Simulation and Gen Y Recruitment

One of the more intriguing developments in our recent history is the burgeoning interest in simulations as a route to attracting millenials. The reported expectations of Generation Y – such as in the recent Deloitte report which credited them with desiring ‘experiences over careers’ –  has precipitated an urgent brand of soul-searching for many companies and it seems the ‘war’ for talent is entering a new strategic phase.

There are perhaps a handful of companies globally which have the luxury of hand-picking future employees but, even there, we have noticed a growing recognition that the fluidity and transience of the global talent market requires a distinctly different solution. The expense of hiring the wrong people, misplacing them or coping with churn have always been major challenges for companies but beginning from a perspective which acknowledges that you must accept this as a natural state of affairs whilst raising your game to ensure you are attractive enough even to feature in Gen Y’s short term outlook is an unnatural development. It feels wrong. The logic has always been that if they are well rewarded and progressing, in both skills and position, then longer tenures which begin to deliver real ROI for organisations is possible.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that the majority of new talent still require significant input and investment from the company before they begin to resemble the employee they thought they were hiring. This is a natural consequence of learning organisational culture and the decision rules which prevail there more than anything else, and it is not uncommon to find this is a blind spot for organisations who are surprised to find they have such rules in place, and that they dominate.

In our simulations recently we have built in aspects of hiring management teams based on diversity of skill sets, deliberately designed to surface a discussion of the skills and qualities which are necessary and desirable. What we find is that companies are used to hiring in their own image. A manager with an unfilled role in their team is delighted when any new candidate can hit the ground running with little or no input from them beyond standard on-boarding requirements. This is not to disparage hard pressed management who, until that point, have been accepting additional duties themselves or heading off mutiny from their increasingly burdened staff. But in the larger scheme of Strategic HRM it leads to regressive thinking. To give a specific example: when can you risk taking on the creative and innovative applicant at the expense of the veteran? When does a background in internet start-up suddenly become compelling to the insurance director? We are constantly told that innovation and entrepreneurship are qualities in high demand but the language and vocabulary used to define them – and so make them scaleable – does not exist.

Now we are being approached to build simulations purely for recruitment. Where companies dealing with literally thousands of applications from graduates need a filtering process which does more than simply manage the process but is multi-sided, particularly where it both promotes the company and simultaneously assesses candidate capability. In that context, simulation suddenly seems an obvious solution. In one example, a construction firm will have tens of thousands of college graduates in North America apply and be invited to progress through a multi-stage simulation which uses high-quality bespoke video content to introduce the company, sell the brand and challenge potential employees in a highly contextualised environment. The applicant will understand in a very short space of time precisely what the culture and values of the company are, though crucially not through a form of broadcast but because they have to resolve project dilemmas, both practical and ethical, which they could encounter in the real world. They literally have an opportunity to work there, and imagine themselves working there, at one of the earliest stages in the recruitment process.

Features such as live video feedback based on performance further personalise a process that can be typically remote at first. And, of course, we are gathering data. Masses of it. We can determine what the base level of knowledge in some categories will be. We can identify hotspots of behaviours which can be analysed in relation to demographics or even geographical information. The technology is even sophisticated enough to build profiles which can be matched to an ideal model prior to launch.

For a generation reared on technology and gaming it is an approach that has huge draw. As a differentiator from competitors it could be a game changer.

The Future of Learning: Reprise

As is often the case with blogging the narrative takes on a life of its own and solutions to problems you were only unconsciously aware of surface seemingly of their own volition. Such a happenstance occurred during the last blog The Future of Learning where I began to outline a possible future for education which drew naturally on intersecting themes around the requirements of business, online learning, MOOCs and the role of universities in a rapidly evolving sector.

It is generally accepted that business schools (which are a particular focus of this writer) are deficient in delivering the type of educational experience which produces potential employees with the range and depth of skill-sets which employers value. Yet since those same employers continue to confer value on the degrees which universities offer and, in particular, those from renowned institutions there is obvious inertia. For their part, the universities would rightly point to the need for individual disciplines to understand the fundamentals of any area which, in essence, guides the degree format at both undergrad and postgrad levels.

My solution, albeit hastily prepared and proposed, suggested that a greater role is required for organisations themselves and I feel that requires deeper exploration and explanation now that the idea has settled to some degree in my mind. What am I proposing? Well, essentially, an alternate route for employees to gain the skills required without the loss of status that a high-quality degree provides. This is set against a backdrop of the following emergent themes dominating the education discussion:

• Talent shortage: Employers are impatient for employees with the right ‘mix’ of ability. There is no doubt they’d happily forego a candidate’s ability to write 3,000 word essays citing extant literature for someone with demonstrable interpersonal skills, fluency in communication and creativity.
• Technology: The Internet has transformed education with the sheer scale, scope and variety of information available. MOOCs and online learning of all kinds are but the first attempts to make sense of how it should be channelled
• Game based learning: Regardless of definition, the employment of game mechanics – particularly as they apply to non-traditional game environments – is a powerful force. Simulations, immersive virtual worlds and gamification all leverage a natural desire to master challenges which are compellingly designed. Its beauty is that the learning takes place irrespective of conscious application.
• Learner autonomy: the sheer cost of education coupled with accessibility to information is driving individuals to question the value of traditional routes through education to employment. As soon as a viable alternative emerges they will leap in their thousands.

In a piece for Deloitte, Josh Bersin states:

“The war for talent is over, and the talent won.”

This sets the scene for a 66 page document which points to the need for business to create an ‘experience’ rather than a career in order to retain their talent. The thought which immediately came to me here was that firms need to go further back in the ‘value chain’ of education, to nurture a sense of belonging for employees which is synonymous with their development as individuals and the opportunities created for them. In accord with this theme, an HBR article by Monika Hamori and Burak Koyuncu points to the expectation gap between top young managers and their experience with companies where they receive less support, coaching and formal training – by some distance – than they expect. Most last less than 28 months. This creates a vicious cycle where employers do not invest in costly training and mentoring in case employees leave, only to force them out by failing to meet their expectations.

We then have both employers and universities in an increasingly precarious position as individuals exert control over the way they are educated and treated within the workplace. In reality they are two sides of the same coin. We intuitively recognise that our development transcends environments such as formal education and the workplace and, naturally, this materialises as a dissatisfaction with both when they fail to deliver. Actually, it has always been a common complaint of students that there is a palpable disconnect between education and the world of work. Paradoxically, this improves with seniority as companies become more reliant on Corporate Education to translate research insights which can help them make sense of their business. In my own experience, individuals who are selected for the type of high-level investment education programmes which accompany change initiatives are all too aware of the company’s investment in their personal development. For the rest, the willingness to trade jobs with little regard for the organisation will be followed by a more vociferous challenge to the universities to provide an experience which matches their expectations. Namely, flexibility and choice at a reasonable cost.

I have always thought that the failure of online education can be explained by the fact that individuals also want the social experience of attending a university and the friendships they expect to make there. Fundamentally, all of us want to share our learning experiences with others. We are nothing if not social animals which is why online environment cannot compete even when they are highly personalised. But I’m also beginning to think it is simply because no alternative reasonably exists.

As much as 4 years ago PwC reported that failure to retain talent was costing businesses in the UK £42bn. That’s a staggering sum and unlikely to have dropped in the interim. Presuming that much of that talent was educated at university where students can now expect to pay a minimum of $58,000 the two have a reason to become more invested in a solution. As an experiment, I would like to see some top organisations across multiple disciplines partner with universities to offer a different route to employment operating somewhere between an intern programme and formal university course. A natural question – and desire no doubt – would be to try to rationalise where such a course would sit in relation to existing qualifications. This credit driven approach would be a mistake I believe. Instead, the outputs should be far more holistic. Almost a 360 assessment of the individual based on their abilities across multiple skills and intelligences, both cognitive and non-cognitive.

Let’s assume that Google offered a fast-track degree standard qualification which lasted 2 years instead of 4. Before even beginning to imagine the content or delivery channel just consider what you might think of an individual who has been selected and subsequently graduates. Would the qualification/experience have currency in the job market even without a full understanding of what it contained? Absolutely. And I would bet my house that the student would think so too. In such a world, paying for the course itself becomes as arbitrary as the decision to pay for a university education. It would just automatically make sense. Google’s investment could be mitigated to some degree by ensuring students complete a period of time in work beyond the end of the formal learning process. To be frank, I would expect this to be entirely unnecessary. Compared with friends attending lectures with 300 people crowded into a hall and an exam diet to look forward to (with 5 years of past papers demonstrating how little it has changed!) the Google student is likely to be as driven to remain with the company as they were to join. The content of the programme itself could reflect the real issues and projects which the organisation is constantly addressing. Its format could be revolutionary. The universities could still have a role, supplying some of the key theory which supports and underpins the learning process. The difference, of course, would be that it now has a context within which to excite the learner. My favourite example of this kind of thinking was a game design course where ten year olds were introduced to physics simply because they wanted their game to drop something on somebody’s head. The fact that it was physics, math and code that provided the solution was immaterial. They were the building blocks necessary to get the job done. Consider, also the scope for such an approach beyond the multinational. SMEs, through organisations such as Chartered bodies and business associations, could collaborate to offer their own version, built around their own needs. Arguably, it should attract the same funding from governments that formal education does where those systems persist, such as the UK.

In this model the student does not have to worry that they are not being prepared for work since everything they do will have a workplace focus, their investment is safe. Their future secure. The university finds a viable, long term outlet for its expertise where there must always be a place for our collective knowledge. The organisation steps back in the value chain of education and has an opportunity to build a real and tangible relationship with learners through the formative years of tertiary education. They will learn a huge amount about their motivations and their desires, their expectations, and use this to equip a new generation with the necessary tools for success. Rapid. Effective. A model for the future of learning.

The Future of Learning

In the last days I’ve read a host of perspectives on learning all of which have left a sense of unease. It’s borne of uncertainty. The impact of technology on learning is essentially the driver, and to listen to commentators such as aconventional or Stephen Downes the days of the university are numbered. I’m not so sure, but I’ll come back to it later. What’s certain is that our understanding of learning as a process in itself is ill-prepared for the shift in learning domains. What I liked most is where the two individuals diverge: for Nick the MOOC is already (in his words) a ‘zombie’ conversation and is incompatible with a real discussion on learning; for Downes he points to the extraordinary success of some very niche courses such as Norvig and Thrun’s artificial intelligence MOOC at Stanford which had 250,000+ subscribers and tens of thousands who finished. His point being that where there is demand for niche topics people will come in their droves.

The common thread, of course, is that learning is no longer synonymous with institutions and there is a very definite path toward a horizon where companies no longer hire on the strength of a piece of paper from a select group of universities. For someone who is affiliate faculty at two universities and teaches MBA and MSc students this is bound to lead to some disquiet. But then, in one of the courses I deliver its entire purpose is to demonstrate to MBAs that the findings from research (conducted with just about every leading corporation) cites ‘interpersonal skills’ as the most sought after quality. In fact, our discussion begins from an explicit acknowledgement that the theory on finance, marketing, strategy, HR and so forth will be no more than an expected baseline. To differentiate oneslef is to demonstrate skill with people. Does this mean the students are being duped? What should the course contain – if there is to be one at all – if not the theory, both current and historical, which shapes these disciplines? As an ex-MBA student I would happily admit that much of what I was taught and read endlessly over two years is long forgotten. And yet, there can be no doubt that I emerged from the course more equipped than I was. There have been countless occasions since in my consulting work where theory has suddenly leapt from a dark corner in the mind to illuminate some issue. To give me a framework for understanding which felt necessary at the time.

Nick from aconventional will point to the immediacy of learning. The instantaneous nature of how we actually learn the things that matter, and our tremendous deficiencies with memory which make a mockery of the system of education most of us have experienced throughout our lives. As Sir Ken Robinson has wonderfully reminded us it is part of a system made for an era that is now a memory. To illustrate my own thoughts I’ll use a local example: the Scottish Government introduced their Curriculum for Excellence to revamp education from early years through to the final stage of high school. In its own right the document produced was laudable. Brimming with precisely the kind of aspirations we’d all hope school could deliver. The problem unfortunately, is that the universities expect students to attain a specific level of qualification (Highers) which they are reluctant to change. This was not unexpected since the system had been working perfectly well for decades, producing students capable of completing the degrees which are designed from the same principles of learning. To shift from this dynamic will take something spectacular. In short, until the currency of a degree is no longer valued by firms the status quo will persevere. And since companies have very little alternative when they want some insight into the abilities of future employees then we become locked in self-fulfilling circle.

Yet technology offers a way out. The democratisation of learning offered by MOOCs and the efficiency of the Internet to deliver instantaneous answers and instruction on just about any topic are powerful levers which have yet to find an organising principle. If people access MOOCs to gain entrance to the type of courses at Stanford they could never afford they, in essence, simply reinforce the value of the paper which graduates attain having paid for the privilege. Even here in Scotland, where university education is free, there is an implicit acceptance that a degree conferred from one of our ancient universities is a necessity for a professional career. The counterpoint has to be the firm. Imagine a world where companies develop their own content, driven by their own practitioners, and directed toward recruiting and retaining potential talent. A pipeline of workers as skilled an any graduate in a fraction of the time. And for the student, rather than investing in a four year degree which will traverse a host of disciplines they will rarely encounter again, their education comes instead from the practice associated with the field they want to enter. The context is defined by the organisation’s work. From a starting point where they imagine the general field they want to enter – pharma, banking, software, engineering – they are introduced to projects where more compelling areas emerge. Their interest honed as the nuance and specialisms become clear. The benefit to the organisation is clear. In a world where talent is difficult to find but even harder to retain companies must become more invested in the process of learning which delivers them graduates. They must assume some control of the output.

As an educator I imagine a system where the need to learn the underpinning theory, the math, the code, is a requirement for accomplishing an activity, not merely to pass an exam. The evidence is overwhelming that we learn through necessity. I imagine a life where I could have spent a year with a Marketing firm contributing to real-world projects in a programme where my time would be equally allocated to the subject before moving on to something else. Where video lectures, animations, talks from specialists and project materials form the basis of my everyday learning, accessible 24/7, to be completed in my own time and at my own pace. Where I gravitate toward the colleagues and associates who, though globally dispersed, are in tune with my own experience. Imagine the student who completes four years in four areas of interest in such a system. Would they be more equipped for a new economy? I believe so.

With resources hosted in the cloud and a syllabus which is collaboratively designed, foregoing the need for mammoth lecture theatres which only limit capacity and create administrative burden, a new form of learning and training could be imagined. Social media could be a catalyst for new communities of support, dismantling traditional structures which are inevitably under-resourced. In a country such as Scotland a portion of fees could be redirected toward the organisations willing to meet this challenge. The universities would adapt or perish. Not every discipline could operate in this way, of course. Some areas of academia require protection. They are our history and define our culture as resolutely as any symbol or flag. But if the new frontier is to be built on the “good learning” of Howard Gardner, where empathy, kindness and imaginativeness are as important as the cognitive intelligences then our system needs re-animated. It needs to be re-born.