Human Resources Q & A
By Tim Rutledge
July 13, 2009
The question:
Last week I read something about an algorithm that Google has developed. They say it can identify employees who are more likely to resign than others. It apparently scans through pay history, performance records, and what have you, and diagnoses intent to quit. What do you think?
Tim's Response:
Gobbledy-Google! I can't think of a better reason to start looking for another job than knowing that my employer is trying to read my mind electronically. Maybe Google believes its own hype; string enough computers together and you create a nexus of computing power so vast that it takes on the properties of intelligence. (I used the word "nexus" so you will realize that I'm not a Luddite when it comes to cyberspace. I use other high tech words, too, like "print" and "install.")
It's hard to know where to start in debunking this one. First, and let's just get this one out of the way, there is no link between employee records and intent. None. You knew that, right? Second, Google may read today that I don't intend to quit, but if tomorrow I get a call from a headhunter that sounds really interesting, my intent may change. Google will miss this.
Third, imagine this email from your supervisor: "The Gooquit thingy has fingered you as harbouring thoughts of leaving. Please reply and explain yourself." At this point I'm not waiting for the headhunters; I'm calling them!
Ask and you shall receive
Fortunately, there's an alternative. That's right; if you want to know if someone is thinking about leaving, you can call on a different algorithm. This one's been around for a long time. It's very complex, so much so that people begin to learn how to apply it almost from the moment of birth.
It's called "speech." I imagine Google gave speech a pass because of its advanced age. Anything that's as old as the human race can't possibly be useful. And besides, Google didn't invent it.
I don't mean to oversimplify, but if you want to know if someone has resignation on the brain, you can - wait for it - ask! Yes, it can be as simple as that. Now, to be sure, there are skilled ways of asking, and not so skilled ways. Asking "You're not thinking of leaving, are you?" is probably not the best way to elicit the information.
Finding the right questions
This space has devoted many words to how to identify and keep talent (key employees). I've pointed to retention interviews - the practice of asking key employees (the ones you don't want to face the future without) a series of questions designed to bring out their state of mind vis-a-vis the organization and their work in it.
Here's a question that may really strengthen a key employee's desire to remain with you: "What do you want to be famous for?" After the employee gets over his/her surprise, it might be really interesting to hear the answer. Ask, then, how you can help the employee to move closer to this goal. If your talent believes you are committed to assisting with these dream goals, they'll be much more likely to stay with you.
Systems overload
I've also pointed out that workplace engagement is a product of the work itself and the environment in which the work is performed. If part of the environment is this blessed Google algorithm, my engagement will be affected negatively. When the headhunters call, I'll pick up the phone believing that the grass must be greener somewhere else.
While I'm on the subject, there's another product that's out there making itself indispensible to organizations. It's called the Talent Management System. You enter your employee data into this system and then use it to help with promotion decisions, succession planning, etc. The marketing materials for these systems hint that the system will practically make decisions for you, faster and more accurately than you can. (Consider yourself fortunate if your agency is small enough not to need one of these.)
Debunking time again. First, systems don't make decisions; people make decisions. Spellcheck identifies misspelled words, but it can't read. Talent management systems store employee data and, when commanded, move it around and present it in different combinations. This can be helpful in that it allows people to look at the data from different angles and perspectives. But the system doesn't make decisions.
These Google apps and systems worm their way into organizations because insecure management see them as substitutes for skilled, trained employees. But there is no substitute for skilled, trained employees! You knew that, right? Some managers want to believe (hence, the slant of the marketing materials) that the system will tell them what to do, without the imperfections of human decision-making.
Systems store and manipulate data. They do this very well. But they don't think. Even the desktop computer (Another high tech term. Am I savvy, or what?!) that I'm using right now won't do anything until I decide that it should by hitting "Enter." I have to make that decision because the computer can't.
I'm looking forward to reading about a sudden, unexpected spike in employee turnover at Google. Sorry, @Google.
***********
To submit a question for a future column, or to comment
on a previous one,
please contact editor@charityvillage.com. No
identifying information will appear in
this column. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Tim directly.
Tim Rutledge, Ph.D., is a veteran human resources consultant and publisher of Mattanie Press. You can contact
him at tim_rutledge@sympatico.ca or visit www.gettingengaged.ca.
Disclaimer: Advice and
recommendations are based on limited information provided and
should be used as
a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com
make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability
for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided
in whole or in part within this article.
Visit the Human Resources Q&A
Archive to view past questions.
