, a question might ask an employee which is the most and which is the least important aspect of their benefits from a list like this:

After asking a series of these questions with different mixes of benefits, and by analyzing patterns of response across the subsets, we can calculate a MaxDiff score for each item, representing the relative importance of each. Benefits that might make sense to take into a MaxDiff could be those which, at a high level, would help us determine which aspects of employee packages are most worthy of investment:  retirement plans, health insurance, life insurance, flexible hours, work-from-home options, etc.  Alternatively, they might be at a micro-level, such as which benefit “extras” are most valued:  free soda, company-provided Friday lunch, monthly parties, 15 minute neck and shoulder massages at lunchtime, weekly yoga classes, etc.  (Click here or here for more details.)

Leading organizations in financial services, temporary staffing, high technology and more have used these advanced research techniques successfully to model employee preferences for health insurance, retirement plans, and compensation package elements.  They have used the results to focus their energies on the aspects of employee benefits that are most important to attracting and retaining talent, to allocate resources wisely, and to select benefits packages that provide the best balance between employee satisfaction and cost.

Carol White has more than 25 years of experience in conducting market research on preferences and needs. Currently, she is a Partner in the Sawtooth Technologies Consulting Group practice, using her expertise to help a wide variety of clients use market research and information to make strategic decisions and take action. You can follow Sawtooth Technologies on Twitter or contact Carol directly at cwhite@sawtooth.com.

Those of you who know me well would agree that I tend to fall on the cynical side of the aisle. And, frankly, it’s a very comfortable place for most bloggers to sit. You can observe with brow furrowed and eye poke at your leisure. Idle fingers leap to action should a Twitter-ready sound bite emerge that makes the speaker look the fool. And believe me when I say that it’s very tempting to drop hand grenades from this comfortable distance while never being accountable for the carnage that ensues.

Despite twenty pages of handwritten notes, a few key thoughts did bubble to the surface. They include the context of the program we attended, reasons the Disney Institute works, and some reasons that it may not. Let’s jump right in.

Content In Context

The Institute offers a variety of programs to a broad range of business professionals. For example, you probably didn’t know that they offer customized, at-the-client-site programs in addition to more traditional, classroom-based training courses. In such an instance, Institute “cast members” (aka employees) parachute into their client sites to perform consultant-like discovery, assess needs, define a specific curricula and engage the client’s audience. The outcomes of these custom programs are designed to materially impact top and bottom line C-level issues. Both parties understand the desired end state while leveraging a wide body of Disney knowledge and business intelligence to address the issue(s) at hand. And unlike off-the-shelf programs, these engagements can range anywhere from a few months to several years.

Open enrollment programs are a completely different ballgame. As the name suggests, anyone can enroll in a wide variety of programs covering an even wider array of general knowledge. It doesn’t matter if you’re a small, medium or large enterprise. It doesn’t matter if you’re a student, a first-time manager, or the CEO of your business. You all go through the same curriculum, participate in the same activities and take the same backstage tours.

Now this may sound like a cattle call, but my sense is that the program we attended was more of an exception than the rule. The five-day program we attended is entitled, “Disney’s Approach to Business Excellence“. This course is only offered once a year and tends to touch lightly on several subtopics that usually require three full days per topic to fully digest. And although we arrived halfway into the program, my impression is that our observations would have applied to the entire week.

Five Reasons It Works

With specific focus on the open enrollment program, let me offer you five reasons the Disney Institute is very effective and well worth your consideration:

1. Storytelling – At its essence, Disney’s is a storytelling culture. Whether waiting in line for a show or sitting in a conference room, there is a story to be told. The Institute attempts to weave lore into learning by sharing such tales many, many times a day.

2. Behind The Scenes – The ability to go underground and “off stage” is one of the more exciting draws to Institute programming. These field-based experiences are memorable and draw theory into Disney’s day-to-day reality.

3. Emotional Connection – No less than ten attendees cried during our time in class. Disney leverages this emotional connection by returning you to your own childhood. The mystery, excitement and magical moments are quite moving and leave you wondering how you can bring the same connection to your business.

4. Brand and Credibility – Disney is banking on Disney. The brand is renowned, and Disney’s business success makes them a living case study for implementation and deployment of their teachings. In fact, I would venture that the Institute would have little to no value without this blatantly obvious connection. If you don’t admire Disney, you shouldn’t bother coming. But if you do admire Disney, you will be in heaven.

5. Location, Location, Location – Although Disney offers “off campus” programs, I cannot imagine experiencing the same amount of value anywhere but in their parks. The Institute is working the issue of transferability as we speak, but this will be a difficult challenge for them to overcome.

Five Reasons It May Not Work

1. Affecting Change – If do you not enter the classroom with specific desired outcomes and the ability to drive change, this may not be the destination for you. Disney relies on a participant’s ability to apply lessons learned without facilitation, so be sure to do your homework and come prepared.

2. Vocation Vacation – Times are tough, so don’t think of this is a boondoggle or time off. Sure, you can treat it as such (and several participants weren’t ashamed to admit it), but don’t be surprised by the reaction when you return to the office with your graduation mouse ears.

3. Inside Out – The facilitators are all seasoned Disney cast members. As such, they bring a cultural understanding that’s second to none. Although they have worked elsewhere earlier in their careers, don’t expect them apply non-Disney teachings during your time together.

4. The Basics – Without the benefit of the Disney connection, the content would be considered a commodity. Lessons are fairly straightforward and the takeaways common to most mid-level management training coursework.

5. Scattershot – We asked the Institute’s leadership team who the target client was for the open enrollment programs. Their answer was mid-level management, so if you sit higher in the executive food chain, you may want to think twice about participation. That being said, the participants we met were all over the map.

Final Thoughts

The facilitators did an amazing job of building rapport with the attendees. As such, satisfaction with the program seemed to be extremely high. Participants were largely attentive, very invested and quite emotionally charged about their experience. Still, I expected more.

My sense is that more is coming. The Institute’s leadership team was extremely interested in our feedback and quite open in sharing some of their future concepts. They have a number of new models and initiatives that are at various stages of maturity. And unlike many of their traditional (and non-traditional competitors), the Disney Institute has an incredible opportunity to shake up the largely stagnant learning and development space. They have permission to play everywhere, but it remains to be seen what bets they will place and which markets they will tackle. They are definitely one to watch, so keep a trained eye out for new releases and initiatives in the coming months. I, for one, will be fascinated to see how the organization evolves.

Please share your thoughts – both good and bad – as well as any questions on our experience. I’m thrilled to have had this opportunity and fully intend to the keep this conversation going.

A few weeks prior to the big meeting, a regional VP of Sales thought it would be hilarious to grab an inside sales rep by his ankles while he was in a bathroom stall. You know… drag him off the toilet and under the partition. So he did it. Hilarity ensued, the inside rep was red-faced and the incident was retired to the annals of our corporate lore.

The day of the big meeting arrived and the inside rep saw his opportunity for revenge. The regional VP was nervous so he decided to use the restroom stall about thirty minutes prior to the session. As you can likely guess, the inside rep snuck in and grabbed the VP by his ankles, pulling with all of his might. The only problem was that he completely tore off one leg of the VP’s suit pants in the process. Hilarity did not ensue. Instead, the 6’4″ VP told the 5’10″ inside rep to take off his pants and give them to him. He promptly complied. When the yelling stopped, the inside rep (in only his boxers) frantically sought a dry cleaner that can mend at a moment’s notice. The VP looked like a giant in children’s clothing. If not for the client meeting, the CEO might have thought it was funny….

Voltaire was right. Common sense is not so common.

Why do we often ignore common sense?

You can read this story, roll your eyes, shake your head in a “What was he thinking!?!” sort of way and see at least a dozen opportunities for someone – anyone! – to have stopped the madness. But that’s the thing about common sense. We know certain activities are a bad idea. We are fully aware of the possible shortcomings of our decisions. So why do we so often find ourselves in situations where common sense was completely ignored?

In his highly acclaimed book How We Decide, author Jonah Lehrer offers this summation:

“The first step to making better decisions is to see ourselves as we really are, to look inside the black box of the human brain. We need to honestly assess our flaws and talents, our strengths and shortcomings.”

But is that how we really make decisions?

Lehrer suggests that we need to put ourselves under the microscope. To pause, take stock, and let the rational brain process information, right? Sounds terrific, but in the real world, we rarely take that kind of time. Take a few lessons Malcolm Gladwell’s wildly popular book “Blink”.

Since the human brain can only hold three to seven pieces of information at a time, Gladwell suggests that we don’t have time to focus on more than a few points, so snap decisions are naturally impaired. You have two seconds to react. More information tends to create “noise” and cloud your judgement. So what do you do? In any number of instances, you may make the wrong decision, but with training, Gladwell suggests you can learn to ignore the noise and effectively teach yourself to react in what we might generalize as a common sense approach.

Should common sense be “common”?

But is common sense always a good thing? Einstein offers a contrarian view, concluding that, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” And Descartes quips, “Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense; no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has“. If you think back through history, what was thought of at the time as “common sense” is now often believed to be absurd and shortsighted.

So should common sense be common? I struggle with this question. On some issues (the Golden Rule, toilet stall dragging), the answer seems painfully obvious. On others (the healthcare reform debate, the plight of the unemployed), common sense is in the eye of the beholder. I think Lehrer was right in suggesting self assessment. Instead of judging everyone else for their so called “lack of common sense”, a simple mirror might do the trick. Perhaps embracing a two second Gladwell-ian flash of reality and your role in it? I’m really not sure.

At a minimum, my common sense lesson from our opening story was this – be prepared to stomp on mysterious hands. In the meantime, try not to get yanked out from under the bathroom stall, share your thoughts on common sense and let’s keep the conversation going.