The Heisenberg Rules: What HR Can Learn from Breaking Bad (#2 - Affiliation Matters)

Capitalist Note - I finally got around to binge-watching the former AMC hit Breaking Bad on Netflix, which follows high school chemistry teacher Walter White's journey through a lung cancer diagnosis and his subsequent turn to becoming a world-class meth producer.  This series (The Heisenberg Rules) represents what I was reminded of as a HR leader by Breaking Bad.  If you haven't seen the series, you can view a synopsis by clicking here. Spoilers abound in this series.

Rule #2 in the Heisenberg Rules is AFFILIATION MATTERS:

One of the best things about Breaking Bad is the time it takes to develop the primary characters Pinkman in the series.  In my last post in this series, we talked about the emasculation of Walter White. Would he have turned into the monster he became if those around him could/would have acknowledged his high performance?  We'll never know.

Today we move away from Walter White and take a look at my favorite character in the series - Jessie Pinkman.  Here's a description of Jessie: 

Jesse Bruce Pinkman is the deuteragonist of Breaking Bad. He is the former partner of Walter White in the methamphetamine drug trade. Jesse was a small-time methamphetamine user, manufacturer, and dealer. He was also an inattentive student in Walter White's chemistry class, leading to his dropping out. In his mid-20s, Jesse became Walt's business partner in the meth trade. Before his partnership with Walt, he, operating under the pseudonym "Cap'n Cook", added a little Chili Powder to make his methamphetamine stand out in the market.

Walt insisted on making a pure product, however, and thus eschewed the chili powder altogether, patronizingly teaching Jesse how to make "proper" meth. Walt often treated Jesse like a foolish son in constant need of stern correction. Jesse's own family kicked him out because of his drug use. Despite the friction between them, he and Walt have a deep bond of loyalty. Like Walt, Jesse is horrified by the brutality at the higher levels of the drug trade, but does what he thinks is necessary. He wrestles with feelings of guilt about the deaths, all drug-related, of people he's been associated with, especially his girlfriend Jane Margolis. He often attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings to help deal with these feelings.

Jessie's my favorite character because he actually struggles to cope with all the things he sees in the drug trade.  Still, he's a simple kid making a load of cash with few other options available to him professionally.  

Walter White and Jessie are "partners" only in finance.  As the subject-matter expert, Walter has all the power in the relationship.  The green shading above accurately outlines how Walter patronizes Jessie throughout the series, only appealing to him as an equal when there's a murder to be completed to ensure their safety. 

As a result of that treatment, Jessie is what I call, "gettable" for anyone who wants to take the time to drive a wedge between him and Walter.  

Jessie knows that Walter doesn't consider him a true partner.  That means people willing to treat him better than Walter have a chance to turn him to their side. That ultimately happens when Gus, a drug load who Jessie and Walter work for, instructs his henchmen to take Jessie out of the meth lab to run various organized crime errands with them. They even go to the trouble of setting up a fake robbery that Jessie can save others from, which results in praise, deeper connection and - you guessed it - Walter going crazy that their bosses have Jessie doing work other than being his patronized assistant.

When Walter displays his paranoia to Jessie about the new relationship he can't control, it pushes Jessie to trust his new friends more, not less.

Of course, they're all criminals, so what's the point?

The point is that in any organization, AFFILIATION MATTERS. 

Walter's the best at what he does, but Jessie is treated as manual labor, not a partner.  When the drug lords involved need to make Walter feel unstable and at-risk, all they have to do is show Jessie Pinkman the love he doesn't get from Walter:

--come work with us.

--come hang with us.

--seems like you're doing well - nice work!

It's the same blueprint whether you're developing software, running a restaurant, or yes - cooking Crystal Meth.

If you're treating someone valuable on your team like a commodity, just know this - if there's a market for their skills, all it takes is for someone who needs them (or needs to hurt you) to show them love, affiliation and respect.

Once that happens, they're probably gone.  Or as Jessie Pinkman would say, "YO, MANAGING PEOPLE 101, B***H".


3 Ways to Brainstorm and Reserve The Right To Tell Someone Their Idea Sucks....

If you're responsible for leading a team through change, you ultimately need ideas about what you should do given challenges your company or team are going through.

That means you're going to ask for ideas - usually in the space most often described as brainstorming.

When we lead our teams through brainstorming, we like to say "there are no bad ideas". Ideas

Of course, that's wrong.  Often times, most of the ideas aren't great, and a few suck.

Which begs the question:

"How do you lead a team through brainstorming and keep your ability to tell people their idea IS NOT A GOOD ONE?"

That's hard, right?  Here's my list of 3 ways to do this:

  1. Do a better job of describing the problem/issue and providing a couple of key features the right solution will deliver. This one's on you. You not only need to define what the problem is, you need to define the pain that problem causes, which allows you to provide simple features any solution has to deliver.
  2. Put all ideas on a visual medium.  It's called peer pressure.  If you know your idea is a throwaway, you're less likely to give us a half-baked thought before you flesh it out a bit. Team members that go through a second and third level self-evaluation on any initial idea (often times in under 1 minute!) before sharing provide better ideas and don't hijack the groups.  Putting the ideas on a visual space creates the pressure you need for people to troubleshoot their own ideas for a minute before sharing.
  3. Use a form of Idea Evaluator to guide the team through an assessment of ideas.  I didn't create this, I've seen in multiple places.  Use a evaluation space to talk about the Cost vs. Value each idea provides.  Guide a process where the team - rather than you alone - evaluates each idea and places it on the right spot on the X vs Y of Cost vs Value.  Let the team do the work of evaluating the idea and putting it in the "unlikely to be implemented" category.

You don't have to be the bad guy/gal when it comes to telling someone their idea is average at best.  Define the problem deeper (most of us aren't good at this), make the brainstorming process visual (most of us do this part), then use a Cost/Value chart to guide the team in a conversation to identify the best ideas.

Brainstorming on problems is good. You being Darth Vader and killing the ideas/hope of someone on your team alone is bad.  Broaden your approach and make your stormtroopers evaluate the ideas of their peers.

May the force be with you, my dark prince/princess. 


UI Design: Do Amazon Echo and Google Home Have Anything to Teach Us About The Power of Being Nice?

I ordered a Google Home a few months ago.  It's an interesting if not life-changing first step into the intersection of AI and digital assistants.  I'm a big user of the Google suite of products, and I smiled when I found out that I had to say "OK Google" or "Hey Google" to activate the digital assistant.  Google has a nice way of making a lot of their products softer than they have to be.

That softness makes them less threatening when you realize Google has a lot of your information.  Like when I got into my car a few weeks ago to drive 2.5 hours to Atlanta, and Google told me what the traffic on my route would be - before I told it where I was going.

Gulp.

But back to that implied soft side - which makes Google products seem "nice".  Johna Paolino recently wrote a piece on Medium where she compared Google Home vs the Amazon Echo, specifically on how each drove a different type of vibe/interaction with her and her boyfriend:

"A year ago, my boyfriend got an Amazon Echo. I remember first using the product, dazzled at its ability to process requests from across the room. Alexa, play us some music. Home vs echo

As the year progressed, the wow factor faded quickly.

The product features continued working to their full effect, but I felt very unsettled. I found myself constantly agitated as I observed my boyfriend bark commands at this black cylinder.

Alexa, turn off the lights. Alexa, set my alarm for 8am.

This declarative speech was so incongruous with how he interacts with me, with how he interacts with any human.

Was it how he was asking?

Was it that she was female?

Was I jealous?

Paolino goes on to describe her reaction is driven by two factors - the name of the Amazon product and conversational triggers.  The echo is driven by a female name, and Paolino was taken aback by hearing her boyfriend bark orders at a female voice.  Commenters on her post rightfully let her know that you can change the trigger to the name Amazon or Echo.  That problem can be solved. 

But the use of conversational triggers is interesting to me.  Using "OK" and "Hey" as softening factors is meaningful. It means that people are going to approach communication with Google Home in a softer fashion than they will with the Echo, and that's an important factor when the technology is far from perfect.

That same conversation tone transitions to the messaging we use in HR.  If you're an HR leader and have allowed your teams to use the default messaging that was provided with your ATS and/or Performance Management system, you've missed an opportunity to sound human.  We're rolling out a system right now and the stock messages sound like a mix between Mussolini and the worst HR Manager you've every encountered wrote the default messaging.

If Google Home tells us anything, it's that it's pretty easy to put a human side on your brand.  If you're not perfect, it probably matters more than you think that people like you in HR and are willing to cut you some slack when you mess up. 

Try making HR communications sound like normal people talk.  
"

 


Here's a Quote To Make You Look Smart About The Relationship Between Technology and Jobs...

"THE FUTURE HAS ALREADY ARRIVED.  IT'S JUST NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED YET"

--William Gibson

Capitalist Note - This one works no matter what your politics are.  Use it to make the non-HR members of your leadership team look pedestrian compared to you. You're welcome. H/T to Steve Boese.


Could Giving Your Employees WeWork Memberships Help Your Recruiting Efforts?

All of us have recruiting challenges, often times centered around technology.  

At the same time, our employees can long for a bit more freedom - to work remotely, or even just to break the monotony of the day to day grind.. We-work-transbay-2

Of course, the employees we should seek to satisfy related to that need for freedom are often of the same ilk as the ones we have the biggest need to recruit.

What if I told you there might be a way for you to satisfy both those needs at the same time?

Microsoft is making a co-working play that looks to meet a bunch of needs at the same time:

  1. Giving remote workers a place to go from time to time.
  2. Giving office workers a place to go to mix it up.
  3. Allowing both those groups access to a potentially strong sales and recruiting source.

Stay with me. Here's more from Inc.com:

"Microsoft is dipping a toe into the coworking world by giving nearly 30% of its New York employees WeWork memberships.

The company plans to take 300 WeWork memberships -; WeWork's basic, flexible membership plan -; in two WeWork spaces in New York. Those 300 employees make up 70% of Microsoft's global marketing and sales teams in New York.

The company also has 40 employees working in a private office in an Atlanta WeWork, and will have employees working out of WeWorks in Philadelphia and Portland as well.

But the move to coworking spaces represents something of a shift for Microsoft, which has lately been redoubling its outreach to startups and developers. Donovan said Microsoft employees will now have more flexibility and mobility but will also bring them closer to the startups working out of WeWorks.

"We’re a big fan of startups," Donovan said. "We were one ourselves at the beginning, so we know what those early days were like. We’ve been lucky enough to scale as a business and become a large enterprise, but certainly Satya [Nadella] is ensuring that we retain that growth mindset and that early hunger that we had as a business."

The partnership with Microsoft also falls in line with some changes afoot at WeWorks nationwide. The company said it's seen an uptick in enterprise clients -; which it defines as large companies with more than 500 employees -; moving some of their employees to WeWork locations. The startup, which was last valued at $16.9 billion, has been "fleshing out" its offerings for bigger companies."

For the uninitiated, WeWork is an American company which provides shared workspace, community, and services for entrepreneurs, freelancers, startups and small businesses. WeWork designs and builds physical and virtual communities in which entrepreneurs share space and office services and have the opportunity to work together.

It's an interesting stroke by Microsoft - give employees more flexibility, remote workers a place to go, salespeople a new audience to sell from, and a place for all to recruit from.  From a corporate perspective, it reduces the need for a long term commitment to office space by outsourcing that burden.

Don't forget- sales and recruiting don't have to be direct, meaning your prospects don't have to be at WeWork - referrals from the people you meet at a co-working facility work just fine as well.

Exploring co-working seems like a smart hedge by Microsoft.  I'm betting some of you are in major markets where coworking is a thing. If so, you'd likely be early to the game from a recruiting perspective if you experimented with getting some of your key employees co-working at least one week a month.

What's that?  Scared your people might get recruited? 

They already are -I talked to them last week.  They took the interview from a cube IN YOUR OFFICE.

 


VP of Equality Is The Rationalized Replacement for VP of Diversity at Salesforce...

Capitalist Note - I originally posted this a couple of weeks back over at Fistful of Talent. While some of you read both FOT and the Capitalist, not all of you do - so I'm reposting here. Take a look, interesting stuff from Salesforce as they seek to change the narrative from Diversity to Equality.  Some will be frustrated, some will think it's brilliant. Here's what I know - Salesforce is playing OFFENSE, not defense, on this issue.

If you don’t like the answer, you can always change the question. Especially if you have money. Lots of money.

There’s a lot of companies across America that struggle with Diversity hiring.  They’re under-utilized in multiple job families, and even as they try to attract diverse talent, it hasn’t gone great.  After all, not everyone wants to work for your company.  Throw in the fact that you can’t pay new hires anything they want without messing up your comp equity, and most companies don’t make the progress they’d like to.

So Salesforce did what any company with loads of cash would do.  They changed the answer, and thus the question.  Turns out the answer isn’t more DIVERSITY, it’s more EQUALITY.

Confused?  You’ll get it soon. More from TechCrunch:

“It’s important for tech companies to have at least one voice at the senior leadership table that advocates for issues around equality, diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case for many companies in the tech industry. Salesforce, a company that said a year ago that a major focus for it was “the women’s issue,” recently became an exception to the rule with the hiring of Tony Prophet, its first-ever chief equality officer. Two weeks into his role, Prophet sat down with me to chat about Salesforce’s evolution from a focus on diversity and inclusion to an overall focus on equality. 

“The notion of being chief equality officer — now that was very thoughtful and deliberate on Salesforce’s part and on Marc’s [Benioff] part versus being chief of diversity or chief of inclusion because you can have a diverse workplace or a diverse culture in many parts of America that are very diverse but are hardly inclusive and there’s hardly equality,” Prophet told me. “We want to go beyond diversity and beyond inclusion to really achieve equality.”

Translation?  Tech companies have huge issues finding enough females and minority to work at their company, especially in the bay area.  If you can’t figure out diversity but can afford to achieve equality when it comes to pay, odds are people are going to be less critical of you.

Earlier this year,Salesforce chairman and CEO Marc Benioff revealed that his company spent about $3 million in 2015 to equalize compensation across the company, closing the tech giant’s gender pay gap.

Here’s a chart showing Salesforce’s workforce diversity (email subscribers click through for graph):

Salesforce diversity

Translation – The company still has a lot of work to do, but by changing the conversation to equality, not diversity, they’ve effectively changed how they’re measured by the outside world.

I’m not saying diversity hiring in tech isn’t important. I am saying that Salesforce is working towards a related, equally important goal and now will be considered in a different light than other major tech companies, whom I would expect will follow suit soon enough.

If you can’t find enough diverse hires, it makes sense to ensure the ones you have (including women) are paid on equal footing to everyone else.

Then you obviously want to get your message out.

At Salesforce, that message includes the fact they’re changing the conversation from diversity to equality, with an emphasis on pay equity.

Again, I’m not saying either approach is right – but Salesforce has created a master stroke to relieve some of the diversity hiring pressure and is going all in, with first mover advantage and everything that comes with it.

I’m a cynic on most things.  Even the cynic in me has to respect how Salesforce is controlling the narrative here.


Amazon Is The Model For Investing For Your Company's Future

Last week, I talked about the collapse of Monster in the job board wars, which basically came down to them not attempting to invest in the future - even if they weren't sure what the future was.

That's part of the deal when you spend profit on R&D.

What can you learn from that as a leader or HR pro?  Investment in the future is kind of important.  So the next time you need 2K to send some employees to training, here's some more "guilt fodder" you can use with the powers that be to at least get some crumbs for training.

Amazon. I've written before about how they invest so much in R&D that net profits are almost always close to zero, which is amazing.  Check it out in the chart below from Business Insider (email subscribers click through on post title for picture):

Chart-of-the-day-amazon-revenue-profits

Here's what I wrote three years ago:

Amazon has managed to reinvest in the business to the point that they have basically no net income run rate 18 years later with a 60 Billion revenue run rate.  That type of infrastructure investment is what should make FedEx and UPS pretty damn distrustful of Amazon.  60 distribution centers?  You think at some point they just might add planes and vans and cut the middle man out?

Guess what was announced this week?  Planes at Amazon. Check it out:

The first freighter jet to carry the Amazon brand is primed for its public debut in Seafair’s sunny skies, after making a stealthy flight from New York to Seattle in the middle of the night.

The plane, emblazoned with “Amazon” on its belly, “Prime Air” on its sides and the Amazon smile logo on its tail, will fly over Lake Washington during the Boeing Seafair Air Show at around 1:15 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Until now, the big reveal was kept so hush-hush that Seafair organizers referred to the event only as a “Special Guest Flyover.”

The Boeing 767-300 jet is part of what will eventually become a fleet of 40 planes, transporting cargo between Amazon’s distribution centers for delivery to customers. Clark said the planes will mesh with Amazon’s network of 4,000 branded truck trailers, the Uber-like Amazon Flex delivery system, and the services provided by transportation partners such as UPS and FedEx.

You think the people at UPS and FedEx aren't thinking about the eventual hole in revenue that's going to be caused by Amazon creating its own shipping network?  You think they aren't wondering if at some point Amazon isn't going to try to take ALL THE BUSINESS?

Interesting times.  Monster yawned when Indeed started scraping every job they could find for free.  I'll guarantee you UPS isn't yawning about Amazon's planes.


CHANGE: Randstad's Purchase of Monster Proves You Should Budget R&D to Kill Your Primary Business...

This one is about change and the conversations we get into as HR leaders related to strategy.

It's also about change management in a way that HR pros will understand.  Ready? Let's go.

Randstad just bought Monster for $423M.  Does that sound like a good deal to you? Here are some more detail from TechCrunch:

"Today Randstad Holdings, an Amsterdam-based human resources and recruitment specialist, announced that it would acquire job hunting portal Monster Worldwide, for $429 million in cash. The deal works out to $3.40 per share in cash and is a premium on Monster’s share price at closing on Monday of $262 million."

But before you label it a good deal, consider the following:

"It is a far cry from the heady days of 2000 — when Monster, which had gone public soon after being founded in 1999 (itself the result of a merger of two early job startups), had a share price of over $91 and a market cap of nearly $8 billion. Even in 2007, when its stock was around $51, Monster was valued as high as $5.5 billion."

To really get your head around that, consider the following chart of Monster's stock (email subscribers click through, you'll want to see this one):

Monster stock chart

Translation: DAAAAAAAAAAMN.

Let's think about that chart a little bit and try to learn from it as HR leaders.  The older we get, the more we discover that nothing is forever.

Monster is the HR version of Blockbuster.

There were two very fat phases of Monster's existence - namely 2001 and 2007.  At any point, Monster could have broken off some R&D funds and, in addition to pumping you for as big of a job board buy as possible, could have been thinking what the future held for them.

The future ultimately arrived in the form of Indeed, the power of SEO in directing traffic to a careers site, LinkedIn, social and a thousand niche job boards.  

Monster was late to the game on a bunch of trends.  I like to think of the downfall of Monster in this way - over time, Indeed redefined the job posting with their SEO model and the subsequent sponsored listings.  LinkedIn obviously owned the database and even fringe players like Glassdoor made inroads by owning company reputation.

Monster protected the cash cow.  To be fair, it's happened to so many companies you can't blame Monster.

But from an OD perspective?  How do you not only emphasize funding R&D when times are good, but how can you make sure that R&D spend is focused on eventually killing the cash cow of your company?

Those are hard questions, but the example - near and dear to the heart of HR that Monster provides - is too good not to share.

Monster=Blockbuster.  Monster=RIM/Blackberry.  Monster=Kodak.

Harsh but true.  


People Who Create Find New Ways To Thrive. People Who Manage Process Top Out. That's Life.

To say that I was a little late watching "The Wolf of Wall Street" is an understatement.  Released in 2013, I didn't see it until last week and then suffered through a 4-hour FX version that had 5 minute commercial breaks.  Thankfully, it was DVR time.

I was underwhelmed by the movie.  I get it- Jordan Belfort is a pathological criminal who we're supposed to go back and forth between hating and admiring - "Look! Jordan's great at pumping the troops up!! I just wish he didn't need a half pound of blow to do it, don't you????"

So the movie was a wash for me - right up until the end.  That's when two scenes that underscore a couple of big lessons on talent play out that saved it in my eyes.

To understand and put the final scenes in context, you have to remember that there's a boat scene a little past halfway in the movie when Belfort invites a FBI agent on the boat to try and bribe him.  The FBI agent is played by Kyle Chandler (the coach from Friday Night Lights).  In the scene, Belfort lets the FBI agent know that he has information on the agent's background - that he started out as a stockbroker, but got out early.  He then asks the FBI agent if he ever looks around the subway car when he's on his way home and wonders what might have been - a straight up call to the agent's relative poverty.  The scene ends with Belfort unsuccessful in his bribery attempt.

Flash forward to the end of the movie.  Belfort goes to trial and is convicted and taken into custody.  Two scenes happen after that that underscore the following reality:

People Who Create Find New Ways To Thrive. People Who Manage Process Top Out. That's Life.

Here are your scenes:

-The FBI Agent (Chandler) is riding home on the subway - either that night or the next day - and reads the paper with the headline about Belfort's conviction and sentence.  With Mrs. Robinson from Simon and Garfunkel playing in the background, he looks up from the paper, looks around the car at all the people grinding it out and obviously remembers Belfort's question to him about "what might have been."

-The end of the movie features Belmont's supposed career reinvention after he's released from prison - guess what?  He's now embarked on a speaking career as a sales trainer for people willing to pay 1K to hear him speak - so he can help them unlock the sales tiger within.  Classic.

My take is pretty simple.  It goes to show how unfair the world can be when a criminal can reinvent themselves and have a successful career taking money from people AFTER he's released from prison for the same thing.

But life's not fair. In the talent game, those who have the ability to create within their field will always find new ways to perform and earn.  Those who can't?  Well, they run the risk of topping out in what they do.  

As I get older, I'm no longer willing to applaud the Belforts of the world.  But it underscores a pretty important point to what the market values most - creation of value, OR the perception of creation of value.  I'm not celebrating it, but in the end of this movie, that's your payoff for suffering through a bunch of drug usage and the celebration of ripping people off.

The end of the movie appears below (email subscribers click through for video).  Push the dial ahead to :31 if you're in a hurry, 3 to 4 minutes of video for the perspective - worth your time.


HR Technology Conference Preview: How Many Silos of HR Tech Exist? Too D**n Many...

I'm running a panel at the HR Technology Conference in Chicago in October.  As I've said before, this is my favorite conference in our industry - the perfect mix of HR and Talent topics with solutions and conversation enabled by technology. Click here to get the early bird discount, which ends on 7/27/16.

The shows runs from October 4th through the 7th.  Here's a description of the panel I'll be moderating:

Mega Session: Two Decades, Four Tech Revolutions and Billions of Dollars Later — Why Is Hiring Still So Hard?

Great HR leaders understand the best talent wins. With that in mind, investments in advanced technologies to “solve” recruiting — or at least to make it easier, faster, more efficient and cheaper — have been a hallmark of the HR and HR technology landscape for over two decades. Starting with the first major online job boards, to the emergence of enterprise ATS solutions and the rise of LinkedIn, to more recent developments like video interviewing and mobile capability, there's been no shortage of technology designed to make finding, engaging and hiring candidates easier. But despite significant investments in recruiting technologies, organizations still report that hiring has never been more difficult, with the average time to fill an open position reaching historic levels. You'll learn about the modern recruiting challenge, how technology has evolved to help meet that challenge, and how to best leverage your investments in recruiting technology to achieve better outcomes.
 

In addition to my session, there's lots of good stuff that's on the agenda.  Here's one highlight I plan on attending:

More from John Sumser at HR Examiner:

A presentation that describes the universe of HR Tech and the most effective paths through the conference itself. Here’s the session description:

CS1: HR Tech: An Orientation to the Conference and All Its Possibilities
Wednesday 05 October
11:00 AM to 12:00PM
If you’ve never attended the HR Technology Conference, this is where to begin your adventure. John Sumser, who has been orienting people to the industry for two decades, will help you maximize your time and your return on investment. He’ll cover all of the elements of HR technology and how they fit together. Plus, give you an overview of the HR technology landscape to help you determine which areas of HR tech you are most interested in learning more about so you can design your ideal conference experience. You’ll know which sessions to attend and which exhibitors not to miss. As a bonus, each person attending the session will get a copy of Sumser’s groundbreaking report, “Optimal HR Tech Stack.”

As I looked around, it became clear that no one has produced an interesting map of the entire HR Technology terrain recently. So, I figured I’d make a stab at it.

So far, my outline has 70 distinct silos. For each element, there is more than one vendor offering a standalone tool to solve the problem. I’ve placed the current version at the bottom of this piece.

Starting next week, I’m going to try to build the following elements for each silo:

  • A short narrative describing the silo
  • A list of vendors who offer best in breed solutions
  • A list of vendors who offer the element in their suite
  • A few of the current trends in the area
  • A sketch of the future for the area.

Wish me luck.

What's crazy about this is John is saying he's ID'd 70 distinct silos that each have at least one vendor offering a standalone product/service to meet the need in question.

That's crazy - I've got to see that session.

Hope you can join me at the HR Technology Conference in Chicago this October. Click here to register and get the deepest discount